UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2010 06

User:Kyle Broflovski

Kyle Broflovski (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Warned for this edit to Cornholioo's master group. --

 

 

 

 

12:38, 28 June 2010 (BST)

User:Tony Darkgrave

Tony Darkgrave (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss) aka Zombie Civillian XL (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss) aka Dead Air Operative (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Permaban

User:Tony Darkgrave is an alt of the permabanned user User:Zombie Civillian XL/User:Dead Air Operative, used to circumvent the permaban he received in November of 2006. User:Bob Fortune had found proof that they were the same person in October of 2007, but the wipe of the archived history removed that bit of evidence. Fortunately, I found proof.

As you can see here (highlighted in this image for your convenience), Tony is on Newgrounds. Here (highlighted here) you can see that he cites Zombie Civillian XL as his character, matching what Bob said. Then here (highlight), we see that he was vandalizing the wiki with the infamous multi-user vandal, User:Gold Blade.

In July of 2007, Tony mentions (highlighted) that he is back on the wiki, and voting for new clothes to be added. A quick check of the clothing suggestions page proves this. A look at the vandal data at the time shows that the moment he came back in 2007, he blanked a page again, along with deleting votes in the next month, and blanking a group page the following month.

I'm assuming at the very least, all of his infractions should be piled up into one account, and that this ruling should be changed to Vandalism. Otherwise, he's circumventing his permaban and should have this alt banned as well, especially given that he was vandalizing the wiki with User:Gold Blade. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 16:42, 23 June 2010 (BST)

Thanks Aks, bear with me, I wasn't around for the initial cases, and as such will need to check all the previous cases. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:30, 23 June 2010 (BST)

No worries. I just was looking into the zerging allegations and stumbled across that. I'm glad I could help out. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 00:12, 29 June 2010 (BST)

Whoa, whoa whoa, no bureaucracy and lawyering, no "piling up infractions" and "changing old rulings". Vandalism and permaban every instance of this user appearing on the wiki under different names, which is what should happen in this circumstance. He's admitted (on newgrounds) to using the same character as a permabanned vandal on the wiki, enough evidence for a proven zerger and wiki alt abuser IMO. --

 

 

 

 

05:45, 24 June 2010 (BST)

I love it when you don't read things completely and just assume. If you had, you would note that by "I'm assuming at the very least" I mean, "Should you not permaban him, like I ask for later in the sentence, I would prefer it if you at least did...". --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 00:12, 29 June 2010 (BST)

God you're fucking pretentious. Not my fault if your brain and your fingers can't articulate the same messages to others. I feel like grim getting preached too by you so much. --

 

 

 

 

04:38, 29 June 2010 (BST)

Vandalism. as DDR. Can I get a third? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:37, 26 June 2010 (BST)

Aye, go on. Vandalism. 11:17, 26 June 2010 (BST)

Ahh well. Tough case since the infractions are so old and the evidence is located off the wiki but I've permabanned him in accordance with the guidelines and our rulings. --

 

 

 

 

02:14, 27 June 2010 (BST)

User:Permaban me!

Verdict	Vandal Alt
Action taken	Perma

Permaban me! (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Self Requested ban. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:11, 22 June 2010 (BST)

User:Poodle of doom (2)

Verdict	Unblock
Action taken	unblocked

Poodle of doom (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss) He emailed me asking for an unblock, since I've never had to do it I don't actually know how and googling it was no help. Can someone please unblock POD? --

 

 

 

 

23:40, 16 June 2010 (BST)

Done. You've got to go to the Ipblocklist to unban -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:19 17 June 2010 (BST)

Thanks. --

 

 

 

 

04:17, 17 June 2010 (BST)

Praise be to Boxy... -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 03:18, 18 June 2010 (BST)

User:The_Sandman

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Permaban

User:The_Sandman (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Can I just add future ones under a previous header? - User:Whitehouse 16:34, 14 June 2010 (BST)

