UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2011 02

Archives

Talk Archives

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

General Discussion Archives

• Archive1
• Archive2
• Archive3
• Archive4
• Archive5
• Archive6
• Archive7

February 2011

Hagnat II

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

Verdict	{{{1}}}
Action taken	{{{2}}}

Spamming admin pages. His bad faith is made even more clear by the context. --VVV ^RPMBG 01:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I, on behalf of my other colleagues from different Federal Government of Nigeria owned parastatals decided to solicit your assistance as regards the transfer of the above stated amount into your bank account. This fund arose from the over-invoicing of various contracts awarded in my parastatals to certain foreign contractors some time ago.

We as holders of official positions in various parastatals, were mandated by this new civilian government to scrutinize all payments made to certain foreign contractors by the past Military Government and we discovered that some of the contracts they executed were grossly over-invoiced, either by omission or commission. Also we discovered that the sum of $65,560,000.00 (Sixty-Five Million, Five Hundred and Sixty Thousand United States Dollars Only) was lying in a suspense account, although the foreign contractors were fully paid their entitlements after executing the said contracts. We all agreed that the over-invoiced amount be transferred (for our own use) into a bank account provided by a foreign partner, as the code of conduct of the Federal Civil Service does not allow us to operate foreign accounts.

However, we have succeeded in transferring some of these money, precisely US$20,000,000.00 (Twenty Million United States Dollars Only) into a foreign account in GENEVA (SWITZERLAND). But unfortunately, the provider of the account has severed all forms of contacts with us as he has refused to adhere to our earlier mutual agreement insisting that the total amount be paid into his nominated bank account before disbursement will take effect. If for US$20M (Twenty Million United States Dollars Only) we are not compensated, how can one guarantee full compensation on remittance of the balance of US$45.560M (Forty-Five Million, Five Hundred and Sixty Thousand United States Dollars Only).

We are therefore seeking your assistance based on the balance amount of US$45.560M, which can be speedily processed and fully remitted into your nominated bank account. On successful remittance of the fund into your account, you will be compensated with 25% of the amount for assistance and services and 5% set aside for expenses contingency.

This transaction is closely knitted and in view of our SENSITIVE POSITION we cannot afford a slip, I assure you that this transaction is 100% risk free. We will avail you with our identities as regards our respective offices, when relationship is fully established and smooth operation commences. I am at your disposition to entertain any question(s) from you in respect of this transaction, so contact me immediately through the above private email addresses( presidency & mail) and fax number for further information on the requirements and procedure. Please note that the DEAL needs utmost confidentiality and your immediate response will be highly appreciated and we will use our own share of the money to establish a lucrative business in your country.

Please you should contact me immediately with your private fax and telephone numbers where further details in respect to this transaction would be sent to.Please you can also contact me on yahoo at alhajierowoiman@yahoo.com.

Yours truly,

There, this is a con text --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 01:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Moved that from the main page... I don't care if you are an involved part, fuck off with the spam -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:27 18 February 2011 (BST)

This is not spam!!! Its a scam!!! --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 01:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Scam spam, green eggs and ham. Whatever it is is irrellevent. Enough already -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:33 18 February 2011 (BST)

Yer rhyming is so boss, Eminem might be calling you soon.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 17:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hagnat

Perma - Didn't hagnat pass me everything when he retired, even his sysops? Girlfriend - check, chat channel ownership - check, annnd yep wiki sysops - check. I can't allow him to return to reclaim what was his!--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 18:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

damn you anime!! my parents want my sister back!! you can keep my ol' girlfriend, my current one is a lot better :P and as soon as my sysop powers are restored yours are gone :P --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 18:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Irony. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Was just thinking the same. 18:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

am i doing it right ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 18:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that looks irony. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure you didn't mean this?--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 18:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That`s iron-e... and i still dont get it --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 19:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Because Anime took your sister? That sucks --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh... :| --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 19:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Question - Vandalism Time Limit?

