UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2007 11: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 03:16, 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

Cutie

Messing with a group page -- boxy • talk • 02:59 30 November 2007 (BST)

Warned - Curse that minimum requirement of 3 edits for a perma! --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 06:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Zinker

The damning piece of evidence: --Zinker^T!Z!A!R! zinker ^M!

His sig breaks teh wiki laws of godliness. His images are much too high. And he used leet-speak on mah page! Oh, can someone strike mah old warnings? It'd make me feel all happy and stuffs if you did.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 11:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

He was asked to change it on the 19th by Boxy. Banned for 24 hours. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 15:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Nali

Sock puppet created to impersonate Nalikill in an attempt to force an escalation of his warning status (From month to year ban). Sock puppet permabanned. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Izumiz, sock puppet from the same individual. Permabanned. To whoever is doing it: Please stop. It isnt even the slightest bit funny. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 04:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Rbrx

An adorable vandal. --Banana reads Scoundrell for all of Yesterday's News, Today! 19:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Warned --Karlsbad 20:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The man

Soft (unofficially) warned for repeatedly dicking with the A/VB page. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Azndemonboi

Bad faith spam. Link --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 10:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Warned - For posting chain mail type spam on the wiki -- boxy • talk • 10:41 28 November 2007 (BST)

Katthew

Vandalism of garbage. You do not vandalise pages such as that, you revert them if possible, or nominate them for speedydeletion. Katthew should know this, what with having been one of the original sysops of this wiki back in 05. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 06:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You can't vandalize what's already shit. Not vandalism.--Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 07:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

We have warned people for vandalising shit before. Especially talk pages. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 07:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages have a reason to exist. This page lacked any real content, purpose or meaning. Show me evidence for your claims and I might change my ruling.--Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 07:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Replacing a page with crap is vandalism, regardless of what the original content was. You are well out of line. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 07:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

We seem to have different opinions on the same subject. I'll leave it to third parties to resolve this. And the misconduct case.--Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 07:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the misconduct case is not because i disagree with you here, but because you deleted the page without going through A/SD. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 07:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and Precedent for warning for vandalising vandalism. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 07:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, terrible call here. It's still bad-faith and vandalism, and I'm ruling Vandalism. Precedent, etc. --Karlsbad 08:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, replacing any page (that you don't have ownership rights to) with "DONGS IN BUTTS" is vandalism, however I'm a bit puzzled why the original author wasn't reported. It was a chain letter sort of page, clearly off topic, and encouraging others to create similar pages -- boxy • talk • 09:05 28 November 2007 (BST)

Such material is shit, and would be speedied under crit 1/2, like an awful lot of other crap, but it wasnt in and of itself vandalism. I was waiting on the result of this case before i submitted it. As it stands though, its not actually agaisnt policy to post crap on the wiki. Its just not particularly liked. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 09:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Such material is spam, a bad faith use of the wiki. Here is the exact same spam posted all over the bloody interwebz by similar imbeciles -- boxy • talk • 10:03 28 November 2007 (BST)

I dont think we have ever actually done anything about it, but sure, ill report now if you want to set a precedent over it. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 10:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism - Just another nail in the coffin. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 10:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now that we have three saying it is vandalism, can we have someone do the whole warning and updating the vandal data thing? Id love to, but i cant as i brought the case. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It's already been recorded -- boxy • talk • 11:28 28 November 2007 (BST)

I dont think she ever did the 250 edits after her first warning to have it struck. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 11:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No, she hasn't, and she hasn't been warned on her talk page either. Sheesh, I'll fix em up -- boxy • talk • 11:46 28 November 2007 (BST)

Madkid

for this helpful little edit - Vantar 00:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

2nd Warning (not enough contributions to strike his July warning) -- boxy • talk • 00:11 28 November 2007 (BST)

P4X639

Abuse of suggestions system. Put what was clearly a ridiculous suggestion up for voting, then re'd every negative vote cast --Pavluk ^{A! E!} 23:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Warned for violating suggestions rule 10. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 23:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Austin

Modified my comment on his bid.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 18:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I am reasonably convinced he is Ahrimmagicks. Most telling is the diff here where he swaps out "Ahrimmagicks" for "Austin". I move to permaban as a sock puppet. Id like confirmation from another sysop before i go ahead though. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 19:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I always thought zinker and austin were the same person. Anyway, too sick to make a good decision call. Next sysop, please ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 19:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. Banned as a sock puppet.--Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 21:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

J3D

This -- boxy • talk • 13:49 25 November 2007 (BST)

