UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2008 12

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

This page is for the reporting of vandalism within the Urban Dead wiki, as defined by vandalism policy. On this wiki, the punishment for Vandalism is temporary banning, but due to security concerns, the ability to mete out this punishment is restricted to System Operators. As such, regular users will need to lodge a report for a Vandal to be banned from the wiki. For consistency and accountability, System Operators are requested to note on this board their actions in dealing with Vandals.

Guidelines for Vandalism Reporting

In dealing with Vandalism, time is often of the essence. As such, we ask that all users include the following information in a Vandalism report:

• A link to the pages in question.

Preferably bolded for visibility. If the Vandalism is occurring over a sufficiently large number of pages, instead include a time range of the vandalism attempt, or alternatively, a link to the first vandalised page. This allows us to quickly find the damage so we can quickly assess the situation.

• The user name of the Vandal.

This allows us to more easily identify the culprit, and to check details.

• A signed datestamp.

For accountability purposes, we ask that you record in your request your user name and the time you lodged the report.

• Please report at the top.

There's conflict with where to post and a lot of the reports are missed. If it's placed at the top of the page it's probably going to be seen and dealt with.

If you see Vandalism in progress, don't wait for System Operators to deal with it, as there may be no System Operator online at the time. Lodge the report, then start reverting pages back to their original form. This can be done by going to the "History" tab at the top of the page, and finding the last edit before the Vandal's attack. When a System Operator is available, they'll assess the situation, and if the report is legitimate, we will take steps to either warn the vandal, or ban them if they are on their second warning.

If the page is long, you can add new reports by editing the top report and placing your new report above its header in the edit screen.

Before Submitting a Report

• This page, Vandal Banning, deals with bad-faith breaches of official policy.
• Interpersonal complaints are better sorted out at UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration.
• As much as is practical, assume good faith and try to iron out problems with other users one to one, only using this page as a last resort.
• Avoid submitting reports which are petty.

Vandalism Report Space

Administration Notice Talk with the user before reporting or accusing someone of vandalism for small edits. In most cases it's simply a case of a new user that doesn't know how this wiki works. Sometimes assuming good faith and speaking with others can avoid a lot of drama, and can even help newbies feel part of this community. Administration Notice If you are not a System Operator, the user who made the vandal report, the user being reported, or directly involved in the case, the administration asks that you use the talk page for further discussion. Free-for-all commenting can lead to a less respectful environment. Administration Notice Warned users can remove one entry of their warning history every one month and 250 edits after their last warning. Remember to ask a sysop to remove them in due time. You are as responsible for keeping track of your history as the sysops are; In case of a sysop wrongly punishing you due to an outdated history, he might not be punished for his actions.

December 2008

User:J3D

J3D (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

This reads to me like he knew the grounds for his Misconduct case against Boxy were false - therefore making it frivolous, which I believe is an VB-able offence. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 14:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

lal. read my reply over there, follow the simple instructions, then remove this case plz.--xoxo 14:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Like I said over there (it's worth repeating here simply because of how lazy some people are): nothing else you've written in that case changes the fact that you admitted you knew that Boxy's actions were within the rules, and that you were simply seeing whether you could get him in trouble for warning you. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 14:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll take that to mean you aren't playing stupid then (people see boxy's A/M case to understand all this shiz). I was warned on my talk page and A/VD before boxy had ruled on the case. At the time i recieved the warning it had 1 vandalism ruling and 1 not vandalism. Hence that A/M case was created when as far as i was aware boxy had committed misconduct. For someone who claims to be internet proficient you sure had trouble figuring that one out...--xoxo 14:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw that, but discarded it because it's simply too fucking nitpicky for words. Not even Iscariot (well... maybe him) would try to pull something like that. Sometimes sysops find it more efficient to leave the warning before posting about it on A/VB; if there had been a large gap between your warning and Boxy's comment on A/VB you might have had a snowball's chance in hell of pulling the case off, but there wasn't so you didn't. And your comment shows that you knew it. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 14:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

If by comment you mean 'it was worth a try' then yeah, i did know it then. that was 12 hours later. When i created the case it wasn't frivolous at all. --xoxo 15:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Bullshit. Pure and utter bullshit. "It was worth a try ;)" rather openly indicates that you knew the case was more than likely to fail - but you figured you'd give it a shot anyway just on the off-chance that it might have gotten Boxy punished. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 15:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

When i said "It was worth a try ;)" i clearly knew the case was going to fail, it's premise no longer existed. Also mate, a ;) generally means it's a joke, but whatever.--xoxo 15:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Like I said. Bullshit. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 15:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Err...which part of the post you just replied to was bullshit?? --xoxo 15:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

