UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2011 05

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.

• 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)

  Damn I legit missed these, thanks. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:13, 21 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)

May 2011

Edit war participants

User:Codeist

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

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None

For the edit that caused this edit war. --Fjorn 02:39, 31 May 2011 (BST)

Commenting on this one, but it applies to everything between this and the last case above Ryu's. Edit wars are not covered by A/VB. They're resolved through A/A, and A/VB is only used if a previous ruling on A/A has been breached during an edit war. These cases are needless, stupid, and should be outright dismissed by whichever passing op gets here first. Please consult the rubric as to what falls under this section's jurisdiction and use A/A if this issue is still not resolved. 03:13, 31 May 2011 (BST)

If edit warring actually belongs in A/A, and not A/VB, I am sorry, it is a mistake on my part. The only reason I brought them up at all was because one of the charges The General levied against Ryu was this same edit war, and I felt it was ridiculously negligent, if not actual bias, to report one person for it and ignore the rest. --Fjorn 03:25, 31 May 2011 (BST)

Ryu was blanking other users' pages as well, which is what the case against him concerned. Disputes over content when the matter isn't a simple case of right and wrong (ie, not like Ryu removing content from a page controlled by another user who didn't want it removed, for instance) belong on A/A, where a neutral user will mediate a compromise. If that compromise is broken, then here is the place to bring it. 03:34, 31 May 2011 (BST)

not vandalism atm, as Misanthropy eloquently explained edit wars like this are dealt with on A/A. same for the below clone cases as well -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 04:29, 31 May 2011 (BST)

not vandalism -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 06:36, 31 May 2011 (BST)

Also, why are we keeping the dumb version of that suburb group page after that edit war? Clearly the DHPD should be able to add itself to a suburb list, and if the Dead dispute that edit, they should be going about to arbitration not the other way around. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 06:43, 31 May 2011 (BST)

I'm not sure. I think Karek missed what was technically the contested edit, the dif before the contested edit is actually vapor's one where he adds the "other" category to the template. I have put it back to Vapors version for now since it seems pretty straightforward. Oh, and regarding my edit, I accidentally said Spiderzed's dif not Vapor. Always getting those two guys confused :| -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 06:57, 31 May 2011 (BST)

I was always under the impression that it's up to the sysops judgement to decide which edit stays on during protecting of an edit war page. In this case the General acted first. Makes more sense to me, but I can already see a page long discussion forthcoming on what exactly the "contested edit" is. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 07:02, 31 May 2011 (BST)

Nope, we don't get more say, we just stop the fight. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 07:43, 31 May 2011 (BST)

As karek, we have no authority over which edit is more suiting, that's for A/A or up to the disputed parties -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 08:06, 31 May 2011 (BST)

Nope, you can't honestly claim an edit left untouched for almost a whole month is contested and an edit that caused an edit war the same day it happened was the consensus diff. Not to mention that on the dunnell hills page the DHPD actually agreed to the removal in the first place. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 07:43, 31 May 2011 (BST)

Hmm. While there is literally no way IMO you could say that it isn't the contested edit since it was the edit that was eventually contested before all else, if the DHPD agreed to the edit in the first place I see where you're coming from. However, it's still the contested edit so someone's who presumably works with the DHPD is unhappy with the edit even if the leader (or whoever agreed with the edit) was fine with it. Given our stances I'd just prefer if another op come and evaluate our positions though and just act on which one is technically the contested edit. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 08:06, 31 May 2011 (BST)

Uhm, the guy in the link is the dhpd's wiki liason. If they say they aren't there they aren't there. It also makes the original removal even more obviously uncontested.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 08:15, 31 May 2011 (BST)

You do realise that's the problem, right? You're acting on knowledge that should be later used to A/A. Here it's the one issue: What was the first contested edit? One edit was contested first, regardless of how long it ended up there, hence it was the first contested edit. If you know someone in any authority to say so thinks otherwise then that's all well and good but it doesn't make the first edit any more contested and the knowledge known is to be said at A/A or dealt with with the involved parties. I however couldn't really care less anymore if you really want that edit to stand then let it stand, shit's gonna hit the fan either way. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 08:43, 31 May 2011 (BST)