Warned --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 13:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that his first warning has not been struck, despite being in June, because he has failed to accrue 250 edits since then as required per A/G (17 short). The count restarts. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 14:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Crash Malloy

Just a cute little vandal. --Banana reads Scoundrell for all of Yesterday's News, Today! 01:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Warned -- boxy • talk • 13:49 25 November 2007 (BST) 13:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Glitchkrieg

For repeated edits to the neo-DARIS wiki, in spite of revert asking him to cease. While I sympathise with his position, this is not the way to contest ownership of the DARIS "brand". --WanYao 15:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

If by reverts you mean singular, and asking insulting, I agree with you! – Nubis 15:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Typo... proofed to singular form... But it is plural, now, after I reverted his last edit. Still vandalism, as he is not a member of the group. --WanYao 15:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Warned. History shows it being done twice, once after the group leader reverted the edit. He has been around since 05 (off and on) and should know better. And please use the vndl template. When making reports. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 15:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Iggles

Editing the DHPD page and, although not worthy of a warning in and of itself, altering a primarily DHPD picture. --Banana reads Scoundrell for all of Yesterday's News, Today! 13:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Warned --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 13:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Patients

[1] (One of many here)

Constant vandalsim of Dunell Hills news page, despite repeated reverts and warnings.--Seventythree^Talk 03:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at his contributions, it appears theres a whole lot of crap in there, a bunch of vandalism (including the DHPD page and User:Sair). Given there are no contributive edits. I am going to perma in accordance with A/G. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

JSaysNo

Group page editing! – Nubis 16:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Warned --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Treviabot92

impersonation --WanYao 04:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Warned --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 04:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Zinker

This is bad faith. It's bad faith because it tricks people into clicking log out, which is just plain annoying. It's current version suggests that one should click it if one has no wish to join the group, which I personally would interpret as a button for leaving their page.

Yes, I found this because of the case below. No I am not being an asshole about it, I genuinely feel it is wrong, and unlike the case below this is not a userpage. If I am completely wrong about this then I will apologize. - Whitehouse 19:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the use outside of userpages is in bad faith. I'm willing to set a precedent here; do any other Sysops disagree? --Karlsbad 20:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

his user page, his group. By Da Rules he can do whatever he wants with them. Actually i would love to see all these you got new messages thingy away from the wiki... it was fun in the beginning, but it's not anymore. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 20:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I agree with the userpage part of that Hagnat, but is there precedent for allowing "malicious" links on group pages? I think there is a difference between the ownership of user and group pages. It may be hard to define, but group pages are at least partially community property, give that NPOV sections are allowed. Group pages are in game information sources, and in a lot of cases are linked from the offical stats page. As such shouldn't contain links like that, IMO -- boxy • talk • 23:28 18 November 2007 (BST)

Zinker should've been brought to vandalism because of his signature. He uses an image with 43px in height, which goes against the limit on policy on signatures (which is 15px in height). --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 20:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

So bring do it? – Nubis 21:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I was ignoring it, as long as he kept it to his user/group talk pages. If I saw it anywhere else it would have been straight here -- boxy • talk • 23:28 18 November 2007 (BST)

So you're looking for posts other than there? *Ahem* I believe those areas aren't his user/group pages, or any other page that he may own.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 23:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, definitely warned for the sig (at lest he took out the zombie dogpile I guess), and unless anyone else has objections, I'm ruling a logout link on a group page is also bad faith vandalism and to be removed -- boxy • talk • 04:10 19 November 2007 (BST)

Nalikill

This seems like pretty blatant bad faith too me.--Karek^maps?! 16:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the link being there in the first place was bad faith. I'll put it back if you want me to; I'd just thought that using that link was in general considered to be malicious. But trust me, I had thought that it was appropriate to remove those links... I'm sorry for doing so, now that I've learned I was wrong. I won't do it again. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 16:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where that justifies replacing it the way you did.--Karek^maps?! 16:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I let my emotions get the better of me because I dislike that link with intensity. I'm sorry for not having impulse control as strong as I should. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 16:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Lots of people have that message on their user pages. It's a lame practical joke, but as long as they keep it on their own user pages, it does no harm. If you have concerns you should contact someone, or put them up for vandalism themselves, not repeatedly edit their pages (I notice you've done the same to his User page as well as the talk page), and definitely not in that abusive way. Unfortunately your past means a month long ban -- boxy • talk • 16:28 18 November 2007 (BST)

Please, no, boxy, not a month... Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 16:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Suicidalangel