*sigh*, please tell me you're playing stupid. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 15:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

haha yeah that one was :P (see little face means i'm kidding/joking/whatever). Try looking at it this way: when i made the case (at the point when it should be judged as frivolous or not) boxy had misconducted by warning me for a case that was a split decision. Therefore my case was legitimate. Minutes later it was no longer relevant. At which point the creation of said case would have been frivolous. comprendé? --xoxo 15:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It was still a shitty case, as you didn't give him enough time to post on A/VB. Once again, your post shows anyone with more than two brain cells that you knew how bad a case it was when you made it. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 15:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism User has a history of pointless cases for the sake of drama. --– Nubis ^NWO 15:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Cite some plox--CyberRead240 12:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Not Vandaliam - Prior actions do not determine present motive. J3D has given a clear (in my mind, at least) explanation of what happened and I believe that Cyberbob is deliberately ignoring them in favour of calling "bullshit" from the top of every building. While I would love to warn him for being a pain in the arse, I can't reasonably call this vandalism.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 08:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Haha, J3D's explanation actually defies belief, despite it's "clarity". There is no way that he thought I would record warning on A/VD and then his talk page without making a ruling on A/VB in the very near future (less than 10 minutes)... the reason this is not vandalism is that A/M is the "appeals court" for A/VB, and as such, people who are found guilty on vb need to be allowed to appeal to the rest of the sysops to overrule, regardless of the incredulity of their claims -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:16 23 December 2008 (BST)

So is that a not vandalism vote then mr sysop?--CyberRead240 12:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You are probably right but there is still a distinction, meaning that he had some vague basis for the case during those 10 minutes. I also agree that we should not warn people for going to A/M as that would defy the intended point of the page.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring them, I'm disbelieving them due to their ridiculousness. Nobody splits hairs that finely within their own minds. Nobody. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 08:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

In a normal society I would agree with you; On this wiki, I'm not so sure......Either way, perhaps I spoke too harshly and I can see why you disbelieve him. Still, I maintain that this is Not Vandalism. --The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

And you've convinced me to weigh in with a vandalism. He's a sysop, more is expected of him. That includes actually knowing how to count, and actually having a modicum of common sense not necessarily always expected from other users. His promotion says he should think before reacting so assuming that's is not what he did seems very much ridiculous. If that's the only argument that can be made supporting it, as opposed to the one that shows bad faith, we've got a problem.--Karek^maps?! 10:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

This shouldn't even be an issue. If it's so obvious then just rule 'not misconduct' (which you all did) and archive, no big deal. As someone said, warning me for starting a (seemingly legitimate if somewhat hasty) misconduct case isn't a path i think we should go down. The great thing about misconduct (infact probably the only good thing about it) is if sysops are unanimous regarding a case it can be quickly dispatched without drama, unfortunately you seem to pursuing the drama because it just wasn't gonna generate itself :( --xoxo 11:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You hung yourself.--Karek^maps?! 13:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with what you are saying, he is completely unsuitable as a Sysop. However, A/VB is not about deciding who is or is not a good sysop but is instead about dealing with vandalism. This is not the latter and I feel we cannot warm him simply for "Being a bad sysop". We do have a problem, but it isn't vandalism.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 13:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a slightly different issue and while I do agree and believe his claims here show it that much more. I don't buy J3D's story so, while I don't really like ruling vandalism on something posted to A/M I really can't see this as anything but another in his long line of intentionally useless cases that he makes just because he doesn't like someone or something they did. I view this much the same as when they spammed A/VB with reports, he knows better and has been talked too about it in the past.--Karek^maps?! 14:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Cyberbob240

Cyberbob240 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Shitting up admin pages. For what it's worth he's been soft warned repeatedly.--xoxo 14:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, lol? Two of those are actually pieces of valid commentary in disguise; Hagnat has a well-known habit of dispensing with the rules whenever he feels like it. Also, pretty obvious that you wouldn't go to such lengths (seriously, November?) to come up with a case like this against anyone else. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 14:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah the november was just coz i didn't wanna leave pages not linking to anything...i was gonna get the a/m ones but then i remembered the good ol' clause that says you can say whatever you want on a/m :) --xoxo 14:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, then you have one single case of valid "shitting up" on me. Note that if I wished I could point to far more than that by quite a number of people; why did you decide to single out me in particular? --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 14:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Coz you were harassing hagnat and he's a sysop.--xoxo 14:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Nah kidding, shedding a tear in my case plus i'm getting sort of bored of you constantly posting 1 to 3 word meaningless gibberish everywhere. What happened to the cyberbob who went on epic rants??--xoxo 14:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Just because it's gibberish to you doesn't mean it's gibberish to those who know what I'm talking about. Yet another case of you assuming more knowledge than you have, surprise surprise. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 14:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

lol, i know what you're talking about. But we all know hagnat's values and iscariot's actions. We don't need you to spam them on every case. I'm off to bed, ciao. --xoxo 14:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The only way he's ever going to change his ways is if someone keeps calling him out on it. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 14:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Not Vandalism and that is pretty low sinking to throwing in crap from back in November. Bob's comments aren't "gibberish". --– Nubis ^NWO 03:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Hagnat

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

Impersonation by adding text to my signed comment

and

Removal of my comments from an admin page, the case was still in progress as it had not been acknowledged that Hagnat had misrepresented the result of the case. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

hum... about the first, sorry... sometimes i accidentaly press the mousepad in my notebook and it changes the location of where i am typing without me realizing... i still need to get used to this thing. And the second, i just had moved nubis case to his archive, there was nothing else to discuss since the ruling of that case were not going to change as much as you would like it to. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 03:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you, or did you not, misrepresent the result of the case against Nubis? Does a majority vote class as slightly? Not in the English language it doesn't, now go an change all references to Slightly Misconduct to Misconduct if you clearly are displaying the good faith you'd like everyone to believe.

