UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2009 12: Difference between revisions
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
:Just saying, the admin pages wouldn't be getting spammed up with this kinda stuff if Thad kept his nose out of other peoples business. Also as i understand it, he isn't allowed to post on admin pages unless the said admin action relates to him. As this edit neither was made by him or effected him, i think hes in violation of an Arby. Just saying. --{{User:The Colonel/Sig}} 04:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | :Just saying, the admin pages wouldn't be getting spammed up with this kinda stuff if Thad kept his nose out of other peoples business. Also as i understand it, he isn't allowed to post on admin pages unless the said admin action relates to him. As this edit neither was made by him or effected him, i think hes in violation of an Arby. Just saying. --{{User:The Colonel/Sig}} 04:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
::He's allowed to bring cases, so he's an involved party. And Box, it wasn't to "catch teh n00b", it was to have some fun on the wiki.--[[¯\(°_o)/¯|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> ¯\(°_o)/</span>]][[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkTurquoise">¯</span>]] 05:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | ::He's allowed to bring cases, so he's an involved party. And Box, it wasn't to "catch teh n00b", it was to have some fun on the wiki.--[[¯\(°_o)/¯|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> ¯\(°_o)/</span>]][[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkTurquoise">¯</span>]] 05:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
I both have no idea who this chap is, nor do I care to know him. He is a disgrace to this wiki and Urban Dead in general, and if I had my way, I'd ban him without trepidation. Alas, I can only hope that this fellow is sentenced to the full extent of Wiki law without hesitation, for, if even the own sanctity of our user page is not a safe haven, what do we have left? --{{User:The Surgeon General/sig}} 05:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
===[[User:Suicidalangel]]=== | ===[[User:Suicidalangel]]=== |
Revision as of 05:17, 13 December 2009
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
|
Spambots
Spambots are to be reported on this page. New reports should be added to the top. Reports may be purged after one week.
There were a bunch of spambit-looking account creations on the 17th, these are the live ones at present.
- HaroldBeaman (contribs | logs | block | del userpage | IP Check)
- HallieKetcham7 (contribs | logs | block | del userpage | IP Check)
- AlexanderNoyes7 (contribs | logs | block | del userpage | IP Check)--Cheese 17:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Blocked a large surge of bots -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- YasminLashbrook (contribs | logs | block | del userpage | IP Check) --VVV RPMBG 06:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- LoganDos626 (contribs | logs | block | del userpage | IP Check) --VVV RPMBG 06:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Both done DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 09:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
December 2009
User:Drawde
Drawde (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Verdict | {{{1}}} |
---|---|
Action taken | {{{2}}} |
Can this please stop? This entire vandalism for the "lulz" is getting out of control. We can't be expected to determine whether these edits are unwanted or not, or if the vandalized users mind it or not. Set a precedent please to prevent needless confusion. --Thadeous Oakley
00:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Nanners and I asked drawde to mess with our pages in IRC.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 00:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- And I'm suppose to know that how? --
Thadeous Oakley
00:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- And I'm suppose to know that how? --
Please get surgeon to confirm this, I guess? --
00:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Alright-y then, lemme see if I can get him here soon. He said he was kind of busy earlier. :/ -- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 00:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- S'cool, it's not like we are in a hurry, it's just the easiest way to get closure on the case. -- 00:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Hell, yeah, please confirm. Then explain why we shouldn't escalate the lot of you for shitting up admin pages with this sort of crap. If "Nanners" wanted his page changed without this crap, he should have done it himself, FFS. Fucking circle jerk, in-joke crap, designed to "catch teh n00b" and show up the wiki bureaucracy. Meh. Vandalism -- boxy talk • teh rulz 03:28 13 December 2009 (BST)
- Just saying, the admin pages wouldn't be getting spammed up with this kinda stuff if Thad kept his nose out of other peoples business. Also as i understand it, he isn't allowed to post on admin pages unless the said admin action relates to him. As this edit neither was made by him or effected him, i think hes in violation of an Arby. Just saying. --
04:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I both have no idea who this chap is, nor do I care to know him. He is a disgrace to this wiki and Urban Dead in general, and if I had my way, I'd ban him without trepidation. Alas, I can only hope that this fellow is sentenced to the full extent of Wiki law without hesitation, for, if even the own sanctity of our user page is not a safe haven, what do we have left? --Banana reads Scoundrell for all of Yesterday's News, Today! 05:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
User:Suicidalangel
Suicidalangel (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Verdict | Not Vandalism |
---|---|
Action taken | {{{2}}} |
For breaking the arbitration clause listed here, specifically point two. This happened here. The edit summary seems to be a mess due coding though so I'll explain, I changed Mark Conway, a level 6 emo to Mark Conway, a level 18 emo to reflect current reality. SA reverted that edit. This kind of nonsense is exactly what caused the arbitration case in the first place, and the ruling was deemed to prevent this. I highly, highly doubt that Orangegaf will see my edit as unwanted (or is wiki-breaking in any way). --Thadeous Oakley
14:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thad... It has been explicitly noted that User: and User talk: pages are the sole property of that particular user - Iono how this will turn out, so I'll just leave this here. --Haliman - Talk 15:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, did Orangegaf undo my edit? No, he didn't. This isn't about user pages, this is about SA breaking the arb ruling by changing my edit. The fact that's happened on a user page is unimportant, because of the trivial nature of my edit. Like, recently DDR edited my userpage, he fixed a minor grammar issue; I don't expect someone to undo that edit or drag DDR to vandalism for something that minor. My edit was not bad-faith, not unwanted, and not wiki-breaking like mentioned in arb ruling. I'm not contesting the guidelines, Hal but SA is contesting my edit, which he isn't suppose to.--
Thadeous Oakley
15:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, did Orangegaf undo my edit? No, he didn't. This isn't about user pages, this is about SA breaking the arb ruling by changing my edit. The fact that's happened on a user page is unimportant, because of the trivial nature of my edit. Like, recently DDR edited my userpage, he fixed a minor grammar issue; I don't expect someone to undo that edit or drag DDR to vandalism for something that minor. My edit was not bad-faith, not unwanted, and not wiki-breaking like mentioned in arb ruling. I'm not contesting the guidelines, Hal but SA is contesting my edit, which he isn't suppose to.--
I could see arguments for both sides, to be honest. On the one hand your edit wasn't "something that seriously breaks the wiki" by any stretch, but on the other user pages are really supposed to be offlimits unless the owner has given their express permission so I can see the potential for good faith on SA's part. Your argument regarding the lack of a reversion by Orange doesn't hold up, by the way - all of 5 minutes elapsed in between your edit and SA's.
Going with Not Vandalism on this one - the "trivial nature" of the edit doesn't make it any more acceptable without permission from Orange. Cyberbob Talk 17:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- You hear that, DDR? Unacceptable!--
Thadeous Oakley
18:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Seriously, SA should have known much better than this. --
Thadeous Oakley
18:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- You should know better than to edit others user pages without their permission. Another rules happy user could have reverted your edit and dragged you to A/VB for the hell of it. I didn't for a reason. Because, you know, I may not like you, but I can give you a bit of a break. But fine, if you want to be a cunt be my guest. Also, in the arbies ruling, the only thing about User pages boxy says is how we can't edit anything in each others name spaces. Also, plz be not actin' liek a petulant child plz. You illiterate fuck.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 22:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- lol u mad? Really, you're cursing quite allot at me eh? I think you're the one, would should take a break. And your arguments hit no ground. The edit in question is purely trivial, and it wouldn't get me escalated. Or would you be the first one in line to rule vandalism should I drag DDR in here for this edit? I don't think so. Also in case you couldn't read;
- You should know better than to edit others user pages without their permission. Another rules happy user could have reverted your edit and dragged you to A/VB for the hell of it. I didn't for a reason. Because, you know, I may not like you, but I can give you a bit of a break. But fine, if you want to be a cunt be my guest. Also, in the arbies ruling, the only thing about User pages boxy says is how we can't edit anything in each others name spaces. Also, plz be not actin' liek a petulant child plz. You illiterate fuck.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 22:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Seriously, SA should have known much better than this. --
- No editing of each others comments on pages, including other people's talk pages, except something that seriously breaks the wiki.