The suicidal guy initiated a series of obviously bad faith edits which I have reverted 4 times yet he continued. I left a note on his talk page although I'm sure he's fully aware he's making unconstructive edits.
The Nalikill guy ordered me to stop and inserted several warnings in the article itself, apparently to be used as excuse by Suicidal to claim vandalism on my part.--Finis Valorum 21:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to stop the edit war and get you two to resolve it on the talk pages. I was trying to get people to calm down and be reasonable rather than continuing to revert things pointlessly. I seem to recall an arbitration case about this, or a VB case, one of the two. I forget, what was the outcome of that in regards to putting Finis's suicide spots on location pages? And on his talk page, I was talking in his terms, trying to calm him down. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 21:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Bad faith? I thought that they were true, as I have seen you lying on the ground outside of it before. Hmmm. Looks like someone is mad that their "online rep" is being attacked.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 21:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the proper place to settle this would be Arbitration. And I has a penis d00dz. :P.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 21:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, can someone link me the arbies case Nali is talking about? That way I can be a bit better informed? I had no idea there was one saying I couldn't put that somewhere.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 21:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not an arbie case, it's just a vandalism report: Here.--Finis Valorum 21:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, technically that case would have no direct effect on this case, as he said to keep it to your talk pages. It has nothing to do with me. But seeing as how you're just gonna cry and whine about humour you obviously don't understand, I'll stop it, as the Psyops will agree with you just so you shut the fuck up.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 21:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Take it to Arbitration. – Nubis 23:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it does considering you added the exact same content too the page. I'd add a case for Nali too but it seems, while stupid, it was good faith what he did.--Karek^maps?! 23:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. But Arbies isn't needed, as I said I'd cease-desist. So, would you mind saying if it was or was not vandalism?-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 23:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Not vandalism - but please don't put that category on locations pages. If you can't work this out on your talk pages (not here!), take it to arbies -- boxy • talk • 00:41 18 November 2007 (BST)

Fair enough, but I would like to restate that it was a joke, and he has been informed that it was, and there are no hard feelings between us. Wow, it feels weird being able to actually posts stuff on this page, considering Grim usually moves my comments almost immediately. :P -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Akule

Opened up voting on his sysop review policy more than two weeks (policy was posted on the 29th of October, voting began on the 16th of November) after posting it, after the use-by date had come and gone. He even had it resurrected from the archives to do so. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 03:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Not vandalism. He didnt do it himself, he only asked for it to be done, and asking isnt a crime. Since he didnt commit the act, he cannot be guilty of it --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Very well, then. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 03:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

ARSTU32

Alt account of Leader, attempting to bypass the only three suggestions per 24 hours rule here. – Nubis 02:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Leader warned, Alt banned. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 08:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and its one suggestion per 24 hours, they changed it while we were away. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 08:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockem

Continually striking my votes, even after I explained my reasoning to him on his talk page and asked him to stop doing it. --Funt Solo ^QT 00:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Start justifying. Omega 02:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Not liking a suggestion has always been a justification by itself. "Its Grim" is enough to note the distaste. Obviously a bad faith attempt to play "gotcha" about the use of the Note function. Banned 48 hours --Karlsbad 08:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Tell me, Funt, was your reference to "Grim" meant to be a comment on the suggestion, or upon Grim s's recent actions on the suggestions page? -- boxy • talk • 08:44 15 November 2007 (BST)

I'd describe it as a sort of cultural osmosis. Not sure what relevance it has to this case, though. It was used as a genuine Spam vote, based on the relative merits of the two suggestions in question. Sockem should (at the least) have discussed it with me, rather than immediately starting an edit war. Obviously, I'd have been happy for him just to stop deleting my votes. It's a pity he felt the need to get himself banned, and I hope he doesn't hold a grudge about it. I certainly don't. --Funt Solo ^QT

08:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Do I take that as a "yes"? I'd be mighty surprised if it wasn't a reference to Grim. Your vote was totally unjustified, and not only that, but also a vote intended to make comment on another members contributions of late in regards of striking votes. You were inviting the striking. As far as I'm concerned, Sockem is well with his rights to strike your unjustified vote, unless you can come up with the rule stating that it's only sysops that can do that. It would have been all fair and square if this had been sorted out in arbies (as Karek was attempting to do). If would have clarified the issue (which needs doing), but to take this to VB and get Sockem banned, when you in at least some way instigated the situation, is disappointing to say the least -- boxy • talk • 09:39 15 November 2007 (BST)