I did not say we aren't there, a small group of officers are there. We just do not consider being listed on the page worth the time and effort that would be involved in an arbitration case against The Dead's bully boy tactics. That isn't the same thing. This wiki is not a safe space for anyone who disagrees with The Dead's view of the truth and it's not an important enough place to fight for. Purple Cat ~ DHPD 20:51, 31 May 2011 (BST)

The DHPD did not agree to the edit. We simply did not revert it. That is not the same thing. Purple Cat ~ DHPD 20:51, 31 May 2011 (BST)

Doesn't make it any more contested apparently -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 23:46, 31 May 2011 (BST)

Actually that attempt at irony(I assume) is exactly right. The DHPD agreed to leave the edit because they didn't view it as an issue worth fighting over for a fourth year. For all intents and purposes that argument was over by concesion of the DHPD regarding the edit whether or not they liked the edit. The edit thatg caused this current edit war was the readdition of the DHPD to the template, not the removal a month prior. As such THAT is obviously the edit that has to prove itself. That being said should anyone want to arbitrate it I woulf gladly do so, I've been paying attention to this conflict pretty much since the get go, this isn't an issue of whether or not the DHPD are or are not actually in the suburb(the reversion that is), that's to be determined in A/A along with whether or not the DHPD has a right to be listed as active there. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 03:10, 1 June 2011 (BST)

Relevant Link--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 07:54, 31 May 2011 (BST)

Just wanted to clarify my actions here: normal policy is to leave the page untouched and just protect it in its current state; we do not pick sides. The reason that I did the revert in this case was because I believed the edit war was over the placement of the DHPD as a "zombie group", which was unequivocably wrong, and so I considered the "concensus diff" to be the one listing them as a survivor group.. If I had seen that the original dispute was about their mere presence then I would have chosen a different state.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 08:30, 31 May 2011 (BST)

I thought the policy was to revert the page to its state prior to the edit war before protecting it, in which case it should have been this edit by Underisk on May 8th, which was acknowledged but not contested by Purple Cat at the time. Oh, and Not Vandalism. Editors in conflict should seek to resolve disputes through other means (preferably through a discussion page or A/A in irresolvable cases). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vapor (talk • contribs) 13:46, May 31, 2011.

With PurpleCats comment on the talk page, this is basically resolved, and the group listing can be removed. Surely? --Rosslessness 09:05, 31 May 2011 (BST)

it is. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 17:31, 31 May 2011 (BST)

User:Sykic

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

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None

For participating in this edit war. --Fjorn 02:39, 31 May 2011 (BST)

User:Rosslessness

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

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None

For participating in this edit war. --Fjorn 02:39, 31 May 2011 (BST)

User:Vasari

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

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None

For participating in this edit war. --Fjorn 02:39, 31 May 2011 (BST)

User:SprCobra

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

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None

For participating in this edit war. --Fjorn 02:39, 31 May 2011 (BST)

User:Michaleson

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

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None

For participating in this edit war. --Fjorn 02:39, 31 May 2011 (BST)

User:Laughing Man

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

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None

For participating in this edit war. --Fjorn 02:39, 31 May 2011 (BST)

User:Ryu (2)

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

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	2nd Warning

Repeated page blanking and edit warring.. I've put a temp 2 hour block on the account.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 00:49, 31 May 2011 (BST)

vandalism --Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 00:49, 31 May 2011 (BST)

Inb4 revenant saying: "It's a newb mistake".--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 00:50, 31 May 2011 (BST)

I believe Revenant was against users whose sole edits were talking about raping women and other horribad jokes. Don't worry Yonnua, you will get it soon just keep reading the first sentence. -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 01:15, 31 May 2011 (BST)

Things you need to deal with.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 01:27, 31 May 2011 (BST)

-- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 01:40, 31 May 2011 (BST)

vandalism -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 04:26, 31 May 2011 (BST)

vandalism and warned. ~ _{14:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)}

User:Laughing_Man

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

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None

for this edit, clearly made in bad faith to directly attack a user.--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 21:16, 28 May 2011 (BST)

As the user at who this attack was directed I'll let you know that I'm not bothered at all and would push for "not vandalism" ruling by the other sysops. Flaming isn't vandalism. I realize this case is just a parody attempt at the case below. Please don't throw oil at the fire Michaleson, I know you mean no real harm, but this isn't helping.-- Thadeous Oakley Talk 21:24, 28 May 2011 (BST)

--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 21:31, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Not vandalism Trolling isn't vandalism. Its what the wiki is for. *Cocks beer, eats shotgun --Rosslessness 21:30, 28 May 2011 (BST)

I preffer to drink mine--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 21:32, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Although I look forward to Rev's ruling as Laughing Man is easily one of the users who's flaming vastly outweighs his constructive edits, if he has any. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 21:34, 28 May 2011 (BST)

I'm sure there's a few from way back when, but let's face it the wiki is a horrible place filled with horrible people and as such deserves whatever horrible shit happens to it, including a jackass like me and an 82nd trimester abortion like you. And seeing as the previous case has pretty much already decided this one and ruling any different way than you did there would reveal your massive hypocritical bias I doubt anyone needs to weigh in on anything except how much horse EzekielUK fellates. Hint: all of it. --||||||||||||||||||||||||| 21:51, 28 May 2011 (BST)

I have to rule the same as I did below? Damn it, I wanted to rule not vandalism, but since I technically didn't rule on the below case, I guess I can't. ;) --Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 00:09, 29 May 2011 (BST)

Not vandalism - If there's one thing you should have learned from this drama shitfest it's that flaming ≠ vandalism. Making petty cases in the future could land you a case yourself, michaelson. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:25, 29 May 2011 (BST)

I'll have you know, I did put thought in wheter i was going to make the case--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 12:51, 29 May 2011 (BST)

Well IMO you made the wrong choice. Up to you whether you consider that food for thought. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 13:24, 29 May 2011 (BST)

If you feel it's petty case, its no big deal. I know when to stop--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 13:27, 29 May 2011 (BST)

Not vandalism. Flaming is tolerated. At worst we could claim admin page spam as per Cornholioo precedent, but to go there it would need to get massively out of hand. -- Spiderzed█ 15:16, 29 May 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism. Case Closed. ~ _{15:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)}

User:AinSynagoga

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

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	Ban Rescinded

Sole contributions consist of flaming on Talk:The Dead 2.0. Smells like a sock; CheckUser came up blank, but IP appears to be dynamic, so could easily be hiding. http://www.blacklistalert.org/ lists it on RATS-Dyna:

“	RATS-Dyna is a collection of IP Addresses that have been found sending an abusive amount of connections, or trying too many invalid users at ISP and Telco's mail servers, and are also known to conform to a naming convention that is indicative of a home connection or dynamic address space.	”
—Spam Rats! - RATS-Dyna

Last I checked we don't consider pure flaming to be “constructive”, although it is apparently tolerated by established users. 3ER? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:05, 27 May 2011 (BST)

I can't recall if Flaming is enough for 3ER (iirc they normally have to be more serious, because 3ER is about stopping potential vandal sprees from non-helpful users). I certainly wouldn't count these edits as constructive if they also did vandal edits, but I don't know if it's enough for a 3edit ruling.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 22:16, 27 May 2011 (BST)

Unfortunately since we aren't moderators we can't rule this as vandalism as stupid as it is. That being said what we can do is ban the IP if it resolves to a known proxy or external server. The being said it does neither. It was a former Dictionary Attacker address 3 years back and currently has more than likely been reassigned. Odds are it's been reassigned and is still flagged from that previous holder. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 22:34, 27 May 2011 (BST)

Uh, we totally can. I quote:

“	3. The user has made at least 3 (three) edits, at least one of which is deemed vandalism, and none of which are deemed to be constructive or to the benefit of the majority of the wiki. 4. A report has been filed through UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning, and the user doesn't match any of the previous instances shown above. In this instance, a system operator is specifically given the ability to warn/ban the user before a report is made on UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning, as long as the report is placed on that page shortly thereafter by the system operator or someone else. Furthermore, system operators are specifically given the ability to both report and warn/ban a user.	”
—When a User May be Warned or Banned

ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:38, 27 May 2011 (BST)

The point is though that none of the edits are actually vandalism.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 22:40, 27 May 2011 (BST)

Oh, really? Emphasis mine:

“	System operators may only warn or ban users who consistently vandalize the wiki. Vandalism is by definition an edit not made in a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki, and includes any actions which are defined to be vandalism by approved polices. Many examples of this can be found on UDWiki:Vandalism. Additionally, some pages may have specific rules as to their usage, and consistent and flagrant disregard for those rules may also be considered vandalism.	”
—What is Considered Vandalism

I find these edits not to be made in good faith, as they consist of pure flaming and do not contribute to productive discourse, and deem them Vandalism. Anyone seriously care to claim that these are constructive? If so, there is a bridge in Sydney I would like to sell you. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:58, 27 May 2011 (BST)

Uhm Revenant, we can't due to the community intentionally failing policy to allow it every single time it's come up. The vote against a civility policy is the vote for the absence of one. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 23:15, 27 May 2011 (BST)

Sure, which is why you don't see me making cases against users who have a history of constructive edits. This account does not. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:52, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Oh, really? Emphasis mine: "System operators may only warn or ban users who consistently vandalize the wiki. Vandalism is by definition an edit not made in a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki, and includes any actions which are defined to be vandalism by approved polices. Many examples of this can be found on UDWiki:Vandalism. Additionally, some pages may have specific rules as to their usage, and consistent and flagrant disregard for those rules may also be considered vandalism."What is Considered Vandalism --Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 00:04, 28 May 2011 (BST)

That clause just exists so we can e.g. ban someone for breaching signature policies. It's secondary to the primary definition, which I quoted above. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:52, 28 May 2011 (BST)

I've actually been tracking this user but currently have yet to find any solid evidence linking them as a sockpuppet; if anyone has any evidence that it's a proxy then feel free to ban the IP. I'll make a proper ruling in the morning when I feel I'm in a fit state to make a proper judgement call.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 23:02, 27 May 2011 (BST)

Already addressed this above, we don't have anything reliably definitive about the IP address that warrants the assumption that it's not a normal user. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 23:15, 27 May 2011 (BST)

Since I have been the only sysop to rule so far, I am using my discretion and blocking this account for 24 hours while we sort this out. As always, feel free to Misconduct me if you feel it necessary, but please note that per the letter of the rules I can block this account indefinitely. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:56, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism. What block accounts created just for flaming? Block half the dead what? Seriously though, flaming isn't vandalism unless it comes under the bracket of long term harassment or if it's part of a breach of arbitration ruling that is meant to separate two users. Rulings are atm in favour of not vandalism, unblocking. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:13, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Also worth noting that although one or two ops may have gotten away with it on the misconduct stand, suspicion alone does not justify reasoning for banning as sockpuppets, especially if the only evidence is doing anything to prove otherwise. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:19, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Aye, no evidence to support being a sock, which was why I didn't mark it as such. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 02:36, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Please explain to me how any of this account's contributions can be considered constructive? 3ER applies. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 02:36, 28 May 2011 (BST)

3ER only applies when there is unequivocal vandalism afoot. Flaming is not vandalism. 02:42, 28 May 2011 (BST)

“	Vandalism is by definition an edit not made in a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki	”
—What is Considered Vandalism