Also, I don't care about your computing woes, as is proven elsewhere on this page, that is not a mitigating excuse. You are a user that understands what impersonation is, you are responsible for your edits and no-one else.

The misconduct case wasn't closed anyway, I still haven't got my warning unstruck. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe you have made 7 edits since the warning should not have been stuck, therefore by now that warning is no longer valid. The misconduct case was closed, most users believed that the case was small, but were split between not misconduct and misconduct with a slap in the wrist punishment. Therefore, slightly misconudct. And who are you to say when a case is over or not ? Who died and put you in charge of the wiki ? Shut the fuck up iscariot, and begone for our greater good. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 03:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see where "Slightly Misconduct" is a valid ruling. I was under the impression that the possible outcomes were misconduct or not. Could you direct me to the Administration page that deals with the verdict of Slightly Misconduct? --Pestolence^(talk) 03:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You are missing something... the fact that there is nowhere in the wiki a rule or guideline that says which rulings should a misconduct reach. We sticked to misconduct and not misconduct because we were used to it... but there is no place that limit us to only these two options. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 03:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

So, will of the community and clarity isn't enough? And there is no we in this, youunilaterally decided to invent a classification. The rest of the sysop probably didn't do something because they're tired of clearing up after your incompetence. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You speak for the will of the community now? Should we put it to a vote to see if people would really mind getting a warning struck "early"? Your arrogance was amusing at first, but now it is frightening. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Aww, poor Hagnat, did you not read those wonderful boxes "Warned users can remove one entry of their warning history every one month and 250 edits after their last warning. Remember to ask a sysop to remove them in due time. You are as responsible for keeping track of your history as the sysops are; In case of a sysop wrongly punishing you due to an outdated history, he might not be punished for his actions." I am responsible for my history, not you, not Nubis, Nubis did the wrong thing and that action should be undone. Then it is up to me to decide when I want my warning struck provided the criteria are met, not you, not Nubis. I have decided that I do not want my warning struck at this time. This is my prerogative. How am I meant to 'begone' when you won't allow me to work my way up the escalations tree?

You are AS responsible for keeping track of your history as the sysops are'. Not sure if you noticed that little word AS. It's a small word that changes the entire sentence. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no such thing as slightly misconduct, it's posturing by you to protect a friend. The verdict was clear, majority vote in favour of misconduct. Your prattling aside, the history should show that in its summaries and archives, it should be shown without emotive qualifiers preceding it at your whim. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hag is not my friend no matter what your twisted conspiracy theories tell you.--– Nubis ^NWO 13:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, it appears that Nubis committed misconduct, slight as it may or may not be. Does misconduct now carry no punishment but removal of donut privileges? Or is slightly misconduct now Orwellspeak for "not misconduct, but we'll pretend it was to keep the proles happy"? --Pestolence^(talk) 03:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, when a sysop bans a user unfairly they get banned for the same amount of time. So in this case, I guess I get my warning struck early, too? --– Nubis ^NWO 13:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

In theory that happens, it practice it doesn't. Take a look at that case where cheese banned bob, the ban was overturned, i took cheese to misconduct where it didn't pass.--xoxo 14:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You took Cheese to misconduct over Cyberbob being banned and even Bob said he didn't think it should be a misconduct case. So you trying to stir up drama failed because the sysops (except Grim - surprise) realized that it wasn't bad faith just a hasty decision. You are a piece of work.--– Nubis ^NWO 15:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I've never taken bob's opinion into account when deciding if something is or isn't misconduct, i'm slightly embarrassed for you if you do. I wasn't trying to stir up drama, personally i thought it was an open/shut case. Banning is a serious action and i didn't feel it should be taken lightly.--xoxo 15:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you practice that little speech every night before you go to bed? You really need to work on it, you aren't up to Iscariot trolling level yet, but you can come close. I do like how you take your little buddies into consideration before you make a decision, but should it be someone you don't like then their opinion is an "embarrassment". What happened to your promise to "go slow" on A/VB and your no more VB drama for yourself? --– Nubis ^NWO 15:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I have gone slow on A/VB. I haven't ruled on any cases. If i see vandalism i bring it here, if vandalism is brought against me i defend it. I don't think that's what gnome was referring to when he asked me to go slow on a/vb. And you'd probably find it embarassing if people took my little buddies into account, it's called different opinions, you're allowed to have them.--xoxo 15:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now you are just being a tard. The warning is there to prevent users from misconducting sysops because they got banned because their vandal escalation were not right, and they should've got a warning instead of a ban. You have no control over wheter or your warning should or should'nt be removed.