Are you using your Sysop voice boxy, or should I shove this to the talk page where all non-related user contribution would go? --Karlsbad 10:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am, I'm am unsure of this ruling. I believe the vote comment was not primarily aimed at the suggestion it was placed on, and as such was indeed a truly unjustified vote (moreso that simply saying Spam) and eligible for striking by Sockem -- boxy • talk • 10:32 15 November 2007 (BST)

TYFYC. However because of [[this I disagree and support my ruling. --Karlsbad 11:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I support Karlsbads ruling on this case. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, look at Funt's contributions in regards to Suggestions. His usual spam vote is to call something spam, or to justify it in some way, then the next day we get this contribution to the grim misconduct case being extremely critical of his handling of a strike out, and since then, his only contributions to suggestions pages has been to vote Grim. He was making a statement by deliberately using Grim's name as his "justification". If it was Nalikill, Grim would be all over him in a second -- boxy • talk • 11:47 15 November 2007 (BST)

I state again, for the record, it was used as a genuine Spam vote, based on the relative merits of the two suggestions in question. I hope you can see from my record of voting that I am genuine with my votes on suggestions. And, also for the record, I was unaware of the Arby case - you can see from my order of posts that mention of it on Sockem's talk page came after I'd posted there. As for reporting him on this page, he invited that - he actually requested it in his posts on the Suggestions page. And, I tried to sort it out with him on his talk page but he ignored me and started an edit war. Also, I have used single-word Spam votes in the past, and nobody has ever complained before. Whatever you think of my use of the word "Grim" in the current climate is rather beside the point. If you think I've broken a rule, or acted in bad faith, then take whatever action you think necessary. (Being a bit cheeky isn't against the rules yet, is it?) --Funt Solo ^QT

12:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved further discussion to talk page, I submit to the ruling by Karlsbad -- boxy • talk • 13:03 15 November 2007 (BST)

As i went to great lengths to point out on your talk page, you are drawing absurd conclusions from a "(Its)", it is a shame it flew right over your head. All your argument boils down to is a feeling that Funt's stated meaning is either a lie, or not the whole truth. In any case, the stated meaning is clearly a justification, albeit a short one, and thus regardless of your opinion on the matter, it was justified and should not have been struck. Your final line in your comment is merely a form of low grade attempted character assassination that is only worth considering valid if your feeling turns out to be true. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 12:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I now believe that Sockem is eligible to have a warning struck, given that his last ban was 2 months and 1 day before this one (talk about squeaking in), has made more than 250 edits in that time, and he hasn't been in serious trouble since. He should be unbanned, a warning should be struck, and reissued for this case, if still deemed necessary -- boxy • talk • 13:56 15 November 2007 (BST)

Unbanned, and a second warning installed on the A/VD page -- boxy • talk • 14:14 15 November 2007 (BST)

Pardon me, but ive always understood the warning removal as lowering the persons warning status one notch, eg, from 48 hour ban to 24, then 24 to second warning and so on. I could be wrong, but the wording of the warning removal in the guidelines supports both positions. He should, in my view, be banned for 24 hours instead of 48, a simple downgrade one level of the warning tree. Cutting chunks off the bottom just doesnt look or feel right. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 15:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Grim here. I'd also say that the guidelines should be amended to make a removal of the most recent vandal punishment the clear course of action as opposed to removal of a warning (or whatever). – Nubis 15:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I know, as the reporter, I don't get a say in this, but I would support the unbanning with warning (as it stands now), especially if Karlsbad's in agreement. Boxy's coming at this from a pure good faith angle. As long as Sockem realises he has no right to delete my contributions (in this case), and stands by the ruling, I'm a happy bunny. --Funt Solo ^QT

15:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Im going to reblock him for 24 hours now in accordance with the original ruling. Also, im of the opinion that this is a more sensible option because by knockingw arnings off the top people can descale their warn/ban pyramid by contributing sensibly, and wont get caight finding themselves suddenly gone for a month just because of a bad week and a couple of warnings. Anyway, with this, if we decide to downgrade after discussion, we can do that easily, but if we have the ban after a discussion, this gets some of it out of the way. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 15:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to butt in here, I wouldn't if I hadn't to, but warnings and warnings only were meant to be striken out. Anything else would be to alter the way I wrote that rule and the community voted on it. The most significant change with your interpretation and the intended one is that by removing bans and warns an frequent vandal could suddenly end up with a clear record after being banned for a year, and with only warns striken a frequent vandal such as that can get second opportunities, but his old ban record will still be standing if he decides to go rogue again. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 15:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thats a considerably poorer concept. Not only does it prevent people from being able to reform completely with time, but it also hamstrings sysops with regards to a person who renounces his good ways and returns to evil swiftly by forcing a mere warning rather than a ban on the sucker. I like this more lenient approach. If people back off and things cool down, they get everything back and hopefully, become a valuable contributing member of the community. With the way you are suggesting matt, people like Nalikill would never be able to reform properly over time. Their next proper ban would be a month long ban, regardless of how much they clean up their act. Not everyone is an emotionless and sensible person, and they could, conceivably, find themselves at the door of a perma without much hope at all, and just one minor slipup in controlling their temper would push them over that precepice, which is quite unfair. I sure hope most of this made sense. Im half asleep. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I've copied this to the talk page, further discussion can happen there. This is cluttered enough as is. – Nubis 16:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Understandable misunderstanding of the intended meaning of the particular relevant subsection of the policy in question. This argument is not to be used as a precident in future cases. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Obmi

For this [2]. Looks to be vandalism of a user page. It's the only edit he's made, so I'ts probably just a petty vandal. Hope I got all this right, by the way.--Seventythree^Talk 18:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You got it right, and perma-banned. --Z. slay3r • Talk 21:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool! Glad I could help.--Seventythree^Talk 22:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Nalikill

Abusing administration pages yet again, this time by immediately making a case against myself on the Misconduct page without attempting to resolve the matter on the suggestions talk page after i used Note to strike a vote of his. He merely posted his comment there, then went directly to misconduct, posting his case two minutes before i was even able to respond to his attempted defense of his vote.

Relevant links:

Him defending vote 04:44, 14 November 2007
Case creation 04:48, 14 November 2007
My response to his defense 04:50, 14 November 2007

While he did subsequently withdraw the case after a prolonged argument (And in my opinion, only withdrew it because he knew i would be posting this, and wanted to try and avoid another vacation), the fact remains that he still shat up the administration pages with a frivolous, baseless, and overall exceptionally hasty posting of his case, demonstrably without attempting to work out the matter beforehand as the guidelines regarding the Note comment clearly dictate in the instructions, as the timestamps on the above relevant revisions clearly show. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 05:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Because he withdrew the case and apologised though, im not asking for him to take another vacation. He can have another soft warning. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 05:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. If it comes down as vandalism, I'd accept a warning gladly. I had originally posted the case in anger. I hadn't ever seen the 'note' used before and was unfamiliar with the rules surrounding it. I've shaped up; haven't 'shat up' the pages in a long time, and I'm doing my best. I can promise you that this will be the last time a problem comes up with me and admin pages. Thank you for being so lenient. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 05:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope you realise you have burnt all my remaining mercy. None shall be shown in future, and other sysops are by no means required to go by my reccomendation. Id like them too, but they dont have to if they feel it prudent. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 05:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, not vandalism this time, but damn it, you're pushing the issue Nali. I was glad that Grim offered leniency in this case, because I wasn't looking forward to making the decision to ban you yet again... and it would have been a damn close call. And don't go thinking you can start stuffing around with the suggestion voting system in the same way you were stuffing the admin voting system. Your "to avoid speedydeletion" votes were ridiculous... don't go voting "to avoid spam" -- boxy • talk • 09:03 14 November 2007 (BST)

Not vandalism. Nalikill certainly can be a counterproductive editor but I find the fact that Grim reported him for shitting up the admin pages for posting a misconduct case against him extremely distasteful. This sort suit and countersuit is normally bad enough but the fact that it involves a misconduct case and the targetted sysop gives off all the wrong signals. We should never even consider such a case. We shouldn't make people afraid for using the misconduct page even if it is nalikill. It's actually meant for the small and unimportant stuff. The fact that it's a drama infested hell hole is because it's designed in the time that the wiki only less sysops then the amount of bureaucrats we now have. We should redesign misconduct, not haul people off to vandal banning for using it.-- Vista +1 10:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Cases should be judged on their merits, not based on who reports them. I find it sad that you have forgotten this. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

In my view this case has negative merit. I find it an overdone and heavy handed claim based on bad judgement on the reporter. Seeing that you applied a sysop rule in a dubious way and misconduct is also there to examine and resolve possible confusion about rules like these the case was the case was minor and ill advised but hardly out of bounds. The fact that he retracted it after a conversation with you makes it clear that it wasn't bad faith.