- You tampered with my edit. This while my edit is not disrupting the wiki in any shape or form. I was merely being helpful, and I am 99% certain Orangegaf wouldn't have mind, and 100% that he wouldn't drag me to A/VB for it. Also, if you didn't undo it I doubt anyone else would have. But oh no, you had to settle it differently. --
Thadeous Oakley
23:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- You doubt. You don't know. Just like I didn't know if I'd get a warning out of this, but I decided to be nice and remove the edit to be sure, because out of the two of us, who is facing the harsher punishment over a ban? Sure, it's unlikely that'd you'd get banned for the edit, but I'm not always an asshole. Gaf will now notice the edit in question and still make the change, since it's been brought to his attention.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 23:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, so I'm suppose to thank you now too? That's a class act you got there, SA. And forget that 0.01% doubt, I knew he didn't mind, just like DDR doesn't expect me to actually drag him to A/VB, or better yet, actually getting escalated. You're undo was completely and utterly unnecessary, and if you thought back for a sec you could have known that this undo wouldn't be appreciated because of regrettably long drama history we have. Also in case people didn't knew; I have been laughing with Orangegaf on Umbrella Corp forums since 2008.--
Thadeous Oakley
23:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- I wasn't looking for a thank you specifically because of the reasons you mentioned. But I did think you would have been the bigger man and let it go. Like I said, childish.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 00:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Childish? I thought I was an illiterate fuck, a cunt, a petulant child ^^^. Want a tip? Next time you call someone else childish make sure you got your own emotions under control. I do not claim to be mature (does that word even has a single meaning?), but you're not in position to question my maturity without coming off as a hypocrite. --
Thadeous Oakley
00:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- My emotions are pretty in check, it's yours that look like they're going out of control. Screaming bias and wrongful rulings and all. And I've called you illiterate, yes, but I also called you a petulant child, which would also be calling you childish, only in less words. It's a known fact I communicate by cursing and name calling, so that doesn't show my emotions are running wild. But yes, keep it up, it's not helping your vendetta at all if you haven't noticed.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 00:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Now you're down to the level of "NO U". I haven't screamed bias nor wrongful rulings, don't make it try spin it like I did. Because that wouldn't be very honest of you SA. While I disagree with Bob, I can kinda see where he's going with this and at least understand his reasoning. Misanthropy doesn't seem to have full knowledge of the past events, and that's why I deem his ruling incomplete, not biased. And I haven't done this out a vendetta, which you just keep on implying, if you take it personal than that's your problem not mine. Now goodnight. --
Thadeous Oakley
00:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Now you're down to the level of "NO U". I haven't screamed bias nor wrongful rulings, don't make it try spin it like I did. Because that wouldn't be very honest of you SA. While I disagree with Bob, I can kinda see where he's going with this and at least understand his reasoning. Misanthropy doesn't seem to have full knowledge of the past events, and that's why I deem his ruling incomplete, not biased. And I haven't done this out a vendetta, which you just keep on implying, if you take it personal than that's your problem not mine. Now goodnight. --
- My emotions are pretty in check, it's yours that look like they're going out of control. Screaming bias and wrongful rulings and all. And I've called you illiterate, yes, but I also called you a petulant child, which would also be calling you childish, only in less words. It's a known fact I communicate by cursing and name calling, so that doesn't show my emotions are running wild. But yes, keep it up, it's not helping your vendetta at all if you haven't noticed.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 00:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Childish? I thought I was an illiterate fuck, a cunt, a petulant child ^^^. Want a tip? Next time you call someone else childish make sure you got your own emotions under control. I do not claim to be mature (does that word even has a single meaning?), but you're not in position to question my maturity without coming off as a hypocrite. --
