UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2010 06: Difference between revisions

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 4: Line 4:
</noinclude>
</noinclude>
==[[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2010 06|June 2010]]==
==[[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2010 06|June 2010]]==
===[[User:The_Sandman]]===
{{Verdict}}
{{vndl|User:The_Sandman}}
Can I just add future ones under a previous header? - [[User:Whitehouse]] 16:34, 14 June 2010 (BST)


===[[User:Killer_Kane]]===
===[[User:Killer_Kane]]===

Revision as of 15:34, 14 June 2010


Administration Services

Sysop List (Check) | Guidelines | Policies (Discussion) | Promotions (Bureaucrat) | Re-Evaluations

Deletions (Scheduling) | Speedy Deletions | Undeletions | Vandal Banning (Bots) | Vandal Data (De-Escalations)

Protections (Scheduling) | Move Requests | Arbitration | Misconduct | Demotions | Discussion | Sysop Archives

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.



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.

June 2010

User:The_Sandman

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

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

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

User:Killer_Kane

Verdict Vandalism
Action taken Permaban

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

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

It is. Three edit permaban. The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new 16:22, 14 June 2010 (BST)

User:ThegoodMan

Verdict Vandalism
Action taken Permaban

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

User:The Last Honest Player In Santlerville

Verdict Vandalism
Action taken Permaban

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

User:Suicidalangel

Verdict Vandalism
Action taken Warning + Alt ban

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

Sure. The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new 14:13, 10 June 2010 (BST)
I concur. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 18:54, 10 June 2010 (BST)

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

User:DanceDanceRevolution

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

Verdict Not Vandalism
Action taken Soft Warning

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

It's been 5 years and you still can't submit a proper report. Please provide links next time; the ambiguity of your request makes it seem like I've done something wrong. -- 10:24, 8 June 2010 (BST)

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

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

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

Soft Warning - While DDR is often helpful on this page, he has recently made some unnecessary comments. In particular, the Jorm case was an example of poor judgement. In my opinion, so long as you don't make silly or unnecessary comments on the main page again, there isn't a problem.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 09:40, 8 June 2010 (BST)
Well, what's the go? Should my comment be on the main page or the talk? Because at the moment I have to go to arbitration to get the comment removed, yet I'm getting soft warned for putting it on there and then trying to remove it later. How about the sysops decide, right here right now, whether to keep or remove the comments before voting on whether I should be able to make them. -- 09:55, 8 June 2010 (BST)
Seriously, if it doesn't hurt enough for the Jorm comment to stay on the page, then it shouldn't be warn/soft warnable. Make up your minds, ops. I've failed to talk this sense into Boxy, it'd be nice to see the ops make some sort of decision and stop me niggling at his unresponsive toes. -- 09:55, 8 June 2010 (BST)
I think the comments should be removed, DDR, but after I was asked to step down by Boxy, I did. My mind is made up, so I see no reason why you should be saying that to me. The fact that my revert war with Jorm was for the sole purpose of removing your comment from the page means nothing?--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 10:31, 8 June 2010 (BST)
It's a message for everyone. I won't complain about you "stepping down" to an equal but I understand where you're coming from as a newish op. -- 10:35, 8 June 2010 (BST)
I assumed it was directed largely at me due to indenting. :P --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 10:36, 8 June 2010 (BST)
Oh yes. It was in hope that you would formally accept my push for a vote as to whether that fucking comment should stay on the main page (its putting there of which I am being crucified for) or not. Seeing as you thought at the time it should, I was hoping you would agree to having a simple vote for it, seeing as Boxy is the only one overly concerned with forcing it there simply for Jorm's OCD benefit. -- 10:42, 8 June 2010 (BST)
I see no reason not to have a vote.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 10:50, 8 June 2010 (BST)

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

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

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

10:19, 8 June 2010 (BST)

Make a case for jorm's reverts if you feel that strongly about it. —Aichon— 10:42, 8 June 2010 (BST)
I am almost 600% sure it would be thrown out on Jorm's apparent "rightness" and my "bias" alone. -- 12:03, 8 June 2010 (BST)

Soft Warning. Talk page man. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 09:41, 8 June 2010 (BST)

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

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

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

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

12:03, 8 June 2010 (BST)