Same as before, also yeah, you could do that. 16:37, 14 June 2010 (BST)

Some short term protections in order? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:31, 14 June 2010 (BST)

Two or more hours without any changes, and since all the others happened within such a short paroxysm I'd imagine that it's over. 18:49, 14 June 2010 (BST)

User:Killer_Kane

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Permaban

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

Probably the same vandal as below. - User:Whitehouse 16:20, 14 June 2010 (BST)

It is. Three edit permaban. 16:22, 14 June 2010 (BST)

User:ThegoodMan

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Permaban

• theGoodMan (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Same as case below. Banned under 3 edit rule --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:59, 14 June 2010 (BST)

User:The Last Honest Player In Santlerville

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Main Warned and Alts Permaban

• The Last Honest Player In Santlerville (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
• Zerg Buster (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
• Alter Boy (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

This and this from User:The Last Honest Player In Santlerville, who shows up as an alt of Zerg Buster and Alter Boy. I'm banning TLHPIS as a vandal alt -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:50 14 June 2010 (BST)

Hoping this classifies as constructive, but you guys can/should still warn a "main" account about this if you can decide which one's which. That way he may stop (I don't have high hopes though). --

 

 

 

 

02:46, 15 June 2010 (BST)

Yeah, I was actually trying to figure out what precedent was on this sort of thing. Most cases involve vandal alts being used to circumvent bans, rather than being used as we saw here, so that makes them pretty straightforward to deal with. If a warning isn't issued here, it seems like we might be setting the precedent that we'll let people get away with anything, so long as they make new accounts for each act of vandalism. —Aichon— 04:14, 15 June 2010 (BST)

Precedent? Okay. -- » JS talk contribs » 04:22, 15 June 2010 (BST)

Yeah, I already saw your cases. I was hoping for something that might be a bit closer than that to the current situation, however. Regardless, I'd suggest a warning for whatever we think is the main account here. —Aichon— 04:34, 15 June 2010 (BST)

Last month, or whatever month it was just before Iscariot left, we banned the vandal alt of an account, the "alt" definition was defined by it being created after, even though it was used much more. I guess in this case you could do the same thing? --

 

 

 

 

06:22, 15 June 2010 (BST)

I suggest treating Alter Boy as the main account, and banning Zerg Buster as well (he's only contributed zerging accusations, which while not vandalism in itself, still seems to be part of the whole anti-zerg vandalism spree). As to how many escalations he's going to get, for keeping coming back... well -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:25 15 June 2010 (BST)

Yeah. I don't know if it's me being rash, but he should be escalated for each account's vandalism. The fact the one before it was banned serves as a demonstration we don't accept what he's doing, but he is still ignoring the bans and not paying attention etc. Either way, I think you're right about Alter Boy, he should be treated as the main even though he was made after. --

 

 

 

 

08:34, 15 June 2010 (BST)

Alter boy has been given a single warning, and all alts permbanned -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:30 17 June 2010 (BST)

Laem. --

 

 

 

 

12:42, 28 June 2010 (BST)

User:Suicidalangel

• Suicidalangel (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
• Lolwat64 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warning + Alt ban

Avoiding the 6 month ban, handed down in A/M, by using his puppet account to vandalise A/VB. He was probably doing it to bring attention to the fact that it remained unbanned, but a simple request would have achieved the same result without the vandalism. I suggest that it go on record that the alt gets an official permban (as opposed to self-requested, which can be undone with a simple request), and SA gets a warning (in case of return) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:59 10 June 2010 (BST)

Sure. 14:13, 10 June 2010 (BST)

I concur. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:54, 10 June 2010 (BST)

Alt already banned, and warning given, FWIW -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:08 11 June 2010 (BST)