- I wasn't looking for a thank you specifically because of the reasons you mentioned. But I did think you would have been the bigger man and let it go. Like I said, childish.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 00:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, so I'm suppose to thank you now too? That's a class act you got there, SA. And forget that 0.01% doubt, I knew he didn't mind, just like DDR doesn't expect me to actually drag him to A/VB, or better yet, actually getting escalated. You're undo was completely and utterly unnecessary, and if you thought back for a sec you could have known that this undo wouldn't be appreciated because of regrettably long drama history we have. Also in case people didn't knew; I have been laughing with Orangegaf on Umbrella Corp forums since 2008.--
- You doubt. You don't know. Just like I didn't know if I'd get a warning out of this, but I decided to be nice and remove the edit to be sure, because out of the two of us, who is facing the harsher punishment over a ban? Sure, it's unlikely that'd you'd get banned for the edit, but I'm not always an asshole. Gaf will now notice the edit in question and still make the change, since it's been brought to his attention.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 23:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- You tampered with my edit. This while my edit is not disrupting the wiki in any shape or form. I was merely being helpful, and I am 99% certain Orangegaf wouldn't have mind, and 100% that he wouldn't drag me to A/VB for it. Also, if you didn't undo it I doubt anyone else would have. But oh no, you had to settle it differently. --
- No editing of each others comments on pages, including other people's talk pages, except something that seriously breaks the wiki.
Not vandalism - although a trivial change, it was made where it shouldn't have been. Reversion was a better move than the original edit was. 18:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- You don't know what your talking about. This isn't about that, it's about the arb case. If it was someone else than SA I wouldn't have made this case.--
Thadeous Oakley
21:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Which goes to show how petty and harassive this case is.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 22:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Don't victimize yourself so hard, this isn't personal it's about arbitration you broke. Go bang your head a couple of times (or whatever you do to unwind) and come back when you're calmed down. --
Thadeous Oakley
23:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- The fact that you're singling out the person who made the reversion and don't care about the reversion itself makes me want to vote not vandalism twice. You done a bad. Someone, who happened to be SA, undid your bad. I'd have done the same myself if I'd seen it. If you wouldn't have taken me, or anyone else, to VB for it, then damn skip I ain't voting against SA for it. Also I lean against your favour for spelling a lot wrong a whole walrus of times. Also also, I looked at the arbie, by the way. I'm not as incompetent as my fine ass makes me look. I consider unwarranted edits of others' user spaces to be "breaking the wiki", given that they go against the basic precepts of being a nice dude and not toying with others' personal areas. Don't make me draw dicks in your space. I draw BIG dicks. :P
02:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- The fact that you're singling out the person who made the reversion and don't care about the reversion itself makes me want to vote not vandalism twice. You done a bad. Someone, who happened to be SA, undid your bad. I'd have done the same myself if I'd seen it. If you wouldn't have taken me, or anyone else, to VB for it, then damn skip I ain't voting against SA for it. Also I lean against your favour for spelling a lot wrong a whole walrus of times. Also also, I looked at the arbie, by the way. I'm not as incompetent as my fine ass makes me look. I consider unwarranted edits of others' user spaces to be "breaking the wiki", given that they go against the basic precepts of being a nice dude and not toying with others' personal areas. Don't make me draw dicks in your space. I draw BIG dicks. :P
- Don't victimize yourself so hard, this isn't personal it's about arbitration you broke. Go bang your head a couple of times (or whatever you do to unwind) and come back when you're calmed down. --
- Which goes to show how petty and harassive this case is.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 22:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
As Cyberbob, Thad and SA are in the right in their respective actions, and hence this is Not Vandalism. It isn't a matter of 'which edit is more wrong' because they are both right (until Orange specifies differently) and neither is vandalism. --
23:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, but again, I didn't drag SA in here for undoing my edit, I dragged him in for breaking the arb ruling. I get the feeling allot of you are ruling (Misanthropy specifically) on the edit in question, rather than the arbitration ruling. --
Thadeous Oakley
23:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Let's see:
- - No editing of each others User: pages (including talk and sub pages), excluding admin notices which should remain entirely "professional" (ie. no added, derogatory commentary).