I completely fail to see how boxy could even entertain that it was bad faith even if it was nalikill. The misconduct page is there also for these very small cases. in fact the example case given is even a more minor infraction. As for the lack of resolvement you yourself have reported people to misconduct with just as little interaction.

I find it extremely sad that you can't see how little merit there is in a case that can be summed up as a sysop trying to get the person who reported him to misconduct banned. especially as his original conduct was heavy handed, his applying of the rule dubious and the case dropped. I think this is not a case of me forgetting to rule based on merit, but a complete lack of capability of you to be able to judge anything involving your pet dislikes.-- Vista +1 12:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Nali took it to Misconduct before even discussing the rules concerning notes with Grim, or anyone else. Given his past performances, and multiple requests, warnings, and bans for misusing the admin pages, he should know not to mess with them unless he is sure of himself. Talk pages are there for a reason -- boxy • talk • 12:35 14 November 2007 (BST)

The rule was misapplied, so although the case was small and unimportant and without any possible resulting action regarding the sysop, it wasn't misuse of the page. Misconduct isn't there to punish sysops, it's there to make sure the sysops use the rules correctly. After a discussion he retracted the case immidiatly as being to minor. and then Grim tried to have him banned for making a case against him. I'm sorry, but sysops succesfully getting people banned for making misconduct cases? even with nalikills history that would be disasterous for the wiki. Look misconduct is broken, but it's original meaning was exactly for things like this. Sure Nalikill (yet again, as so many other times)could've been less passive agressive and more productive. But it seems very clear why we should have a very high tresshold regarding assuming bad faith for cases made in misconduct. It's there to police us. If we start banning people because they were pain in the asses before they made a case. Who'll use the page? It's already ineffective. The page would become entirely meaningless and we would have no check at all anymore.-- Vista +1 13:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

How about he talks to someone... anyone, about it before making an arse of himself, eh? He's no newbie... he knows who he can and can't contact to get a fair hearing on such issues -- boxy • talk • 13:20 14 November 2007 (BST)

Sorry but, "you're only allowed to make misconduct reports if we don't think you're an ass" doesn't seem that good a rule. Yes, he could have handled it better. But you're making it should have handled it better. And that's just not so. Point is that the report itself was extremely minor, but hardly vandalism as the whole page is actually meant to handle such small reports. The fact that it can't handle such cases anymore without exploding with drama means that we need to revamp the misconduct page. Not start trying to get people banned for making reports.-- Vista +1 14:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Vista, it would be nice if you could tone down on the rhetoric and hyperbole. At no point in this case did i try to get Nalikill banned (Contrary to what you have been saying repeatedly in your comments), in fact i recommended a very, very mild, essentially nothing punishment. Soft warnings, aka unofficial warnings, dont get logged or cause escalations. The only weight they carry at all is emotional. As for the rest of the case, i am deliberately refraining from commenting on it exactly to avoid giving the impression i want him banned for it, but i strongly suggest you reread the report here, as well as the misconduct page before you make yourself out to be an arse, and instead of using your wild exggerations, try and look at the facts. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 15:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry... You took him to vandal banning for making a case against you and then still you're claiming that you are the reasonable one? You weren't advocating very, very mild, essentially nothing punishment, No you were saying that you thought that merely the fact that making a misconduct case against you was bad faith and deserving of a warning but that you would "settle" for an unofficial one. I'm not that impressed with that sort of reasoning.-- Vista +1 15:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, i am not the only one who thinks it would have been worth a warning. I was on IRC with another sysop at the time and he also agreed with me that it was probably warn worthy, before i posted it. Please take a look at the cases again, it is clear you have neglected to do so, but i thank you for ditching the rhetoric and hyperbole. Perhaps we can attempt to work this out amicably now --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't. you. ever. fucking. presume. that. again. all my remaining respect of you just few out of the fucking window you arrogant asshollish bastard. You were with another sysop on irc? that name him or get the fuck out. If there is something I hate it's anonymous name dropping makes you look you moron. If he thought that it was possible bad faith, he should have fucking posted it. As for ditching the hyperbole? You are the last fucking person to talk about that. You know what I was going to fucking propose I'd wright a new page so this sort of thing wouldn't happen again. But I've had ebough of this. bye bye..-- Vista +1 16:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It was Vantar i was talking with. We chat there occasionally. Im sorry i forgot to name him. I didnt think a name was important. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Bob2