Holy Jegusfuck, do you guys even read? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 02:51, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Yes Rev, I do read. I read prior cases of flaming being directly ruled as not vandalism time and again, and I read other ops in this case declaring that 3ER does not apply. By the letter of that line you've quoted, every peacocking userpage edit is vandalism too, so stop trotting it out as gospel and just admit you jumped the gun on this one. 02:54, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Per rules of the wiki, it is not vandalism for established users because they have constructive edits. That does not apply in this case. CNR again, I see. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:01, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Are you intentionally mangling what I said? Your single, misapplied quote says "an edit". I'm not talking about 3ER, I'm saying any single edit which does not explicitly improve the wiki or act in a manner which can be construed as doing so, is vandalism under the letter of your new mantra. If you want to apply it as literally as you're doing here, then apply it across the board, instead of breaking protocol and going against accumulated experience on one solitary case. Remember when I called Sonny a cunt? That wasn't constructive, VB me. Remember when DDR accused Aichon of bumming his girlfriend? Not constructive. Vandalism. GET REAL. 03:13, 28 May 2011 (BST)

What? Oh no, when you pull that one sentence out of context (like you do so often), it says "by definition an edit not made in good-faith attempt" which means a single edit which is not made to help improve the wiki is vandalism by your logic. Go on, start with the cases. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:06, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Last I checked, we have near-infinite discretion as to what cases to bring to A/VB, and your wealth of constructive contributions means that flaming, et cetera, is tolerated so long as it doesn't get in the way of what this wiki is for; that being, to document facts about the game. (See also: Avoid submitting reports which are petty.) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:22, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Creating/maintaining a userpage is by definition constructive, unless it's vandalism for other reasons. Thanks for playing. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:03, 28 May 2011 (BST)

I think another way to think about what Rev is getting at is "If this user made all their posts outside of the talk page, would it be given the protections it's given now?" or "If the user made similar content in an article, would they still be considered legitimate?" A user that logs and posts only to troll is arguably as much of a contributor as someone that logs in, and posts a just as many troll pages. The only difference is the space it takes up on the wiki.--Deadman Walken 03:20, 28 May 2011 (BST)

But whether they are or aren't treated the same would be indicative of whether the offence is the same, which it probably wouldn't be, hence the comparison is similarly unusable. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:25, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Delineation of offenses aside, we still have a user that exists solely to post unconstructive content. One would think that that itself would be grounds for action, especially in the absence of other activity, as we've seen. Say, if spambots were to insert text into talk pages themselves rather than create new ones, you would ban those too, right? How is this so different?--Deadman Walken 03:38, 28 May 2011 (BST)

You... are you serious? Inserting spam links is vandalism. Flaming is not vandalism. If you can't handle flaming, then take it to A/A. That's how it's dealt with. On a more petty note, if we banned users because their first 6 contribs were flaming most of the dead would be gone bro. Seriously, I am really not understanding how those on Rev's side can not be seeing the irony here, particularly with the "deal with it" phrase so popular right now. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 07:06, 28 May 2011 (BST)

I see no need to be condescending, "bro." I'm certainly glad you're in charge, since you can't seem to tell the difference between a goon and someone that has better interests at heart. You want flaming? It's humorless, dull shits like you that got me banned on my first post, and it's humorless, witless, "Live by the literal law" shits like that you that curtail intelligent discussion about topics that might warrant it. I'm glad you think I'm a goon or something. Should I admit to being a communist as well? I'm Asian, I'm sure you have an internment camp for me somewhere in the Arizona desert.

Having finished that, here's my point. Trolling may not be "vandalism" by your conventions, but it certainly holds true to the idea of destructive intent. I hold that a user that spams links, thereby disrupting communication and inconveniencing the userbase, is no better than one that registers simply to harasses users, which disrupts communication and inconveniences the userbase. So how about getting off your high horse "bro," and giving the idea a little thought rather than feigning incredulity, and calling me a bro, "Bro?"--Deadman Walken 12:49, 28 May 2011 (BST)