I'm not sure if we have a statute of limitations on vandalism (as I didn't see any on the policy page), but I noticed this edit when I was looking at the history of the Vinetown news page. Mallrat completely overwrote Papa Moloch's informational edit for one that didn't explain what was happening in the suburb at that time. Do we have a time limit on vandalism edits, or is it still considered vandalism, and thus should be reported? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 01:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question, I don't believe there is a statute of limitations. One of the more recent vandalism cases involved and edit which was 4 years old. Of course it involved graphic material so the rules may be a bit different. However, I don't personally believe your case to be in such bad faith that it would be considered vandalism by the ruling ops. It is minor enough that the timed which has passed would likely have an impact on the ruling. ~ 02:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

From a combination of experience and a look through his contributions I'd say it could be judged as a newbie mistake. He'd only made a handful of relatively useful edits at that point so I think he could have the benefit of the doubt. -- Cheese 02:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, probably something that should be handled on talk pages, or arbies. Especially after so long, I wouldn't be vandal banning him. Think he may have got some warnings anyway? Will have to go looking -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:16 15 February 2011 (BST)

I corrected the archive already, so it wasn't as much a question of: "Hey, he needs to be punished, can we still do it?", but more of a "How long is undetected vandalism still vandalism?" After all, at the time, Mallrat was still a new user, so I doubt he had a full grasp on how we did things. However, if the mod staff believe it should be documented as a vandal report, I will post a report to the main page. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 02:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If it could be deemed as fairly serious, i.e a pagewipe or a malicious group page edit, and it wasn't picked up at the time I would say yes and there have been a few recently but it is entirely a case by case basis. On Mallrat's side is that he's still editing today and doesn't appear to have ever been escalated for anything. -- Cheese 02:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

He's been (unofficially) warned about this sort of thing a few months after the edit you found. I'd let it rest at that, unless he's done it recently. Sorting things out without having to resort to A/VB is what it's supposed to be all about :) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:28 15 February 2011 (BST)

We've never really thrown out a case because it's too old or the user is too inactive to learn from the warning/ban. Just like the recent case, I'd brought one before years ago much like it (in time length) and we also banned Nubis account a year or so after he illegally banned Iscariot. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Mis

I lol'ed, especially about the song choice. Still, something you shouldn't do, and worth an escalation for either impersonation or bad faith editing of foreign group pages. (While Thad raises a good point about potentially enciting Bunghole, this isn't a verdict due to lack of precedents, and due to much stronger and more established reasons being available anyway.) -- Spiderzed▋ 22:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I've already explained why neither of those reasons applies. This is clearly a matter for A/SD or for nothing at all. Crit 2 or [ossibly crit 6 speedy, but no impersonation has taken place, and vandalism of another group's page clearly can't apply to non-existent pages (see logs, mine was new page creation). 22:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

For any users who aren't system operators, I'll inform them that a page did exist there before it was deleted.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Crit 6 is deletion workaround, and vandalism after repeated attempts. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

@Yon - deleted is the operative word. No actual page was vandalised, or even edited. @Thad - repeated means more than once, surely. 22:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

What really puzzles me is that Misanthropy persists it as a legit action :/ --Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

That's because he's a troll. Stop feeding him. -- Cheese 22:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

This was not an non-existent page. For one because it was deleted before, another reason is because the page existed on the stats page. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The page did exist, smartass. Red-page /=/ non-existent. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It ceased to exist the moment it was deleted. It literally was not there. Linking it brought up a red link, searching for it didn't bring it up, and attempting to edit it created a new page. How then was it anything other than a non-existent page? This wasn't a case of adding content to a page that was already there. It was the creation of a new page in a space previously occupied by another page which had since been deleted. 22:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Did the group Wotan's Templar cease to exist when this deletion occurred? --Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Not relevent. Their wiki page did and that's all that was concerned. No impersonation attempt occured as no claims to be the group or be a member of the group were made. 22:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