Protecting a friend ? Weird... last time i checked, nubis was a goon, and apparently i want to see all goons burning on fire... last time i checked he asked for my demotion... last time i checked he was against most of the policies i tried to pass... i dont see nubis as a friend, rather a guy whom i tend to agree with occasionaly... anyway, let's wait for another sysop to drop by and give his ruling, right... i am going to hit the bed as i am tired of all the end-of-year work --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 03:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparently? I love the word apparently. Apparently Michael Jackson doesn't molest children. Do you see how apparently works in the English language?

I have no control over that do I not? What happened to sysops are expected to reverse a ban or warning if desired by the community? Oh, yeah, you ignore policy. Either that box is wrong (in which case I'm removing it for misleading users) or it's right and you need to toddle off and do some actual sysop duties and unstrike that warning. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

If a user is banned wrongly because of an outdated vandal history, its expected that the ban should be lifted, but no punishment for the sysop will be issued because of that mistake. That's the reason behind that warning, as one does not exclude the other. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 03:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The first edit diff is nothing but an obvious mistake, and should never have been brought here. The second seems to be caused by edit conflicts on the page, where at least 6 edits were made in the 10 minutes around that edit, some of them quite major (like the archiving) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:04 21 December 2008 (BST)

In fact your second link shows you placing a comment that still seems to be on the page. The only problem I can see that you might have is that when Hagnat archived Nubis' case, you brought it back to comment on it, despite the fact that it had been resolved, and then he reverted. Not vadalism -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:13 21 December 2008 (BST)

I'm more concerned with it being shunted off of the page when there was still an important active discussion under there, personally. Might just mean it's time to escalate it to the next required step though, that being a new Misconduct case.--Karek^maps?! 06:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Are we talking about Hagnat's misrepresentation of the findings? Something that you all seem to be happy with him doing, or are we talking about your other witch hunt? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Other witch hunt, I decided I wasn't going to rule unless it became a disputed issue when I saw the weak impersonation diff at the start of the case.--Karek^maps?! 08:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I resent being called a witch.--xoxo 08:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I resent L337, so we're even.--Karek^maps?! 08:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I resent the sysop team ignoring Hagnat's inability to count, when it was another sysop's inability to count that got us into that case in the first place. Is this like that S.O.S. page? Do I have to write another gazillion words and another misconduct case before anything gets done? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You wouldn't need to if you could concisely build a strong point without spending 90% of the time criticizing and threatening people without cause. That makes you a lot of enemies and devalues your contributions. More than that it's pretty obvious you had no desired result from that case other than to stir shit for Nubis in the manner of a semi-versed rules lawyer. The case was resolved and certainly was conclusive, even with the weakness of the punishment unless you can actually suggest something that meets the claimed crime committed. You're warning won't be re-struck because it would be immediately unstruck. This is my opinion on the case, it's also the opinion that was expressed by the sysops that did rule misconduct. Stop stirring shit without cause and maybe things will get done when you have more legitimate complaints. And again, this is not meant to be taken as a ruling, although it might give some view as to exactly how I would rule if I believed it was needed.--Karek^maps?! 09:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I've only once commented on the punishment I though Nubis should receive, and that was back in my opening statement. Do not attempt to paint me as some sort of hanging judge. However, what I do take offence to is Hagnat's continued mis-use of his sysop status to influence the perception of such events using the words in Nubis' official judgement and the summary on the archive link pages as slightly misconduct. Tell me, if a user on this page received an escalation as a result of a split decision, would he be able to campaign for his entry on vandal data to read slightly vandalism? Of course he wouldn't, and this is yet another examples of the precedents being ignored if you are a sysop. Sic Semper Grimmanis. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Sarkomance

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

Moving others' comments around on a page so he might get first say isn't vandalism, but impersonation is. Idiot adds text to a signed comment of boxy's, even though he shows he understands what a header is in his earlier comment. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone want to deal with this? I'm involved -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:14 21 December 2008 (BST)

So let me get this straight here for a second. A new user made an edit to a page that involved moving the order of content and failing at making a header or some such? Did anyone try to actually let him know what he did wrong before deleting it and making an A/VB case? I just want to make sure I have all the facts before I make a ruling.--Karek^maps?! 09:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing on his talk page, nor on his talk page's history. So, no. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like he was grouping all the "troll" comments under one header, and marking boxy's comment as "trolling" too (his opinion.) So, yeah, could just be a newbie mistake. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing says don't move other people's posts around like a stop hand.--xoxo 11:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Iscariot should know better. We don't give a warning on the first time they move posts around. If you look at that version of the page and not the history/difference link it is quite clear that he meant for boxy's comment to be in the next line and not including other useless trolling... Actually, I think we should act on Karek's warning in that link, but I don't want to give him the attention that he seems to need. --– Nubis ^NWO 14:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

ooo he was lucky last time. I swear wan's gotten a warning for a/vb-ing himself.--xoxo 14:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Not Vandalism - Nothing more than a newbie mistake. Iscariot, please speak to the user involved before you bring any more cases of this nature here. It just wastes everyone's time. -- Cheese 14:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I remember reading that on UDWiki:Policy regarding what users should do in order to entrench themselves in drama and waste their time. No, wait.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It's in the big colored notice higher up on this page.--Karek^maps?! 10:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The non-policy notice that Hagnat unilaterally decided on without community consensus? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 13:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