- - No editing of each others comments on pages, including other people's talk pages, except something that seriously breaks the wiki.
- - No enforcing other people's talk page rules (unless specifically given such rights by the user who owns the talk page) in regard to each other.
- - MisterGame is not to contribute to admin pages that don't ask for community input unless he is an involved party (the talk pages are still open to comment though). Admin pages such as A/D ask for community input (votes), while A/VB is discussed by sysops and involved parties only (reporting an A/VB case counts as being involved).
- I don't see anything there that says what SA did in any way is against the Arbies ruling. -- 00:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Let's see:
- Not vandalism - but, my god, enough with this shit outside the normal page area. I don't know about anyone else, but it's making it near on impossible to view the diff comparisons -- boxy talk • teh rulz 03:03 13 December 2009 (BST)
User:Rook88
Rook88 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Verdict | Not Vandalism |
---|---|
Action taken | {{{2}}} |
Changes made to Template:North Blythville Barricade Plan, seemingly without reason. Also suspicious since account had no prior contributions. --Maverick Talk - OBR 404 22:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Not vandalism - it is a community page, open to editing by anyone. Talk to him, and revert if you feel it necessary. If you want to enforce your, or the "accepted" barricade plan despite disagreement, take it to arbies. Extreme cases (where it's done solely for drama or griefing purposes) may be ruled vandalism, but this isn't such a case -- boxy talk • teh rulz 00:12 11 December 2009 (BST)
User:Pandoras emptiness
Pandoras emptiness (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Verdict | Not vandalism |
---|---|
Action taken | Advised on talk page |
Deleted the Mornington's Barricade Plan & the suburb map How do I revert these changes or do I even have that ability?--Dr Mycroft Chris 18:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Reverted to last good version. --
.
. <== DDR Approved Editor 18:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I think he was just trying to remove them in a noob attempt at changing them and then putting them back on later? I don't think there was any malicious intent involved, just being a noob. DanceDanceRevolution (Talk | Contribs) 23:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Not vandalism then. I've told him to be more careful in future -- boxy talk • teh rulz 00:07 11 December 2009 (BST)
User:Cipherace
Cipherace (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Verdict | {{{1}}} |
---|---|
Action taken | {{{2}}} |
Deleting large sections on the radio and historic groups page (twice).--~ Red Hawk One Talk | space for lease 04:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Hard to tell whether it's just a colossal noob fuckup or vandalism, but I'm going for Vandalism DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Not Vandalism - Obvious noob mistakes. Cyberbob Talk 04:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Vandalism - Because every time I see [this group mentioned, my mind immediately jumps to Izumi. -- Cheese 16:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
NV - Inconclusive data. Also, it's not zoomi, just another Valkyrie.-- SA 21:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- So it's another Valkyrie doing what Izumi would normally be doing, but it ain't vandalism? DanceDanceRevolution (Talk | Contribs) 23:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- It's a nooby Valkyrie, probably doing something FOR zoomi, but messing up because of the newbishness. It's fine if you want to think it's zoomi out of habit, but I'm pretty positive it's not her.-- SA 23:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- I never did think it was her. But even what you explained above is still bad faith- and fucking up at it. DanceDanceRevolution (Talk | Contribs) 23:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- It's not bad faith, people can edit for anyone, we have no rules against one user editing for another, with their permission of course, if we can identify that they are editing for another user. We can't identify it, so right now it looks more just like a dumb ass newbie trying to edit and failing. The only reason people are even considering it vandalism is because LV is associated with it.-- SA 23:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- I never did think it was her. But even what you explained above is still bad faith- and fucking up at it. DanceDanceRevolution (Talk | Contribs) 23:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- It's a nooby Valkyrie, probably doing something FOR zoomi, but messing up because of the newbishness. It's fine if you want to think it's zoomi out of habit, but I'm pretty positive it's not her.