IF YOU ARE NOT A MEMBER OF A GROUP IT IS VANDALISM TO MALICIOUSLY EDIT A PAGE BELONGING TO THAT GROUP ESPECIALLY IF IT CAN BE CONFIRMED THAT THAT GROUP IS CURRENTLY ACTIVE NO GROUPS ARE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST FOR NOT HAVING GROUP PAGES THANK YOU HAVE A NICE DAY.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Your logic is beyond flawed. The group never ceased to exist, it is still active. They have the rights to their own group-page, which you broke. Lets have an example here. Umbrella Corporation/Example Page. Hey a red page that does not exist! According to your logic, since the page is empty and has no content you're free to edit it. Well, I'll bring you too A/VB myself if you even try. It's a red page, but still a group page, a group you're NOT a member of. Wotan's Templar has the right to any of the pages of Wotan's Templar including all infinite sub pages whether or not they "exist". --Thadeous Oakley Talk 23:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

But that's not the same, and you know it. I have clearly stated "mainspace" for a reson. Pages in your group's namespace are not mainspace pages. They're in the namespace of a group, and belong to that group. For instance Dead Hand/Dragonhead are Zergs is a group page, even if it doesn't exist. Dragonhead are Zergs would be a mainspace page, and belongs to anyone until claim is laid to it. They aren't comparabale pages in that regard. 23:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Claim of a group page was laid the moment the group became active on the stats page. In-game claim > Wiki claim --Thadeous Oakley Talk 23:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

This makes zero sense. Explain then what would happen if two in-game groups with the same name attempt to create a wiki page. You can't just say that a group existing means they forever own rights to a page which doesn't exist. 23:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

	Attention
	Please do not feed the Trolls

-- Cheese 22:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. So much drama on the first day of the month. Reminds me of the old days on this wiki. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 23:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

this is nothing. Well done thad for using the talk page. Now answer my question on your bid. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 23:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Next time add new questions at the bottom (I did see it a couple of days ago, just haven't came around it but the bid lasts 2 weeks for a reason so..). I'll answer tomorrow, I should have gone to bed an hour ago... Still have to fetch DDR to answer my own bid question too. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 23:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Admitting to trolling, and not for the first time. Man, when are you taking into account your responsibility and exemplary role as a sysops? And yes, I know sysops aren't moderators, and that you don't have to be a saint but come on...there is a reason nobody is agreeing with you. Not because we don't like you, before you pull the victim card, but because you're wrong. Accept this for the love of God.--Thadeous Oakley Talk 23:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You ever weigh into consideration that I argue the point so much at times because I enter into these things fully believing them to be within the rules? I've accepted escalations before with full knowledge that I did something wrong (an A/M case for editing a protected page, and another for some complex red tape with multiple cases), but when I do something like this, it's because there isn't a clear case for A/VB, and I by all means should be able to argue the case here. My responsibilites are at no point impaired by the odd attempt at fun, and it's worth bearing in mind that these pranks don't always end up on A/VB - just the ones where a line is toed, and in this case, I still adamantly refuse to accept that this was impersonation. 23:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this wasn't impersonation, just for the sake of argument, but whatever it was it sure looks like vandalism. Not trying to pile on you here Mis, but I'm wondering if you think creating fake trolling pages of existing groups is good for the wiki. To rephrase, do you simply reject the arguments that have been presented in favor of the vandalism ruling, or do you reject the claim of vandalism outright? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Giles Sednik (talk • contribs) 07:23, 2 February 2011.

Wutz

People have never been wiki-banned for in-game zerging, and probably never will. If we did, than quite a few people (including regulars as Thad) would have been banned ages ago. It's probably still wise to keep an eye on Wutz' contribs, but that just seemed to be a drive-by edit. -- Spiderzed▋ 14:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively it could have been someone messing about via proxy. -- Cheese 16:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

That's one of my thoughts, though I live in hope that it's genuine and that the alts have actually been banned. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 21:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

And no. Because thads in game character never got banned for zerging, so it's essentially a different issue -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 21:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