User:DanceDanceRevolution

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

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	Soft Warning

Basically looking for a soft warning for his continual none constructive comments on this page. Look below and you will find only 1 case he did not comment on, 1 he was entitled to and 4 where his comments are either backseat modding or outright trolling. Check the archives too and i think you might well see its been a bit of a trend since his demotion. Given I have not called him on this (and can't see any evidence that anyone else has either) I'm really only looking for his wrist to be slapped as a reminder that he is no longer a sysop (well until his promotion bid goes through) --Honestmistake 09:18, 8 June 2010 (BST)

It's been 5 years and you still can't submit a proper report. Please provide links next time; the ambiguity of your request makes it seem like I've done something wrong. --

 

 

 

 

10:24, 8 June 2010 (BST)

Right I've done my own analysis of his conduct on this page. In the order they appear on this page:

• Single minorly trolling statement to Sonny.
• Major argument with Jorm. (largely moved to talk page)
• Discussion of the case as a semi-involved party.
• Single minorly trolling statement to Sonny. - (I'd say this was alright because of the nature of the comment.)
• References precedent to help prevent any problems.
• No Comments.

The one in bold is the only one I consider majorly serious, whilst the ones in italics are completely fine. I'll try to see where I weigh in in a minute.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 09:33, 8 June 2010 (BST)

Soft Warning - While DDR is often helpful on this page, he has recently made some unnecessary comments. In particular, the Jorm case was an example of poor judgement. In my opinion, so long as you don't make silly or unnecessary comments on the main page again, there isn't a problem.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 09:40, 8 June 2010 (BST)

Well, what's the go? Should my comment be on the main page or the talk? Because at the moment I have to go to arbitration to get the comment removed, yet I'm getting soft warned for putting it on there and then trying to remove it later. How about the sysops decide, right here right now, whether to keep or remove the comments before voting on whether I should be able to make them. --

 

 

 

 

09:55, 8 June 2010 (BST)

Seriously, if it doesn't hurt enough for the Jorm comment to stay on the page, then it shouldn't be warn/soft warnable. Make up your minds, ops. I've failed to talk this sense into Boxy, it'd be nice to see the ops make some sort of decision and stop me niggling at his unresponsive toes. --

 

 

 

 

09:55, 8 June 2010 (BST)

I think the comments should be removed, DDR, but after I was asked to step down by Boxy, I did. My mind is made up, so I see no reason why you should be saying that to me. The fact that my revert war with Jorm was for the sole purpose of removing your comment from the page means nothing?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 10:31, 8 June 2010 (BST)

It's a message for everyone. I won't complain about you "stepping down" to an equal but I understand where you're coming from as a newish op. --

 

 

 

 

10:35, 8 June 2010 (BST)

I assumed it was directed largely at me due to indenting. :P --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 10:36, 8 June 2010 (BST)

Oh yes. It was in hope that you would formally accept my push for a vote as to whether that fucking comment should stay on the main page (its putting there of which I am being crucified for) or not. Seeing as you thought at the time it should, I was hoping you would agree to having a simple vote for it, seeing as Boxy is the only one overly concerned with forcing it there simply for Jorm's OCD benefit. --

 

 

 

 

10:42, 8 June 2010 (BST)

I see no reason not to have a vote.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 10:50, 8 June 2010 (BST)

In fact, now I actually look through, the idea of a soft warning is preposterous. I commented about 8 times on this page, most of them on cases I'd brought or actually giving helpful insight. Here are the ones which didn't fit the above criteria for commenting on the page:

• suggesting the sysop ban a user FOR THE AMOUNT the user actually requested
• replying to a comment Sonny made, which while derogatory, is true (no one moved it) and was only as relevant as the comment he made that I replied to
• the one edit people seem to have a problem with, yet WON'T remove to the talk page after 4 hours of edit conflicts and an arbitration case
• another sonny comment. derogatory. telling him not to whinge and do something himself

So, 2 ambiguous comments and 1 definite bad one, for, lets see: 400 or so contributions, and I'm the abuser of the system. Jorm persistently removes a ruling and forces it through with 2 hours of reverting and I'm getting a case. This is a fucking laugh.