No, the non-policy that restates what is actually outlined in policy--Karek^maps?! 13:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

"we recommend talking with the user in question" - I trust my point is made? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It is considered extremely poor form to automatically assume that a person's edit was an act of vandalism. On UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning, Sysops are expected to always look at an edit in the light of a good-faith edit, rather than assume guilt, and we expect that the user has attempted to contact the user regarding the edit.

Read: "we expect that the user has attempted to contact the user regarding the edit.".--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 14:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Read: Poor form has never been illegal on this wiki. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

No, but it is grounds for us to throw out a case based on the assumption of good faith.--Karek^maps?! 14:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. And to make the point, a second Not Vandalism.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 14:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

User:J3D

J3D (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Because I didn't have time for this before; Impersonation. Also related to a misconduct case that will be coming up shortly when I figure out a way of discussing it within the privacy policy.--Karek^maps?! 09:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Not vandalism - for cris' sake, learn to take a joke, people! If J3D is gonna get warned for this, then i guess there is plenty of people that should be warned as well. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 10:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

FUCK THE RULES --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 11:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

FUCK YEAH! --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 11:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the impersonation bullshite, this is intentional shitting up of admin pages, which he's been soft warned about multiple times in the past -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:43 18 December 2008 (BST)

Then i'd agree with a soft warning. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 11:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Only because you like him though, where was this useless punishments for people that know better and have been warned for it in the past? Nalikill and Cyberbob certainly did much less to get much more severe punishments from you and us.--Karek^maps?! 00:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism I see this as part of the larger case that Karek is talking about. Not to mention that is exactly the kind of crap that was mentioned in his promotion bid. Not to mention if he has been soft warned about this there is no reason to not make an OFFICIAL WARNING on it. Clearly, the soft warnings didn't take.--– Nubis ^NWO 17:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

As a regular User on this wiki, I lol Soft Warnings off. They aren't official, so pretty much they are redundant. As many people who aren't boxy or grim or minions have said in the past, "Soft Warnings are fucking stupid". Did someone scream agenda?--CyberRead240 21:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making the case for why it's pointless to give him yet another soft warning. He's had his chances to stop being a twat, so it's clear that it's a deliberate drama generation tactic now -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 23:59 18 December 2008 (BST)

Except it didn't generate drama? The reaction generated drama. People created drama out of it because they wanted it. Boxy just moved it to a talk page and told me to take ma meds, so kudos to him there. Also, if you (in the general sense) are going to rule vandalism please make it clear what you're ruling on. There is no impersonation here. I linked to my userpage and there is nothing that says i can't choose exactly what words my signature includes. And that is what this case is about, please don't make it about something else.--xoxo 00:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

How is forging a signature not impersonation? /rolls eyes/ --WanYao 20:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It links to me! brb, church used to link to cyberbob now something else does. If Nallan had his sig link to me, that would be impersonation, they can't both be.--xoxo 03:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

brb, church wasn't another user.--Karek^maps?! 06:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Warned - for impersonation as well as for ignoring soft warnings to stop shitting up admin pages. Making it look like someone else is posting is still impersonation, even if you leave the link to your own page. Don't mess with sigs in order to decieve, especially on admin pages -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:21 21 December 2008 (BST)

This is why I drink.--Nallan (Talk) 06:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

This case is pure lol. Placed by Karek, Voted on by Nubis, and Ruled on by Boxy. They are like the Chicago Bulls of the 90s. Boxy is Michael Jordan, over-rated, self obsessed, egotistical madness. Karek is Scottie Pippen, the less well known and less appreciated of the two arseholes that run the show, and Nubis is Dennis Rodman, the rainbow haired crossdressing thundercunt who frequently wears wedding dresses.