-- SA 23:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- To the contrary, I never cited the Valkyries. The point is, if a perma-banned user is going to be getting a friend to do 'good' things on the wiki solely for said banned user's sake, well, you might as well make sure you aren't asking help from someone who wipes pages in the process. DanceDanceRevolution (Talk | Contribs) 00:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- No, I wasn't meaning you, but the guys like Cheese who knee-jerk the perma-button when anything Valkyrie related come sup. My bad. And also, on the page wiping stuff, why do you think zoomi was the one editing most of the time? She was the best wikier they had at the time, and even then she wasn't very good. :D -- SA 00:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Vandalism - I'm going to say vandalism here, because of the repeated wiping, only minutes after Iscariot fixed the historical vote -- boxy talk • teh rulz 00:03 11 December 2009 (BST)
Alrighty, so, given his latest fourth edit isn't deemed helpful to the community, this guy is looking down the road of a permaban. Thoughts? --
04:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't exactly have to be helpful, just contributory without being vandalism. And since "We try, for the most part, to attempt to prevent the vandalism from happening, rather than punish interlopers", I think a perma ban is harsh for someone who is trying to edit, although failing. I mean hell, I just now realized no one has even let the guy know of his/her fuck ups. A warning at most.-- SA 11:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think a warning will suffice, this time. If they come back doing similar, however... -- boxy talk • teh rulz 11:56 11 December 2009 (BST)
- To the contrary, the guidelines specify that they have to be a benefit to the majority of the community, SA. In relation to Boxy, a warning seems fine to me. I'll pop it on later. -- 23:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
User:Z3D
Z3D (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Verdict | Vandalism |
---|---|
Action taken | Perma |
Perma banned suspicious spammy user. Also, used an open proxy.-- SA 11:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Beat me by this much... one of the 3D clowns -- boxy talk • teh rulz 11:55 7 December 2009 (BST)
User:Rosslessness
Rosslessness (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Verdict | Self Request |
---|---|
Action taken | Week Ban |
Weeks ban please, deadlines approaching and I need to shake the OCD for a couple of days.
Cheers. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 08:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Done. Cyberbob Talk 08:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
User:VI
VI (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Verdict | Vandalism |
---|---|
Action taken | Warned |
I'm reporting myself for vandalizing Karloth Vois' user page. I'm sure he won't mind, though. CITIZEN VI 23:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Not vandalism, as it's a bit of jokery between the two of you. Don't let it happen again, neh? Also, the banana is a better picture.-- SA 23:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'd also like to report myself for vandalizing Karloth Vois' page. --Karloth Vois ¯\(°_o)/¯ 23:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Due to a longer amount of time thinking about the cases, while a bit of fun is okay every now and then, group pages should be exempt, even if the groups and/or users are in good standing. Hell, even user pages are pushing it. And now, being that warnings are easier than hell to spam off, vandalism, warning. Though the banana will stay because I'm not sure if Karl likes it. If he doesn't he can remove it himself.-- SA 00:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Seconded. DanceDanceRevolution (Talk | Contribs) 01:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Alright then, closing. Warned. --
04:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Silly people, you are. I had no problem with the edits! --Karloth Vois ¯\(°_o)/¯ 12:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Which is why I told everyone to let you remove it if desired. No one listens to an old man like me anymore. :( -- SA 13:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
User:Karloth vois
Karloth vois (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Verdict | Vandalism |
---|---|
Action taken | Warned |
For his edits to the PK main page Here. --TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 22:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Not vandalism, as it's a bit of jokery between the two of you. Don't let it happen again, neh? Also, Karl's edit was better.-- SA 23:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)- Actually Boxy set a precedent that joking between friendly groups doesn't alter it from being an act of vandalism. --
.
. <== DDR Approved Editor 23:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Precedent doesn't always take precedence.-- SA 02:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- So some people get escalated whilst others don't for the exact same thing? --
.