Not vandalism - Given that Bance Bance is an experienced user and past sysop, his comments on admin pages are often helpful to the team, there's been times where he's hurried us along with something we've overlooked, and anyone insulting wiki trolls is always welcome. The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new 16:14, 8 June 2010 (BST)

No they are not.... or at least they should not be. DDR has continued to comment here despite no longer being a sysop.... often his comments are useful and just as often they are not. If the talk page is where every other none sysop must post then he should have the decency to follow that (stupid) rule himself. He knows better and he has history for enforcing such on others hence my request for the reminder. TBH this case was as much about reminding him that none sysops can have valid opinions as anything else, particularly important as he is most likely going to be [re]promoted. --Honestmistake 22:35, 8 June 2010 (BST)
No one is required to use the talk page, it's just preferred. There is no rule forcing comments to the talk page, so regardless of whether said rule would be stupid or not, he can't break it if it's not there. You may be confusing an old arbitration that banned one user from front-page admin posting for a blanket rule. Since no one is prohibited from posting here at present, I see no reason why his comments, most of which I find useful, should be warrant enough for an escalation. The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new 22:48, 8 June 2010 (BST)
Plus, if we held those admin notices at the top of the page as law, then we should technically bring a case against you as well, since you didn't contact DDR on his talk page in an effort to sort out this situation first. Those notices are guidelines, and while pushing them too far will get you in trouble eventually, there's a lot of leeway in how they're applied and handled. —Aichon— 00:21, 9 June 2010 (BST)
Too late. I recieved an actual vandal escalation from DDR (and Bob) for commenting on this page a while back so I know for a fact that the rules for posting here are considered "Law" by DDR at least. That said, it was never a rule I agreed with as what one person considers useful and meaningful comment can easily be seen as neither by others. --Honestmistake 09:22, 9 June 2010 (BST)
Whoa whoa whoa hold up. You've just made two mistakes that I thought you might make eventually: 1. trying to relate this in any way to your own escalation for the same thing, and 2. Basically admitting that escalation was your reasoning for your request in this case. Your escalation was worlds away from this, you had displayed horrible, horrible abuse of leniency on a scale much quantitatively larger than what I have done here, and the edit that brought on the case was much, much worse than this, to the point that it literally said "this will be moved but FUCK THE OPS" and that was about it, if I remember right. I'm not trying to say you are a brat, but I just don't think these two cases apply. Having said that, I'm already happy to receive a soft warning for derogatory comments because I think it's a fair thing to do, I just think the comparison between our cases was much larger than should be applied here. -- 12:25, 9 June 2010 (BST)
Moved to Talk page.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 08:54, 11 June 2010 (BST)
Actually DDR, I basically got my escalation for letting Bob bait me into an edit war. I thought then (and think now) that my comments then were both reasonable and pertinent. If you want to check back in the logs you might notice that my original opinion was upheld by the rest of the ops and the thing I was protesting was overturned. My escalation came without any soft warning and was basically meted out because I pissed of Op's rather than actually doing anything wrong. This wasn't motivated by revenge so much as pointing out that you tend to see rules as things that apply to others rather than yourself (and then selectively!) I have no quibble that a lot of your posts here are helpful (or intended to be) Hell I even recognize that you do a lot of good work around thew wiki... I just figured a reminder about these things might be useful before you get re-promoted... --Honestmistake 23:15, 10 June 2010 (BST)

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

I fully accept this, even if coupled with a soft warning. -- 03:22, 9 June 2010 (BST)
OK, consider this a soft warning then, please ensure that any edits you make to the main VB page are helpful in the future -- boxy talk • teh rulz 13:59 10 June 2010 (BST)
Alright. Thanks. -- 06:52, 11 June 2010 (BST)