Lovely wee chappie, had a bad run in with Red Rum and LUE. Specifically this- tasty blanking. --Karloth Vois ^RR 02:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

yeah banned – Nubis 02:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

hagnat

Hay, i heard this guy is a jackass. He abused his sysop powers to unban himself from a month-lenth ban period! How could he dare do such a thing! And ever since he only created drama about obnoxious sigs and now we have to create a policy about them. What a jackass. Can someone ban this guy? Preferably until november 24th so he can focus in his uni project ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 03:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to take the advise of the reporting Sysop and ban until Nov 24th. --Karlsbad 07:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Mod scott

User:Mod scott/sig Claims to be Ahrimmagicks; impersonation or sock puppet alt. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 23:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Also impersonates Surgeon General: [3], and [4] Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 23:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC) NVM. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 23:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

But he is still ahrimmagicks. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 23:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Not vandalism, it's probably a newbie who copied Ahrimmagicks sig with the intention of modifying it to suit themselves, and given that it's not even being included anywhere yet, it can't be considered impersonation -- boxy • talk • 00:03 10 November 2007 (BST)

How could a newbie figure out how to do templated sigs in their first ten edits? How would he 'stumble' onto Ahrimmagick's sig? It smells incredibly odd to me. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 00:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

AHAH! User Talk:Mod scott [5], he said "One chance to be good please then if i commit vandilisim i will be banned.--Mod scott 00:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)". He ADMITS to being Ahrimmagicks. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 00:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

He also edited Project Mentor to make The Surgeon General his mentor, which would seem consistent with him being Ahrimmagicks. --Pavluk ^{A! E!} 00:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't got time to look into this now. If another mod comes along in the meantime, go for it. Until then, please leave this case be Nali -- boxy • talk • 00:15 10 November 2007 (BST)

Where is s/he claiming to be ahrimmagicks? that "One chance..." line is rather vauge. Templateed sigs are on a lot of wikis so thats not too hard to image him/her knowing about them . Some advanced sig stealing makes Ahrimmagicks's the 26th easiest one to steal so not really a smoking gun there either. - Vantar 00:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

He said that in response to me saying "You will be banned, Ahrimmagicks, as soon as a sysop bothers to check A/VB."- check the edit history here. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 00:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing this case, it is apparent that Mod scott is Ahrimmagicks, therefore the user will be perma-banned. --Z. slay3r • Talk 00:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Grrr, you beat me to it Vantar! --Z. slay3r • Talk 00:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Ha sorry, I but, yeah he was an alt - Vantar 00:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC

Harhar

This edit.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 21:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Who let mr. krabs out of the closet ? perma banned. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 22:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ottotorrens

More vandalism... This time in Ridleybank News, here. I would normally not bother, but after JUST getting warned, is he LOOKING for trouble? --WanYao 12:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, Karlsbad didn't actually post a warning to his talk page, so I don't feel that we can give another warning for such a minor edit. I will however talk to him, and let him know that he's received a warning -- boxy • talk • 13:39 9 November 2007 (BST)

not vandalism - grammar inquisition != vandals --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 18:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

He posted the comment in the first place. WanYao grabbed the wrong diff. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 18:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

i was trying to post the diff with his original comment AND his grammar correction of that post. sort of to show he was paying enough attention to fix the grammar of his vandalistic edit. Dunno if this is closed now, but anyway i believe this is the edit you want? --WanYao 20:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Now *THAT* oculd be consired vandalism, not the first link you provided us. But meh, just remove the darn thing and let someone unofficially warn him not to post crap in suburb news sections. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 22:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

He has already been officially warned for a different case, and has a small history of pissing around with wiki pages, check contribs. Perhaps a "kind but firm" talking to is in order... I mean to calm things down, not create but hopefuly avoid resentment or drama... --WanYao 06:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Muffinmanmix09

here. There's more, check contribs.-- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 00:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

banned - Vantar 00:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Harhar

Replacing pages. 1, 2 and 3. All reverted.-- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 19:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Warned --Karlsbad 22:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

again-- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 21:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ottotorrens

This alteration to the Death Cultist page. --Pavluk ^{A! E!} 17:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Warned --Karlsbad 22:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Banokles

This.--Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 23:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Warned -- boxy • talk • 01:21 7 November 2007 (BST)

The'Thief

This page The Watchmen/Contract Killing which was formerly a Malton Mob stub was tottaly altered by The'Thief of the Watchmen to suit this group.If you check the History It was first the Mobs until he edited it and then Boxy who I pressume was unaware that he added the Watchmen Stubb.--Seloth 23:28, 5, November 207 (UTC)