Seriously boxy, "in order to deceive". You know thats bullshit, quit clutching at straws.--CyberRead240 07:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Man i love the wiki. And metaphors. Where would we be without them?--xoxo 08:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

*sheds a tear* --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 09:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Honestmistake

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

Attempting to rule on a Misconduct case as though he was a sysop. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 12:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Meh --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 12:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

fuck the rules amirite --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 12:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm torn. If I vote Vandalism it looks like I am being petty since he "voted" Misconduct. If I vote not vandalism it looks like we are saying that anyone can "rule" on cases. I'll just split the difference and ban him outright. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Nup. Surely there's some clause that says i can rule based on my opinion of the person that brought the case up?--xoxo 15:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I Bolded it to make a point that I felt the whole misconduct case should have been regarded as Vandalism I then went on to make that point in a way I felt pointed out that my "ruling" was a bit of a joke. If Bob can't spot such obvious hyperbole then thats his English teachers fault not mine! No-one but no-one is likely to mistake me for a Sysop as i have neither the time, the patience or the technical skills to be one. That said; I will happily take the warning for vandalism should it be felt required as after all these years with a clean slate i kinda feel left out. Not that i get a say but i would prefer it if Nubis were the one to rule... provided of course its not his previously suggested ruling. --Honestmistake 17:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Precedent was created here by Hagnat, and I quote "can say whatever he wants in his case. Unless the rest of the sysop agrees with his ruling (through inaction or verbal agreement) his words means nothing. And any sysop with half a mind will know not to count his ruling in the event of vote." Or are we having one rule for sysops and another for normal users? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This has to stop. Claiming "precedent" because one sysop says something is stupid. Especially when it is someone like Hagnat. (At least pick someone more consistent like Karek or even geez, Grim) It's especially laughable when you look through the history at his other posts and can almost always find one where he reverses himself. Pick a better horse. --– Nubis ^NWO 04:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Strangely enough, this quote is from a case of misconduct against you for posting a ruling in another case of against you, and you claimed there are no rules that forbids sysops from voting in their own cases (common sense clearly says they can't, no need for a rule on that). A similar case was brought upon myself in may, and you asked for my demotion. Who is the inconsistent now ?

In a case against yourself, you do not contribute as a sysop but as a regular user (therefore your ruling weighted the same as honestmistake). The only difference between a sysop and a normal user in this case is that, through inaction of the rest of the adminsitration staff, the ruling of the first can become official. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 11:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I know where that quote is from. You voted misconduct on your own case and offered a light punishment (warning). That case was part of a larger situation in which you were accused of vote striking and ruling on VB cases to create precedent to use on another case against you. That was the main issue. You were trying to change a VB ruling to use in your misconduct case. Trying to set precedent on VB to apply to Misconduct is entirely different from defending yourself and bolding Not Misconduct. When a sysop tries to change the rules improperly for their own benefit they should be demoted. --– Nubis ^NWO 17:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thats why i meh'ed this case. Honestmistake "ruling" will only be valid through inaction or verbal agreement... otherwise is just a user stating his opinion there. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 18:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

actually, honestmistake's opinion will never be accounted at all (cuz he is not a sysop, thus unable to make adminstrative actions). But he is still free to voice it. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 18:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It's best to just unbold the mock ruling (anyone can do this), and move on. Please don't do it again Honest, it can become confusing when looking through the archives later, if all and sundry have bolded "rulings", especially in the case that they later become, or were in the past, sysops. I'll rule not vandalism, unless someone comes up with a clear president where this has been ruled against in the past -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:37 18 December 2008 (BST)

We used to have unclear presidents on this wiki? ;) --ZsL 02:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism. Here is a user getting voted Vandalism by Cheese because he warned a user on his talk page. That's impersonating a sysop. Here's the precedent.--– Nubis ^NWO 04:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Your precedence is from a user impersonating a sysop in another's talk page. This is a case where a user simply bolded his opinion (which incidently ressembled the way sysops rule) in a public page about a misconduct case... unlike the first case where the impersonaction could hold water, any attempt to impersonate a sysop in a misconduct discussion will easily be dismissed by the administration staff as we weighted our opinions to decide on a ruling. Thus, not vandalism --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 04:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

So you can impersonate sysops on Admin pages, but not on user pages? Well that sounds like a great rule! People's Commissar Nubis^{talk mod} 17:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

impersonating a sysop as in pretending to be part of the administration staff... any user pretending to be a sysop in admin pages will be quickly be noticed and dealt with, so no harm will be done and punishment unnecessary (unless the user keeps acting like a sysop, when intervention will then be needed). A user pretending to be a sysop in another user talk page, on the other hand, will only be noticed if another user spots the faker in action, and that can take several days or weeks, and by then harm will already have been done and punishment for such action will be necessary. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 18:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism, I thought we got rid of this guy? At least he wasn't doing it on A/VB amarite?--Karek^maps?! 09:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"We've had this dispute before with most of the sysops saying the following; 'Bold a ruling, does not make'." Thats your comment from J3Ds misconduct case.... If thats true then surely that must apply both ways, I mean do you seriously think that anyone would have mistaken my comment for a genuine sysop ruling? Or are you in fact just making it up as you go along.... Show me the rule where it says only sysops can comment in bold and i will shut up and take a double escalation, show me where it says all rulings must be made in bold and all bolded comments will be regarded as rulings and i will take a third. Hell show me the bit where it says exactly why what i did was impersonation and i will stay off Admin pages for a month--Honestmistake 15:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Not bolding it doesn't make it a valid ruling, bolding it so that it looks like the standard convention for making a ruling however does show intent to mislead, something also known as Bad Faith. I hope that's not too confusing.--Karek^maps?! 19:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Just so everyone is aware i'm seriously ruling not vandalism now, based on the merits of the case, nothing to do with bob. lockbusters. --xoxo 15:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Not Vandalism - In the case Nubis linked above, the user in question purposely pretended to be a sysop in order to bully the other user into doing as he (Tomer) commanded. In this case, Honest gave his opinion on an admin page. I do not believe this was in bad-faith and the only effect it could possibly have on the result of the case is if whoever was adding up completely fucked up and had their brain off for the afternoon. -- Cheese 15:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Jerrel Yokotory