User:Misanthropy

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

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

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

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

Misanthropy knows I do not meet the criteria and obviously made it to call me out. That is bad faith in the most conservative of definitions. Your love for Misanthropy is borderline obscene, you fucking basement dweller. --Sonny Corleone DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n 06:03, 8 June 2010 (BST)
Actually, precedent on Woot has been set. He DID NOT make 2 bids that did not meet criteria. His first bid here was well within the guidelines. By the time of his second bid here he was not within the guidelines for sysop. So the one time that you did vote vandalism against him was his first time making a bid that was outside of the guidelines. So the first time breaking the rules is a precedent for vandal banning. Misanthropy has made only one rule break in promotions, thus he fits the precedent. Prepare to eat my shit. --Sonny Corleone DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n 06:11, 8 June 2010 (BST)
So wait, you don't actually want to change a thing about the wiki? Your endless spastic flailing at the keyboard seemed to us like an indication that you did. Then again that might require that we assume you can make your own decisions without mummy helping. The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new 06:08, 8 June 2010 (BST)
I don't believe in breaking the rules is necessary to make the wiki better. Thanks for admitting that you think you're above the rules. Also, thanks for admitting you did it IN BAD FAITH. --Sonny Corleone DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n 06:11, 8 June 2010 (BST)
Point out where I did either of those things, I appear to have admitted to wanting to give you the chance to make a difference. The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new 06:16, 8 June 2010 (BST)
"So wait, you don't actually want to change a thing about the wiki? Your endless spastic flailing at the keyboard seemed to us like an indication that you did. Then again that might require that we assume you can make your own decisions without mummy helping." Right there you say you did not seriously expect me to become a sysop because I need my mother to make decisions for me. Making a nomination without taking it seriously is bad faith. Bad faith is vandalism. Smoke a pole. --Sonny Corleone DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n 06:21, 8 June 2010 (BST)
It's okay to need help with big boy things, but I fully expect you to be able to wipe your own ass unaided eventually and I don't want to take the chance away from you, hence my good faith attempt to help you gain what you constantly yearn for. The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new 06:23, 8 June 2010 (BST)
User still does not meet criteria and as per Woot precedent you're guilty. Also, if you think mothers approve of my type of naughty language then I'm sorry for the house you grew up in. Maybe the abusive relationship with your parents is the reason why you're gay. --Sonny Corleone DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n 06:27, 8 June 2010 (BST)
"If a user is highly exemplary in one criterion, a certain level of give may be extended to other criteria." Your obvious hard-on for fixing this wiki is as exemplary as its inherent limitations allow, which I felt would far overcome a simple lack of hard numbers in edit counts, which I fully expected you to catch up on should you have been promoted. Maybe if you could succeed at anything at all in your life, you should start with basic comprehension. It works for the rest of us. The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new 06:31, 8 June 2010 (BST)
As per the Woot precedent he has shown to be highly exemplary in one criterion but was still banned. A precedent is a precedent. I'm sorry that you like to pick and choose what you follow. Maybe if you worked on this you wouldn't be such a complete and utter screw up. --Sonny Corleone DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n 06:35, 8 June 2010 (BST)
Maybe your eyes are too watered up to read but it's already been pointed out to you that this doesn't follow any precedent from woot's cases, and there's been nine examples shown to you to back it up as not vandalism. Nine is still in finger-counting range so you shouldn't have that much trouble getting there. The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new 06:37, 8 June 2010 (BST)
Boring argument filled with untruths is boring. Contrary to what you said, not only is that not his second bid (it was his fourth), he did not meet the criteria on either of those nominations (check his contributions). Also, those were not his first two nominations. In fact, you seem to have forgotten that he had a few others, so I've linked them here for you: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. He wasn't escalated for his first bid, but was rather escalated for his second (which came only a month later), third, and fifth bids, establishing a clear line of precedence. *yawn* —Aichon— 06:37, 8 June 2010 (BST)
As per boxy here he has had only 2 official promotions. This nomination was still in bad faith and should be removed. --Sonny Corleone DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n 06:45, 8 June 2010 (BST)
You know what Izzy did when this exact same thing happened (edit: twice)? He archived it himself. Cause he does stuff on this wiki? Learn to. It's not an ops job to wipe your arse for you, do it yourself. -- 06:50, 8 June 2010 (BST)
Playing dumb isn't going to get you anywhere ("As per boxy", lol...it's an admin archive). Those were the only two not removed as vandal edits. I've already provided links to his other three nominations, or you can check his vandal data if you don't trust my links. You've provided nothing new, and this is the exact same routine you tried last month. Do you have any new material? —Aichon— 06:55, 8 June 2010 (BST)

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

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

User:Jorm

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

Verdict Vandalism
Action taken Warned

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

1, 2 --Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 20:46, 6 June 2010 (BST)

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

Meh. --Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 23:02, 6 June 2010 (BST)

Vandalism. Argh. I used to like that guy. The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new 21:03, 6 June 2010 (BST)