It seems I offended you by calling you bro. You might want to take appropriate action by informing Revenant so he can make a case against me and ban me for 24 hours while things are "sorted out". For the record, I am more than happy to think about those things, but they aren't done here. That's best done via a rule change at A/PD, where I will happily discuss the ins and outs of a potential way to deal with flamers etc. But the thing is, at this moment, there is no rule against users who flame, particularly those who have had 6 edits on this wiki, and until there is a rule in place to sanction such action, my job is to fulfil what action is to be relevantly taken now. As for the asian quip, I'm 1/32nd asian too so I guess we are almost bros. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 12:58, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Then you should have said that in the first place. And it's just not about you calling me "bro." It's about you being condescending and lumping me in with goons, while expressing fake incredulity just because you don't agree with me. Be sure you know who is and who isn't your enemy, DDR. Whatever bitterness and resentment you have for goons and rev on this matter isn't my business, nor should you take it out on me. For all your showmanship about being unbiased in matters wiki, you certainly seem to be unable to keep your preconceptions aimed only at the people involved.--Deadman Walken 13:10, 28 May 2011 (BST)

While I admit I had an (incorrect) inkling that you were, I don't think that should make any difference, nor did I "take anything out" on you. I've been saying this on two different pages three times each, my message is the same no matter who it is to. And I wasn't trying to be condescending if it means anything. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 13:32, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Bit of info I would like to add, if this is the right place- "AinSynogoga" is the name of a member of my group, the Anti-Zombie Squad. If this flamer really is him, I can confirm that his IP is static on our forums. Please punish him however you see fit. --Penguinpyro 06:23, 28 May 2011 (BST)

more responses on talk page -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:11, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism Basically as everyone else, 'cept Rev of course. Flaming has never been grounds for 3ER, for pretty good reasons. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 07:09, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Not vandalism Trolling isn't vandalism. Its what the wiki is for. *Cocks beer, eats shotgun. --Rosslessness 09:46, 28 May 2011 (BST)

I've actually been considering this case for a while: On the one hand, trolling != vansalism by many years of precedent. On the other hand, this account has made absolutely no constructive edits and the rules do give us the power to declare an edit bad faith even if it is not specifically prohibited in the guidelines. In the end, I am going to come down on the side of precedent for the moment and rule not vandalism. Give it a week or two; if the account still has not made any constructive edits then I'll probably take a different view.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 12:24, 29 May 2011 (BST)

Not vandalism. Flame on, crazy diamond. -- Spiderzed█ 15:18, 29 May 2011 (BST)

A note to other sysops: It's probably worth checking that ip again; I don't think it actually changes anything on this case, but it might be worth keeping an eye on.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 15:35, 29 May 2011 (BST)

I can confirm he's using an alt now. Not that it changes anything. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 21:40, 29 May 2011 (BST)

You mean this alt? Does this count as vandalism?--Penguinpyro 21:47, 29 May 2011 (BST)

No. Whilst it's part of a petty attack group, it's still justified. Groups can be disambiguated by other users freely if the case seems relevant, which it is. 21:50, 29 May 2011 (BST)

We cannot technically reveal any information gained from checkuser unless they are a confirmed vandal or the user themselves has revealed the information.

No, alts aren't vandalism unless they're used to subvert votes, bypass bans or otherwise break the wiki rules. The edit itself is also not vandalism.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 22:04, 29 May 2011 (BST)

^^^, what they said. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:16, 29 May 2011 (BST)

DerpDerp

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

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None

Multiple violations of the policy prohibiting content outside of the normal page area.

“	No user may modify any page in such a way that it would modify the appearance or functionality of the user interface of the wiki contained outside of the normal page area. The normal page area is the region in which content (comprised of only plain text) would appear when entered via the "edit" link on the same page. Some of the current modifications that this policy would prohibit include: "[user] is watching"-style floating messages. Fake system messages, placed to the right of page titles. Alterations of a page's displayed title (except in instances such as those outlined below). The exceptions to this policy would be: Any page that can be shown to have a clear need to violate the policy. In the case of custom page titles, page titles that serve a constructive purpose, so long as the custom titles are clearly in good faith and do not violate other policies. Examples would be extremely long titles being shortened, or users choosing to display names different than their user names (disallowing impersonation, or titles significantly unrelated to their user names, unless the unrelated titles are established as being synonymous with said users)..	”
—the policy prohibiting content outside of the normal page area

So, here we are:

1. His user page uses the custom title "VAPOR", which does not, IMHO, count as being being related or "synonymous with said users".
2. The images on his talk page appears outside of the normal page area and impairs the functionality of a talk page (i.e. the ability to leave and read messages).