I'll be absolutely sure, when WOOT comes back, to make him put up another A/PM bid, then get him to revert it right away. After he does that, I'll ban him, tell him he can't get a promotions off the bid, but I'll keep it up there via hundreds of reverts in my own interest of "keeping the history visible". Good work ops. You are truely on your game this month. --

 

 

 

 

10:19, 8 June 2010 (BST)

Make a case for jorm's reverts if you feel that strongly about it. —Aichon— 10:42, 8 June 2010 (BST)

I am almost 600% sure it would be thrown out on Jorm's apparent "rightness" and my "bias" alone. --

 

 

 

 

12:03, 8 June 2010 (BST)

Soft Warning. Talk page man. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:41, 8 June 2010 (BST)

Not Vandalism but Soft Warning. Not so much for this month as much as last. It felt like I was moving stuff to the talk page every other day last month. I'm not going to go through and enumerate cases where I did, since that'd be a waste of time given that I'm only making a polite request that you use the talk page more.

As for the case yesterday, the whole point of moving stuff to the talk page is to make it easier to discuss the important stuff here, but last night, it wasn't having that effect. I honestly don't know whether I do or don't disagree with boxy's decision (pragmatism vs. legalism), but I do know that I don't care enough to change it right now.

So, take this for what it is: neither an endorsement nor indictment of actions taken yesterday, but rather a polite request that you stick to the talk page when posting something other than a helpful comment, at least while you don't have the badge. —Aichon— 10:42, 8 June 2010 (BST)

Alright, good, I'm more than happy to receive a soft warning as long as the ops stand by the decision of their opinions/votes on the talk page. Thanks, that's all I wanted. --

 

 

 

 

12:03, 8 June 2010 (BST)

Not vandalism - Given that Bance Bance is an experienced user and past sysop, his comments on admin pages are often helpful to the team, there's been times where he's hurried us along with something we've overlooked, and anyone insulting wiki trolls is always welcome. 16:14, 8 June 2010 (BST)

No they are not.... or at least they should not be. DDR has continued to comment here despite no longer being a sysop.... often his comments are useful and just as often they are not. If the talk page is where every other none sysop must post then he should have the decency to follow that (stupid) rule himself. He knows better and he has history for enforcing such on others hence my request for the reminder. TBH this case was as much about reminding him that none sysops can have valid opinions as anything else, particularly important as he is most likely going to be [re]promoted. --Honestmistake 22:35, 8 June 2010 (BST)

No one is required to use the talk page, it's just preferred. There is no rule forcing comments to the talk page, so regardless of whether said rule would be stupid or not, he can't break it if it's not there. You may be confusing an old arbitration that banned one user from front-page admin posting for a blanket rule. Since no one is prohibited from posting here at present, I see no reason why his comments, most of which I find useful, should be warrant enough for an escalation. 22:48, 8 June 2010 (BST)

Plus, if we held those admin notices at the top of the page as law, then we should technically bring a case against you as well, since you didn't contact DDR on his talk page in an effort to sort out this situation first. Those notices are guidelines, and while pushing them too far will get you in trouble eventually, there's a lot of leeway in how they're applied and handled. —Aichon— 00:21, 9 June 2010 (BST)

Too late. I recieved an actual vandal escalation from DDR (and Bob) for commenting on this page a while back so I know for a fact that the rules for posting here are considered "Law" by DDR at least. That said, it was never a rule I agreed with as what one person considers useful and meaningful comment can easily be seen as neither by others. --Honestmistake 09:22, 9 June 2010 (BST)

Whoa whoa whoa hold up. You've just made two mistakes that I thought you might make eventually: 1. trying to relate this in any way to your own escalation for the same thing, and 2. Basically admitting that escalation was your reasoning for your request in this case. Your escalation was worlds away from this, you had displayed horrible, horrible abuse of leniency on a scale much quantitatively larger than what I have done here, and the edit that brought on the case was much, much worse than this, to the point that it literally said "this will be moved but FUCK THE OPS" and that was about it, if I remember right. I'm not trying to say you are a brat, but I just don't think these two cases apply. Having said that, I'm already happy to receive a soft warning for derogatory comments because I think it's a fair thing to do, I just think the comparison between our cases was much larger than should be applied here. --