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

This edit and also some idiocy here. --Janus ^talk 14:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

And here. --Janus ^talk 14:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked, idiocy didn't count as an A/VB offense, but the other two clearly to (violation of page ownership guidelines. Meh, he posted a similar message on my talk page before. Linkthewindow  Talk  14:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I posted the idiocy thing because of all the signatures+timestamps he wrote on your talk page. I don't see that alone as vandalism. --Janus ^talk 14:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

A lot of dodgy edits and in the case of his borehamwood template edit a plain lie. But at least one vaguely helpful edit. IP check shows he's not a regular spammer. You've explained to him what he's doing wrong, and as such I'm willing to wait and see what his next edit is. Any repeat offence and he gets warned. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 14:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The edit to the KOTA page is an edit to a group page that he is not a member of, and one to an archive and not in any way constructive. Such edits have been ruled vandalism this month on this page. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm sorry guys, and like he said, I'm not a regular spammer, and from now on, the information on any page that I edit will be good. I'm sorry for being a Jack butt andf from now on I will try hard to not be an idiot. idiocracy is a gene of mine so I can't help it, but I'm not gonna do it again, Alright!--Jerrel Yokotory 14:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually Iscariot is right (Wow twice in a week). Misread it as a talk page, but as an archive page it it Vandalism and a such a warning. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Had I been in my normal vindictive mood I'd have made a new case for this edit, editing a user page with no apparent good faith. You can include this in the first warning or go for a second escalation, I'm not fussed, I must be ill or something. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 15:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm really sorry but if I am good for a month could I get the warning out of the system? I mean I've only been here for a week and I'm already in the system......--Jerrel Yokotory 15:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not uncommon. I was taken to vandal banning 4 hours after logging on to the wiki. Some of our finest contributors have made edits considered vandalism. Make 250 edits and in a month the warning will be struck. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

A month and 250 edits is a lot of edits and time.......--Jerrel Yokotory 20:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep. But thats half the point. and you've already done like 40. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

250 is shit all fyi.--xoxo 05:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Soldier

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

This edit shows that he removed one of my comments on a page that was not his and where he had no right to do so. --Pestolence^(talk) 19:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Content restored with an explanatory note. Page ownership guidelines are clear, if Cortez wishes to remove your comments, he can. Soldier cannot. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 19:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Warned -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:21 14 December 2008 (BST)

• Sergeant William Holt identified as an alt. No wrong footing. Yet. -- Cheese 22:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

  Should his warning be transferred to the new account, then? --Pestolence^(talk) 01:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  No, the fact that he's got another account now should just have been recorded on A/VD so that any warnings the new account gets are added to the existing one -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:16 17 December 2008 (BST)

  And it has been already -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:20 17 December 2008 (BST)

  Ok. --Pestolence^(talk) 01:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  Don't alts used for vandalism get permabanned instantly? It's happened before. Linkthewindow  Talk  04:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  The new alt has not been convicted of vandalism. It is not against policy to have multiple alts on this wiki. Also in order for an alt to be instantly perma-ed it must be demonstrated that the alt was created purely for vandalism or to subvert a current ban. Neither has happened in this case and even though I don't like the guy, he hasn't broken any rules by having this alt. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  no. also, alts are allowed.for examplae user:nallan and user:sexylegsread and shit are mine.--xoxo 04:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  Yeah, I know. Hagant's got a few. Iscarot basically answered my question-I know that purely vandal alts get instanbanned, but I'm wasn't sure about ones that make some productive edits. Linkthewindow  Talk  05:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Jaysed

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

Malicious editing of another group's records. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Warned - but holy hell! That kill list is full of links to user pages, and the great majority of them appear to be non-existent users. I thought that PK was supposed to be full of learned people... not a group of wiki n00bs who don't understand that the vast majority of UD characters don't have corresponding wiki user accounts! -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:05 13 December 2008 (BST)

It's nice to know that each ruling now comes with a completely superfluous opinion about one of the groups in the case. Wonderful, perhaps I should start doing this about the sysop team when I make a case.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You already do.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 17:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User:An unlucky guy

An unlucky guy (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Warned - see case below -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:39 12 December 2008 (BST)