User:XxXD3M0NIKXxX

I was trying to find it but I think Gage got escalated years ago for having an ascii pic of a naked woman.... atleast he had to remove the nipples. or some such. Could be wrong.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 16:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Was this during Nipplegate? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Gage never got an escalation. He was let off the hook. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 18:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought: this is case is rather meaningless because we do not prescribe bannings or warnings as punishment. The user is inactive, and any action (warning/ban) is hardly preventative, it's just punishment long after the fact. tl;dr what's the point?--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

And one more thing: that precedent was from a guy who was uploading goatse images and sticking them on main page templates, and after he kept making new accounts I just started banning from the first edits these accounts made. Meaning the goatse wasn't the sole reason for the ban, but also where he was putting them. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Gnome. Glad to see someone else can make rational conclusions these days. 23:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say this stopped being an actual vandalism case around the fourth comment. Now it's essentially a porn/precedent argument that would probably be better off in A/PD. ~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 23:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You're correct, but it's too late to stop the case now. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 23:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Annnnnnnd...it begins.--

| T | BALLS! | 23:54 13 February 2011(UTC)

You're late to the party. It began months ago. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 23:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You missed the point. But nevermind, carry on digging through pages that God Himself has forgotten about in your quest to eradicate man anus.--

| T | BALLS! | 01:55 14 February 2011(UTC)

Also late to the party but I thought it would be nice to register an opinion since that was a criticism on my sysop bid. First - wow, I didn't know you could make an image like that just using wiki code, pretty cool. Second - tis a picture of a man stretching his anus, and it doesn't look like wiki code it looks like a picture of a man stretching his anus. The team got it right, good job sticking to your guns ddr.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 12:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

After allowing that case to cool down and thinking some more about it, the bad thing isn't as such that Goatse got deleted from some userspace page - it was anyway in a neglected and rarely watched backwater in the wiki. No, the bad thing is rather that it sets precedent for policing in userspace and groupspace on grounds other than disrupting the important parts of the wiki by such means as impersonation.
When will someone start targeting Columbine Kids for their "vulgar", "libellous" and "otherwise objectionable" use of the Columbine incident and related footage?
What about the Nazi Party of Malton and User:Cornholioo, which's prominent display of the swastika would be punishable with a 3 years prison sentence in my jurisdiction (being "unlawful", unless you block German IPs), or (assuming that with the difficulties with applying national law on websites with an international audience, they stick with the British one) at the very least "hateful" and "likely to bring the service into disrepute"?
And don't get me started on _all_ of the Umbrella groups and their blatant copyright infringement with their images alone.
That case might open a bigger can of worms than some of you might imagine. -- Spiderzed▋ 21:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