 

 

 

 

12:25, 9 June 2010 (BST)

Moved to Talk page.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 08:54, 11 June 2010 (BST)

Actually DDR, I basically got my escalation for letting Bob bait me into an edit war. I thought then (and think now) that my comments then were both reasonable and pertinent. If you want to check back in the logs you might notice that my original opinion was upheld by the rest of the ops and the thing I was protesting was overturned. My escalation came without any soft warning and was basically meted out because I pissed of Op's rather than actually doing anything wrong. This wasn't motivated by revenge so much as pointing out that you tend to see rules as things that apply to others rather than yourself (and then selectively!) I have no quibble that a lot of your posts here are helpful (or intended to be) Hell I even recognize that you do a lot of good work around thew wiki... I just figured a reminder about these things might be useful before you get re-promoted... --Honestmistake 23:15, 10 June 2010 (BST)

Not vandalism - and not worth a soft warning yet either. His posts that were meant to be helpful, have been helpful to the newer sysops, and should continue, however he should take the hint that the ones stirring shit when he isn't involved could lead to a soft warning, or worse, if they continue. Baiting "trolls", or anyone else, is not welcome here, and only tolerated up to a point -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:09 9 June 2010 (BST)

I fully accept this, even if coupled with a soft warning. --

 

 

 

 

03:22, 9 June 2010 (BST)

OK, consider this a soft warning then, please ensure that any edits you make to the main VB page are helpful in the future -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:59 10 June 2010 (BST)

Alright. Thanks. --

 

 

 

 

06:52, 11 June 2010 (BST)

e Vandal Banning Archive

2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Q3 Q4 2013 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Years 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

User:Misanthropy

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

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	{{{2}}}

Made a spamming post in Promotions here. He knowingly placed a user for promotion despite the user not meeting requirements. As per the Woot precedent he is guilty of spamming. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 05:53, 8 June 2010 (BST)

Not Vandalism - A whole category of precedent. Also, I voted Vandalism with WOOT because he had a history of doing it, being escalated, and continued to do it, despite making no attempt to improve on the number of criteria in the guidelines that he failed to meet between each nomination. None of that applies here. —Aichon— 06:01, 8 June 2010 (BST)

Misanthropy knows I do not meet the criteria and obviously made it to call me out. That is bad faith in the most conservative of definitions. Your love for Misanthropy is borderline obscene, you fucking basement dweller. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 06:03, 8 June 2010 (BST)

Actually, precedent on Woot has been set. He DID NOT make 2 bids that did not meet criteria. His first bid here was well within the guidelines. By the time of his second bid here he was not within the guidelines for sysop. So the one time that you did vote vandalism against him was his first time making a bid that was outside of the guidelines. So the first time breaking the rules is a precedent for vandal banning. Misanthropy has made only one rule break in promotions, thus he fits the precedent. Prepare to eat my shit. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 06:11, 8 June 2010 (BST)

So wait, you don't actually want to change a thing about the wiki? Your endless spastic flailing at the keyboard seemed to us like an indication that you did. Then again that might require that we assume you can make your own decisions without mummy helping. 06:08, 8 June 2010 (BST)

I don't believe in breaking the rules is necessary to make the wiki better. Thanks for admitting that you think you're above the rules. Also, thanks for admitting you did it IN BAD FAITH. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 06:11, 8 June 2010 (BST)

Point out where I did either of those things, I appear to have admitted to wanting to give you the chance to make a difference. 06:16, 8 June 2010 (BST)