To be fair, you hadnt used it in six months. Given how old this particular case is (Over two weeks), as well as the abandoned nature of the page, i am disinclined to warn. If you genuinely want your page back, please just recreate your page by harvesting the code from history and creating a new one at Malton_Mob/Contract_Killing (Edit, which i see you have subsequently done). Also, generally speaking, you should place pages for your group in your groups namespace as subpages. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 00:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, both of those pages were originally Contract Killing, and both were moved by me to their group sub page locations. I've now placed a disambig page there to avoid any more recreations of the page -- boxy • talk • 02:18 6 November 2007 (BST)

Oh, for anyone skimming the page: Not Vandalism --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Lost angel

Alt of banned user Sigman. Permad. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 00:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Tom 090390

Will link momentarily; vandalization of User:51st Welsh Armoured Division Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 21:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Here we are. [6] [7] [8] [9] Only edits are vandalism as far as I can tell. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 21:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence indicating that he isnt a member of the group. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 00:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Nali, have a chat with the guy on his talk page before bringing it here. Ask him why he's editing that page. I know it's a user page, however it's obviously being used as a group page (for some reason) -- boxy • talk • 07:12 5 November 2007 (BST)

Thomi

Repeated Vandalism of Pescodside page Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 16:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Nali, the location is changing the RP to seems to be an actual revive point in Pescoside. "The PDA has gladly welcomed Metal Fox to share in the Mermagen Street Revive Point." Perhaps they changed their revive point?-- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 16:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

He's repeatedly tried to change the RP to "a warehouse"... which would make no sense. Is the warehouse referenced anywhere as the RP? Maybe this is a better link. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 17:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops, nevermind. I'm retarded Nali.-- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 17:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

My fault for being lazy about providing links. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 17:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Warned as per boxy in the previous report --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 00:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Reynold Malcolm

Vandalized as per following: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] Basically, all of his edits are vandalism, and he's done almost everything in the book against the rules. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 04:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Permad --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 04:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

ZachsMind

Bad faith edit to http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Salt_The_Land_Policy&diff=882014&oldid=724162 this guy has obviously got a problem with zombies eating survivors, when I signed up I thought this would be survivors vs pkers, zombies just grief everyone. --Thekooks 22:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Not vandalism, but only by a whisker. Grim has given an unofficial warning on his talk page for a similar incident, on the Second Big Bash page, so any further edits like these, from this poster, will be treated as vandalism -- boxy • talk • 01:11 3 November 2007 (BST)

Thomi

Thomi has been reportedly posting misinformation on the Pescodside suburb wikipage in the form of tampering with a group's revive point, namely the PDA. Thomi is not a member of the PDA and I have been asked by members of the PDA to put a stop to his edits.

The repeated edits can be seen here: 1, 2, 3, 4

In light of the nature of the edits I have attempted to contact Thomi in order to resolve this issue in a more reasonable manner and warned him that he shouldn't be editing content of this nature without proof (at the very least). As I have close ties with the suburb and group involved I would ask that another Sysop (other than myself) decide whether this is really vandalism. I would prefer that it be sorted out on a Talk wikipage, but Thomi has thus far not responded to any of my posts involving his edits. --Mobius187 November 2 2007, 8:31 AM (EST)

Warned, nearly all his contributions are to remove the PDA's revive point from the suburb page -- boxy • talk • 01:05 3 November 2007 (BST)

ZachsMind

For this edit to the Second Big Bash. --WanYao 11:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a newbie mistake. Ill leave a message on his talk page telling him to use the talk page to post his comments in future. Not vandalism --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

PudgeisImba

Constant Page Editing, which Ive reverted and my co-leader many times. Hes on our BlackList, and thats why he keeps screwing with our page. He might have an alt wiki: User:MangekyouSharigan or something to that extent. Please do something though, as it keeps messing with our work. -- BlackReaper 14:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Warned. And he doesnt have a sock. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 01:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Grim. -- BlackReaper 02:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Miseriamorti

Impersonation, which I've reverted. --Funt Solo 12:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Newbie, I'll leave a friendly warning on their talk page, but not vandalism. Feel free to talk things through with newbies yourself, guys, if they bite, then refer them here -- boxy • talk • 13:02 1 November 2007 (BST)

Thanks, boxy. Good call. --Funt Solo

13:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:02, 5 December 2007 (view source) Grim s (talk \| contribs) (Archive creation)	Latest revision as of 03:16, 24 September 2014 (view source) Aichon (talk \| contribs) mNo edit summary
(3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
(No difference)

UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2007 11: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 03:16, 24 September 2014

Navigation menu

Search