. <== DDR Approved Editor 02:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- This is how I ruled on a case and I never ruled on that one because I didn't read the content of it? :S -- SA 21:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- So some people get escalated whilst others don't for the exact same thing? --
- Precedent doesn't always take precedence.-- SA 02:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Actually Boxy set a precedent that joking between friendly groups doesn't alter it from being an act of vandalism. --
Due to a longer amount of time thinking about the cases, while a bit of fun is okay every now and then, group pages should be exempt, even if the groups and/or users are in good standing. Hell, even user pages are pushing it. And now, being that warnings are easier than hell to spam off, vandalism, warning.-- SA 00:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, Vandalism. Fun is fun and all, but Group pages can hurt people :*( DanceDanceRevolution (Talk | Contribs) 01:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Warned --
04:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
User:Cyberbob240
Cyberbob240 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Verdict | Not Vandalism |
---|---|
Action taken | {{{2}}} |
Racism and 2 precedents here. xoxo 06:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
lolvandalism. Racism as sohock humour is Not Good --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 06:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
What does boot strapping mean in aussieland? Just checking.-- SA 06:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Same as. Implying they should just stop using government support and become financially and culturally sustainable. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 06:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Or implying that they should just get up and keep moving on in their lives until things are better.-- SA 06:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- ...You serious? He even said it was racist in his vote and? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 07:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- I could easily say something was racist and then say something not racist. Keep in mind I haven't actually said how I feel this case should be ruled as, only given out counter points to yours.-- SA 07:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- ...You serious? He even said it was racist in his vote and? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 07:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Or implying that they should just get up and keep moving on in their lives until things are better.-- SA 06:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm pretty clearly making an ironic joke from Sonny's comment in his vote: "If you don't vote for Rakuen then you're a racist." . You're dumb, DDR. Cyberbob Talk 07:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Not vandalism - his vote is a sarcastic response to Sonny's "if you don't vote for Rakuen then you're a racist", just as Zombie slay3r's is -- boxy talk • teh rulz 07:05 6 December 2009 (BST)
Not vandalism - see that whole wall of text below Jack Nicholson? It's all fucking stupid and best ignored for these cases. 19:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Not Vandalism Bring forward a case about Raukens "Promotion" bid? Oh dear. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 19:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
lol this double standard is amusing. he gets off coz he was making a joke yet at the time the cases against me were clear it was clear i didn't believe that the user was black and that i was also joking (regardless of how funny/unfunny you find either mine or bobs 'jokes'). you people are stoopid. xoxo 20:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Then again, you only brought one against cb, and not all the other people making racist jokes. We could easily consider this harassment you know. ;) -- SA 23:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Only brought it against cb because cb has made it so clear he thinks racisms even as jokes are terrible and should not be allowed on admin pages. Cept when he makes them, or anyone but me :) xoxo 06:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- If you wanted to get him in trouble, you should have brought others too. Shame on you for not thinking that out!-- SA 21:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Don wanna get him in trouble just want him to leave me alone :( xoxo 04:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hint: the best way to get me or anyone else to "leave you alone" is to make good edits and steer clear of the drama pages Cyberbob Talk 04:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- oh and learn that there's a difference between your posts and mine: yours are unironically racist, mine wasn't Cyberbob Talk 05:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Don wanna get him in trouble just want him to leave me alone :( xoxo 04:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- If you wanted to get him in trouble, you should have brought others too. Shame on you for not thinking that out!-- SA 21:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Only brought it against cb because cb has made it so clear he thinks racisms even as jokes are terrible and should not be allowed on admin pages. Cept when he makes them, or anyone but me :) xoxo 06:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- nah you were just saying NIGGERZ because NIGGERZ is edgy and therefore "funny". don't forget that one case where you got let off for saying negress either Cyberbob Talk 02:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
User:Imthatguy
Imthatguy (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Verdict | Vandalism |
---|---|