"So wait, you don't actually want to change a thing about the wiki? Your endless spastic flailing at the keyboard seemed to us like an indication that you did. Then again that might require that we assume you can make your own decisions without mummy helping." Right there you say you did not seriously expect me to become a sysop because I need my mother to make decisions for me. Making a nomination without taking it seriously is bad faith. Bad faith is vandalism. Smoke a pole. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 06:21, 8 June 2010 (BST)

It's okay to need help with big boy things, but I fully expect you to be able to wipe your own ass unaided eventually and I don't want to take the chance away from you, hence my good faith attempt to help you gain what you constantly yearn for. 06:23, 8 June 2010 (BST)

User still does not meet criteria and as per Woot precedent you're guilty. Also, if you think mothers approve of my type of naughty language then I'm sorry for the house you grew up in. Maybe the abusive relationship with your parents is the reason why you're gay. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 06:27, 8 June 2010 (BST)

"If a user is highly exemplary in one criterion, a certain level of give may be extended to other criteria." Your obvious hard-on for fixing this wiki is as exemplary as its inherent limitations allow, which I felt would far overcome a simple lack of hard numbers in edit counts, which I fully expected you to catch up on should you have been promoted. Maybe if you could succeed at anything at all in your life, you should start with basic comprehension. It works for the rest of us. 06:31, 8 June 2010 (BST)

As per the Woot precedent he has shown to be highly exemplary in one criterion but was still banned. A precedent is a precedent. I'm sorry that you like to pick and choose what you follow. Maybe if you worked on this you wouldn't be such a complete and utter screw up. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 06:35, 8 June 2010 (BST)

Maybe your eyes are too watered up to read but it's already been pointed out to you that this doesn't follow any precedent from woot's cases, and there's been nine examples shown to you to back it up as not vandalism. Nine is still in finger-counting range so you shouldn't have that much trouble getting there. 06:37, 8 June 2010 (BST)

Boring argument filled with untruths is boring. Contrary to what you said, not only is that not his second bid (it was his fourth), he did not meet the criteria on either of those nominations (check his contributions). Also, those were not his first two nominations. In fact, you seem to have forgotten that he had a few others, so I've linked them here for you: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. He wasn't escalated for his first bid, but was rather escalated for his second (which came only a month later), third, and fifth bids, establishing a clear line of precedence. *yawn* —Aichon— 06:37, 8 June 2010 (BST)

As per boxy here he has had only 2 official promotions. This nomination was still in bad faith and should be removed. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 06:45, 8 June 2010 (BST)

You know what Izzy did when this exact same thing happened (edit: twice)? He archived it himself. Cause he does stuff on this wiki? Learn to. It's not an ops job to wipe your arse for you, do it yourself. --

 

 

 

 

06:50, 8 June 2010 (BST)

Playing dumb isn't going to get you anywhere ("As per boxy", lol...it's an admin archive). Those were the only two not removed as vandal edits. I've already provided links to his other three nominations, or you can check his vandal data if you don't trust my links. You've provided nothing new, and this is the exact same routine you tried last month. Do you have any new material? —Aichon— 06:55, 8 June 2010 (BST)

Not Vandalism - As Aichon.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:39, 8 June 2010 (BST)

Not vandalism - but make a habit of it, and this will change -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:33 8 June 2010 (BST)

User:Jorm

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

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Here. Page-breaking edits to the Mayor page, and more importantly, reverting them back in. Obviously arbitration didn't work, looks like we need to resort to a warning instead :/ . Vandalism for bad-faith natured edits plz.--Thadeous Oakley 20:38, 6 June 2010 (BST)

1, 2 --Thadeous Oakley 20:46, 6 June 2010 (BST)

I consider myself an involved party, and shall not be ruling.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:58, 6 June 2010 (BST)

Meh. --Thadeous Oakley 23:02, 6 June 2010 (BST)

Vandalism. Argh. I used to like that guy. 21:03, 6 June 2010 (BST)

I hear ya. Never met Jorm before, but I had expected something better from the person founding the MOB, Nexuswar and Barhar.com --Thadeous Oakley 22:04, 6 June 2010 (BST)