We handle these things on a case per case basis for a reason. The things you mentioned have little to do with the case at hand. The only conclusion we can lead from it is that we continue to ban porn from this wiki, as we have done since it's inception. The examples you gave are different beasts altogether. Also regarding Umbrella, lolno. Also don't take offense plz. Don't want another BIG SYSOPS FIGHT!--Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Holy shit. You really DO have no idea what you're talking about. Seriously, take 3 months off in the drama areas, or at least read 08 and 09 A/VB and A/M archives. Trust me, you need it. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 23:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Allow me to elaborate in the quickest time possible cause I'm fed up reading and responding to your garbage (sorry, it's just how I see it): 1.Nazi party etc are roleplaying groups, I'd know cause I made it. For all intents and purposes so are Cornholioo's groups because we have to assume good faith and can't assume that he's a nazi IRL even though he claims to be (hence why we only ban him for hate speech on the wiki) 2.Umbrella, if you had actually researched the issue, have actually asked Capcom and received permission to have roleplaying groups in their name. They leave these summaries in the written sections of their images. As for the columbine kids, WTH do you go on sprouting shit about 'precedent'. Ever think of the precedent that Columbine Kids have been on this wiki for 3+ years? How about this for precedent? Oh lord, please start researching things in the future before you try and make a point and stop, for god's sake, being such a goddamn robot (which is literally the only excuse I can think of when explaining why 3 of our sysops voted not vandalism on that case, let alone your reasoning). -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 23:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I have put thought into picking those examples.
CK were precisely picked for already having been contested once, and being kept by community vote (despite the TOU).
Umbrella were picked for their copyright status. (Which, by the way, actually isn't a permission, but just explicite toleration of an unlawful situation - "This policy is in no way meant to be interpreted as creating an agreement or grant of license between Capcom and its fans". Of course, unlikely that they'd take legal action under these conditions, but plain toleration can be retracted at will.)
As for the Nazi Party, I don't talk about that being a nazi party. I talk about the swastika, which could make me liable for a prison term under StGB §86a (1) No. 2 just by caching it from that webpage. (Yes, probably de minimis, and accordingly laughed at both in court and by Poundhost. But what are the odds that the latter would have cared about some grainy wikicode goatse created long long ago on a userpage far far away?)
Oh, and I'm actually brushing up on cases of olde... Did you know that you can get permabanned on sight when you have a racist sounding username? It's true, I've read it in a 08 archive. (To be fair, I can't trawl through that users contribs due to the purge to see if Karek was just using weird rationale on an obvious 3 edit vandal, but the reasoning still made me laugh in relation to this discussion.) -- Spiderzed▋ 00:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The Niggers Malone thing was part of a trolling spree that involved creating throw away accounts and proxying up -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:58 18 February 2011 (BST)

Relevant to discussion: even if Umbrella were explicitly liscensed, they're not the only group using another intellectual property or copyrighted images. See also Cobra, Followers of the Apocalypse, Dark Envy Incorporated, The Imperium (oh Christ, these guys!), just to pluck some off of Cat:Rec. Umbrella may not have been the best example, but it's still an issue discounting them. 00:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

And I knew we'd be getting here eventually. That's why it pays to use common sense. Over the top obscene material is deleted, stuff that is a bit racy and relevant is not... copyrighted images are deleted on request, others are left because it's unlikely that anyone will care that low quality reproductions are used. This doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:58 18 February 2011 (BST)

Even so, its a null issue in terms of this so-called precedent you're afraid of, we've already had numerous copyright discussions and have decided not to intervene until a copyright holder complains themselves. That's why it's a scheduled deletion under those circumstances. Regarding swastica laws, we are bound to UK laws because that is where the server is. Is it illegal to use the swastika in Britain? Because that's all that matter (i don't actually know). Btw, good that you're brushing up on cases. Karek was odd, he would have used the 3 edit rule alongside the name itself being an implied vandalism edit. He was weird like that. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreeing completely with box and DDR here. And I can use a swastika whenever I like in Britain. But thanks to Hitler never playing Risk, I really don't need to. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

As for copyright infringement, it's not an issue. I know it's a hot topic for the music industry, but for images? Just think for a second. There are thousand, no millions of fansites, roleplayers and other users of popular IP's like videogames. These are all tolerated by the copyright owners, albeit unofficially. The general line is that as long as you're not making profit (being a commericial threat) of their IP's it's allowed. Even if Capcom for example comes knocking on our doors, we'll simply delete all Umbrella related stuff because we're legally bound to do so. But we have never, as far as I know, ever pro-actively deleted copyrighted stuff without there being a request by the lawful owner. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 11:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Haven't we all just said that? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, wanted to say this earlier on, but couldn't so I just added it now. Could have said as Boxy/DDR too, doesn't matter. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 13:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, conciseness --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Iirc Nubis might have been misconducted for deletign copyrights without a complaint. Somebody was, i think.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

50/50. It was a larger case about him deleting lots of stuff without going through red tape. Nallan uploaded a grotesque pornographic image and Nubis deleted it even though the pornorgraphy scheduled deletion had been revoked. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 23:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

What about Amazing?--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 23:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

As boxy/ddr. Also, if someone cited UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Data#User:XxXD3M0NIKXxX as precedent in a copyright infringement case I'd call them a damn fool. ~ 16:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)