Action taken | Warned |
For breaking signature policy by hiding his link in white coding rendering it invisible on most pages. SA already nicely asked him here (bottom) to change it. His response indicates unwillingness to work along.--
Thadeous Oakley
16:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Changed reason to impersonation - see below. --
Thadeous Oakley
17:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Changed reason to impersonation - see below. --
- Acctually that was just a smart ass remark after doing a bit of code work i now have a new one--
Imthatguy
stole some retards signature 17:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Vandalism for the above post. Warned. -- Cheese 17:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Vandalism For the above comment Specifiacally this [1]. Looks like he's been warned about the sig by SA, and has 7 days to change it as per policy. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 17:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- seven days.....seven days...! --
Thadeous Oakley
17:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- seven days.....seven days...! --
- Vandalism For the above comment Specifiacally this [1]. Looks like he's been warned about the sig by SA, and has 7 days to change it as per policy. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 17:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Vandalism for the above post. Warned. -- Cheese 17:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Srry about that code trouble --Imthatguy
stole some retards signature 17:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Not Vandalism, he changed it when he knew it was against policy. It's an easy enough thing to forget to change the name links. I mean, it's obvious that he tried, just didn't manage to finish it up and didn't know he didn't. We talk with the users BEFORE ruling vandalism.-- SA 12:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Not Vandalism - Same thing happened to liberty, stole somebody's sig and forgot to have the actual link changed. I'm willing to believe that Imthatguy just forgot to change the actual link of the signature. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 02:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Vandalism - sure, he stuffed up by missing some coding. But he was doing it to piss off someone who had just reported him for vandalism (for making an invisible sig). His stealing of that person's code was done to piss the "retard" off... tough luck, he stuffed up, and impersonated them -- boxy talk • teh rulz 12:02 7 December 2009 (BST)
User:Lk7300
Lk7300 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Verdict | Vandalism |
---|---|
Action taken | Perma |
This edit. Since Hagnat and Conndraka can use it as a catch all excuse, I will; breach of the wiki's terms of use. Threats of physical harm are illegal in the UK, where I and the server are, his last sentence clearly fits under this.
As much as I'm amused by internet tough guys posturing behind disposable aliases, our admin team cannot condone the wiki being used for illegal acts can they?
I wonder if my immediate suspect was clever enough to use a proxy...? -- .
. <== DDR Approved Editor 20:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- why am i named here like i would be against banning this vandal, when i banned Scinfaxi for a similar feat ? --People's Commissar Hagnat [talk] [wcdz] 16:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
w8, physical harm? relax, dude, theirs no need 2 take everything ad liberam. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lk7300 (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.
- Checkuser did indeed show up no one of any interest. Lets see, abusing a user, a spam edit and then he knows to check VB to argue his case. Do I think any of his first 3 edits are in any way constuctive? Nope, so Perma--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 20:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm taking bets on how quickly he returns. --
.
. <== DDR Approved Editor 20:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm taking bets on how quickly he returns. --
User:IwillPwnU
IwillPwnU (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Verdict | Not Vandalism |
---|---|
Action taken | {{{2}}} |
This edit. --Haliman - Talk 01:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Checking out the situation. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 01:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- The user actually seems to be the creator of the page. Guess he wants to delete it. --Janus talk 02:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Seeming to be the creator isn't enough for us to do what he wants and have the page deleted. We have no proof that he is and I'm not taking his word for it until he can prove it somehow. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Checkuser? :/ Or it'd be overusing your sysop powers? --Janus talk 02:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Seeming to be the creator isn't enough for us to do what he wants and have the page deleted. We have no proof that he is and I'm not taking his word for it until he can prove it somehow. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
He hasn't replied to my question but I think that's because he hasn't been back to read it. As for the edits, they are rational enough for me to thing that it isn't vandalism, but obviously we will keep them reverted until he can prove that they belong to him. Thoughts? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- The choice of names doesn't fit with someone coming back, in good faith, to get rid of a group that they were actually the legitimate leader of. If you're getting rid of your own group page "for the good of teh wiki", you're not Pwning anyone, you're helping out -- boxy talk • teh rulz 10:54 3 December 2009 (BST)