It's BARHAH dot com. BARHAH. "Barhar" is what douchebag harmans say.--Jorm 08:04, 7 June 2010 (BST)

I know this will get moved to talk, but WHAT THE FUCK. This is why roleplaying is dead in this game. All it can take is for one shitbrain to fuck it up the arse and the fun is ruined. Goddamn it. --

 

 

 

 

03:10, 7 June 2010 (BST)

The "fun" was ruined once you 'shitbrains' applied fucking rules to it. Also, get the fuck off my IRC server, you douchetard, if you're that upset with me. I don't want you there.--Jorm 08:04, 7 June 2010 (BST)

any further discussion to the talkpage please -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:20 7 June 2010 (BST)

Christ. How hard is it to get vandal banned these days by you tight-assed shitheels? Seriously? You're all lubricant and no fucking. Your shit stinks to high heaven. Please ban me so that people will pay attention to how retarded you are. I'm not sure how much plainer I can be. (Please note that I have a five year history of stirring shit and then eating people who are high on their horses and think that they are right).

Let's get on with the banning! Please!--Jorm 07:36, 7 June 2010 (BST)

Warned - a while ago -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:20 7 June 2010 (BST)

I accept this warning, at this level of visibility, and will henceforth work to become a better user of this wiki.--Jorm 09:24, 7 June 2010 (BST)

User:My sister

My sister (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Permaban

for this edit [1]. --

 

 

 

 

15:17, 6 June 2010 (BST)

There are no excuses for potty mouths, young man. --My sister 15:20, 6 June 2010 (BST)

Lol. Although I appreciate the originality, I don't think this is nearly worth the effort you would have gone to to do that. --

 

 

 

 

15:22, 6 June 2010 (BST)

Looks like they just did a find and replace all, since they were replacing the "ass" in "massive" with "hiney" and things of that sort. —Aichon— 18:48, 6 June 2010 (BST)

But they did find and replace to so many different terms, more than I could have bothered, even the term 'hell' in 'helloooooooooo'. crazy stuff ;D --

 

 

 

 

03:12, 7 June 2010 (BST)

Vandalisms - Impersonation. Of particular note I recall a case where someone editted one of DDR's comments to remove obscenity.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:14, 6 June 2010 (BST)

It's perma time >=D And the case was SA's. --

 

 

 

 

16:29, 6 June 2010 (BST)

Does the edit on this page count as part of the three-edit rule? I'm just being careful what with Aichon's A/M case.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:07, 6 June 2010 (BST)

Is it constructive? No. Does it show the user knows about vandal banning? Yes. Does that sound like a newbish mistake? No. So Perma the fellow. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:10, 6 June 2010 (BST)

Done.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:15, 6 June 2010 (BST)

Godblast you motherfrench toasting hineyholes! Get your spicy pants together you respectable womanes and ban this spicy pantshead to Shewt.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 20:49, 7 June 2010 (BST)

User:Lonercs

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

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warning

Made clearly bad-faith edits to No Escape to such an extent that I had to wait a half hour for him to finish before submitting this, and I'm not even sure he's done. --VVV ^RPMBG 06:06, 6 June 2010 (BST)

He has now blanked both the main and talk page. --VVV ^RPMBG 06:22, 6 June 2010 (BST)

Permabanned, three edit rule. It's clear what his intentions were (check the edit here), and none of his edits were beneficial to the majority of the community or constructive. —Aichon— 06:35, 6 June 2010 (BST)

For later reference, here are his vandal edits: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. I especially like the last one. —Aichon— 06:58, 6 June 2010 (BST)

Vandalism - but the 3 edit rule can't be invoked here, he has contributory edits back in April, to a group page, danger reports and location pages. I'm unbanning -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:44 6 June 2010 (BST)

I believe this would be miscontribution but I'll get banned for bringing it up. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 09:58, 6 June 2010 (BST)