I hear ya. Never met Jorm before, but I had expected something better from the person founding the MOB, Nexuswar and Barhar.com --Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 22:04, 6 June 2010 (BST)
It's BARHAH dot com. BARHAH. "Barhar" is what douchebag harmans say.--Jorm 08:04, 7 June 2010 (BST)
I know this will get moved to talk, but WHAT THE FUCK. This is why roleplaying is dead in this game. All it can take is for one shitbrain to fuck it up the arse and the fun is ruined. Goddamn it. -- 03:10, 7 June 2010 (BST)
The "fun" was ruined once you 'shitbrains' applied fucking rules to it. Also, get the fuck off my IRC server, you douchetard, if you're that upset with me. I don't want you there.--Jorm 08:04, 7 June 2010 (BST)
any further discussion to the talkpage please -- boxy talk • teh rulz 09:20 7 June 2010 (BST)

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

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

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

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

User:My sister

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

Verdict Vandalism
Action taken Permaban

for this edit [1]. --

15:17, 6 June 2010 (BST)

There are no excuses for potty mouths, young man. --My sister 15:20, 6 June 2010 (BST)
Lol. Although I appreciate the originality, I don't think this is nearly worth the effort you would have gone to to do that. -- 15:22, 6 June 2010 (BST)
Looks like they just did a find and replace all, since they were replacing the "ass" in "massive" with "hiney" and things of that sort. —Aichon— 18:48, 6 June 2010 (BST)
But they did find and replace to so many different terms, more than I could have bothered, even the term 'hell' in 'helloooooooooo'. crazy stuff ;D -- 03:12, 7 June 2010 (BST)

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

It's perma time >=D And the case was SA's. -- 16:29, 6 June 2010 (BST)
Does the edit on this page count as part of the three-edit rule? I'm just being careful what with Aichon's A/M case.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 17:07, 6 June 2010 (BST)
Is it constructive? No. Does it show the user knows about vandal banning? Yes. Does that sound like a newbish mistake? No. So Perma the fellow. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 17:10, 6 June 2010 (BST)
Done.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 17:15, 6 June 2010 (BST)

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

User:Lonercs

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

Verdict Vandalism
Action taken Warning

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

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

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

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

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

I believe this would be miscontribution but I'll get banned for bringing it up. --Sonny Corleone DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n 09:58, 6 June 2010 (BST)
I don't think you understand the system. Putting a up cases of misconduct which you actually think are misconduct doesn't warrant vandalism. Do you see the connection? Although I'm hoping you don't, because as it currently stands it seems you've learned your lesson- and then some. Which, of course, is all the better. -- 11:30, 6 June 2010 (BST)

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

User:Poodle of doom

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

Verdict Self requested
Action taken 1 year ban

Keep them rolling fellas. I obviously have no place on this wiki.... -Poodle of DoomM! Fear is only as deep as the mind will allow it be.T 00:47, 2 June 2010 (BST)

Let's make it a perma ban... I could still email someone in the future if I wanted to come back right? -Poodle of DoomM! Fear is only as deep as the mind will allow it be.T 03:25, 2 June 2010 (BST)
Per-ma-nent: intended to exist or function for a long, indefinite period without regard to unforeseeable conditions. Thought I looked it up for you. --Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 19:36, 2 June 2010 (BST)
I'll tell you what, how about a year? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 19:38, 2 June 2010 (BST)

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

Ugh.. I know given my apparent bias and blind hatred towards this user you might think I'm trying to be as harsh as possible (sarcasm btw), but he requested a perma specifically and I recon that's what should happen. He as a user is in control of his own account's bantime and he's exercising that right (unlike last time where I think a week ban was a good idea box) but I really think it should be what he wants now. It feels like we're just screwing him around now. -- 09:04, 3 June 2010 (BST)

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

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

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

User:CRAIGBOUNCE

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

Verdict Vandalism
Action taken Warning

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

He's reverting. --Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 16:38, 1 June 2010 (BST)
I gots my eye on him. -- Cheese 16:39, 1 June 2010 (BST)

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

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

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

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

Anyone else want to rule on this? Anyone? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 10:08, 11 June 2010 (BST)
Vandalism - deserves a warning, and consideration of page protection. Is this radio spammer still active? -- boxy talk • teh rulz 11:06 11 June 2010 (BST)
Not. a. clue. People seem to still sign the petition though. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 11:29, 11 June 2010 (BST)

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

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2010_06&oldid=1727200"