User:We Cell

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

Edits to the page of another group. Multiple edits, its reasons like this we need to be giving some normal users here rollback.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Nonono I can explain. I contacted the other group and asked them to edit or delete, but the guy who did it also deleted our page, so I assumed he is just a vandal. I then found out he's the leader of the group and will not attempt to edit their page anymore; we'll just duplicate what we had to say back on our page. Thanks for understanding.--We Cell 16:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You sell, they sell, we sell, i ban... XD... do not edit other people group pages, We Cell. Nuff said, no warning for today since i'm in a good mood today. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 17:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

We Cell 19:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Clear vandalism, along with the edits to the Game Over page by An unlucky guy (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss), and both should be warned (good mood or not) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:05 11 December 2008 (BST)

No harm done, both edits reverted, both users already advised to stay away from each other group page... i dont see why we should punish them when their learnt their lesson. Besides, that awesome face i just got is just... awesome --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 23:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

A warning is not a punishment. It is to help us keep track of users prior behaviour. If they learn their lesson, then the warning will go away. If this continues, then we will be able to show the reason to take harsher measures on such vandalism. "I wont do it again" is all well and good, but shouldn't stop us recording these incidents (especially since it's only come from one side so far) on A/VD -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:42 12 December 2008 (BST)

A warning IS punishment since it serves as a bridge for the true punishment of the ban-hammer. Unlucky guy also admitted that his actions were against the rules and was willing to accept any punishment. Anywya, warn then if you want... this is such a small issue and they both already know better that i feel it wouldn't do harm to let it pass. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 10:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't serve as a bridge, it serves as a warning! Smart people take notice... vandals get the sharp end -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:39 12 December 2008 (BST)

Warned -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:39 12 December 2008 (BST)

User:Rohanzap

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

For this edit to my group page. Umbrella member, probably sent by Thadeous Gay Oakley. --Haliman - Talk 01:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the whole haliman politics happening atm, but the guy has made other vandal edits, eg these.--xoxo 01:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Politics allude me, but this edit is clear bad faith, removal of another user's signed post on a past event. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Kill with fire? --Haliman - Talk 01:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism - Warned. -- Cheese 20:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I am getting sick of Umbrella's games. --Haliman - Talk 01:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

User:DARKSIDEX

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

Edits to a group page that said user is not a member of. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Warned.--xoxo 11:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Haliman111

Haliman111 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Broke arbitration ruling by directly contacting me twice (in a rude manner) before the 8 weeks of no-contact were over.--Thadeous Oakley 10:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Case User:Krazy Monkey (arbitrator of the case)

Contact 1

Contact 2

You need to show bad faith in the attepmt, responding to what seems to have been provocation or not wanting to hear from someone on the wiki doesn't merit punishment on his part.--Karek^maps?! 10:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

"First of all, in order to prevent any arguments, both parties are forbidden from contacting the other on the wiki in any form for a period of 8 weeks from today. This is binding and if broken may result in vandal escalations.". I am not a wiki law expert but the above seems pretty clear to me.--Thadeous Oakley 11:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a reason he said may. That reason is that we aren't bound by anything an arbiter's whim when it comes to whether or not an arbitration violation is grounds for vandal escalation. We have a higher standard here than simply breaking what amounts to a formal agreement between two users mediated by a third user. The standard of punishment requires that there is harm to someone somewhere, not just two users disliking each other enough that they refuse to communicate.--Karek^maps?! 12:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

To clarify; In this case to get me to rule vandalism you would need to show him to be harassing you, you haven't yet. At least not to a point where I believe involvement on our(sysop's/A/VB) part is justifiable, just ignore him.--Karek^maps?! 12:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Lulz. I'm actually reporting an Umbrella member for BLATANTLY editing my page. One moment... --Haliman - Talk 01:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay Karek, I understand. Though I'd like to point out the statement by him under the vandal banning of Rohanzap on this page, another clear example of such harassing behavior.--Thadeous Oakley 19:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

And I'd like to point out the comments that Rohanzap left on the pages. "Another clear example of such harassing behavior." I smell fail. --Haliman - Talk 02:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Venger

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

Did stuff to Sonny's userpage plus I reverted the rest of his edits also.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 22:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

We should keep track of these butthurt guys that vandalize sonny's userpage... have a template or somethin...--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 23:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Warned -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:54 2 December 2008 (BST)

This is just a note to say that the following users are using the same IP address and more than likely the same person, judging by their hating of Sonny:

• Venger (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
• Firetwig (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
• Firetwigzed (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

That is all. -- Cheese 21:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Just wanna step in for a sec, Firetwig is a guy from the Brainstock forums... Guess he don't like sonny :/ --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 00:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Venger has been permbanned as a vandal alt of Firetwig -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:23 3 December 2008 (BST)

So the vandal alt is banned but the main account isn't warned? LOLWUT? --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 21:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I saw the warning had been moved to his A/VD entry, and didn't look on his talk page. Anyway, warned now -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:23 5 December 2008 (BST)