I don't think you understand the system. Putting a up cases of misconduct which you actually think are misconduct doesn't warrant vandalism. Do you see the connection? Although I'm hoping you don't, because as it currently stands it seems you've learned your lesson- and then some. Which, of course, is all the better. --

 

 

 

 

11:30, 6 June 2010 (BST)

Vandalism - But no three edit rule.-Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:05, 6 June 2010 (BST)

User:Poodle of doom

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

Verdict	Self requested
Action taken	1 year ban

Keep them rolling fellas. I obviously have no place on this wiki.... -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 00:47, 2 June 2010 (BST)

Let's make it a perma ban... I could still email someone in the future if I wanted to come back right? -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 03:25, 2 June 2010 (BST)

Per-ma-nent: intended to exist or function for a long, indefinite period without regard to unforeseeable conditions. Thought I looked it up for you. --Thadeous Oakley 19:36, 2 June 2010 (BST)

I'll tell you what, how about a year? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:38, 2 June 2010 (BST)

Done at a year -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:10 3 June 2010 (BST)

Ugh.. I know given my apparent bias and blind hatred towards this user you might think I'm trying to be as harsh as possible (sarcasm btw), but he requested a perma specifically and I recon that's what should happen. He as a user is in control of his own account's bantime and he's exercising that right (unlike last time where I think a week ban was a good idea box) but I really think it should be what he wants now. It feels like we're just screwing him around now. --

 

 

 

 

09:04, 3 June 2010 (BST)

I agree with DDR, but since I've been around for a grand sum of a month, I don't feel right over-ruling both of UDwiki's Bureaucrats. What's the general sysop consensus?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:01, 3 June 2010 (BST)

I think it doesn't matter. A self-imposed ban can be overturned at any time by the user who requested it, so it's essentially meaningless anyway. One year or ten years, it doesn't matter, since if he doesn't want to come back after a year, he won't, and if he does, he will. Having or not having the ban makes no difference. Since it's already been set at a year, I'd leave it, since it's simply not worth the hassle, but in the future, I'd do perma. —Aichon— 11:06, 3 June 2010 (BST)

Agreeing with the Box and Ross. A year's fine. If he eventually cools off and decides to come back earlier than that, he can just email one of us and we can lift the ban. -- Cheese 19:36, 3 June 2010 (BST)

User:CRAIGBOUNCE

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

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warning

Screwing with this page, changing ID numbers and deleting screencaps. I'm not entirely satisfied that this is in good faith, considering several of the profiles don't match the names given and there's also some impersonation further down. -- Cheese 16:37, 1 June 2010 (BST)

He's reverting. --Thadeous Oakley 16:38, 1 June 2010 (BST)

I gots my eye on him. -- Cheese 16:39, 1 June 2010 (BST)

Sorry, missed this with the new month and new pages. Anyway, I'd like to see what his response is on his talk page to your question. I'm not convinced they're bad faith, but I certainly don't understand them or their nature right now. —Aichon— 11:10, 3 June 2010 (BST)

The fact that he made two questionable edits, then left and didn't come back doesn't really speak volumes for him, but ultimately, he'll either come back, answer your question, and we'll have an answer, or he won't come back, in which case it isn't really important what we do.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:24, 3 June 2010 (BST)

He hasn't come back. If he isn't back by later tonight, and nobody has any objections, I'll close this as not vandalism, but we'll keep an eye on him.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:47, 5 June 2010 (BST)

Vandalism Slap him with a warning. Regardless of whether he comes back. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:23, 5 June 2010 (BST)

Anyone else want to rule on this? Anyone? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:08, 11 June 2010 (BST)

Vandalism - deserves a warning, and consideration of page protection. Is this radio spammer still active? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:06 11 June 2010 (BST)

Not. a. clue. People seem to still sign the petition though. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:29, 11 June 2010 (BST)

Closed as Vandalism, Warning given.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:08, 13 June 2010 (BST)

e Vandal Banning Archive

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