Let the flames begin.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 17:56, 27 May 2011 (BST)

First, titling himself "Vapor" may be grounds for impersonation. Second, about the content outside the normal space area. This is not allowed per policy, however we normally contact users through their talk pages about this, has this been done?-- Thadeous Oakley Talk 18:06, 27 May 2011 (BST)

So when the real Thadeous Oakley shows up you'll be changing your sig, right? Because I'd hate to think a fine upstanding WIKI LAW follower such as yourself would ever be guilty of impersonating someone. And color me surprised that this shows up without even taking up the issue with the person first and giving them a chance to fix it. A true sysop in action. --||||||||||||||||||||||||| 18:17, 27 May 2011 (BST)

Plenty of exceptions have been made for this 'rule' (I being one of them), and since the policy also explicitly mentions that exceptions can be made within reason, you should have contacted the user first before bringing this (you should always contact the user first over something passive that's simply a possible breach of policy but whatever). I'd also rule out impersonation because it's clear from the page that the title is a holdover from lifting Vapor's page code. It doesn't seem malicious in any way, as the mass of other content clearly stops users confusing it for Vapor's actual page. 18:25, 27 May 2011 (BST)

There is no other "Thadeous Oakley", and even if there were, I took this name first. Simples. Also, if you are capable of reading, I actually do think this should have been asked to fix it before bringing it here. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 18:27, 27 May 2011 (BST)

The name "Thadeous Oakley" probably counts as being synonymous with Mistergame by now.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 18:30, 27 May 2011 (BST)

It is, not to mention this-- Thadeous Oakley Talk 19:10, 27 May 2011 (BST)

So basically fuck the real one because you have a stupid user name and want to replace it with a different stupid user name? Also, if you are capable of reading, you would realize that the second part of my post was referring to the person who created this ridiculous action and not you. RIF --||||||||||||||||||||||||| 21:24, 27 May 2011 (BST)

I notified him of the case. The reason I didn't contact him first before posting this case was 1) Because I didn't expect a particularly helpful response and 2) Because the talk page is almost unusable. Just to clarify, also: I'm not actually looking for a warning out of this, I'm merely looking for an official ruling that he needs to change it.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 18:30, 27 May 2011 (BST)

We need to treat people equally, give him a chance like you would with anyone else even if it's likely you'll get the standard goon response. The talk page is still usable, it takes one second to click the "+" button. And if you aren't looking for a warning you should not have brought it here me thinks. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 18:34, 27 May 2011 (BST)

You can't click any of the links where that image shows up, since the image, even when transparent, is covering them up. —Aichon— 18:48, 27 May 2011 (BST)

Thought this through. Not Vandalism for now. There is no need for flaming here. Just give him a chance to fix it. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 18:30, 27 May 2011 (BST)

Vandalism for the stupid talk page images alone. -- Cheese 18:33, 27 May 2011 (BST)

didn't take long for the general to start bringing up totally bullshit cases. as always some things never change.--User:Sexualharrison18:53, 27 May 2011 (bst)

For the record, I didn't really care that he has been using code from my user page or that the custom title and category remained when he swiped the code (I noticed it a while back after checking Category:Vapor). The content outside of the normal page area is against a policy, though. Again I don't particularly care but officially it is Vandalism. ~ _{19:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)}

Hey, dude, remove the outside of the page area content on your talk page. kthxbye.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 22:13, 27 May 2011 (BST)

Yeah, no. Not Vandalism you already fixed it so why are you reporting it? Please do not submit reports which may be petty, try talking to the user first, I see you managed to figure out how to work his unworkable talk page. ---Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 22:41, 27 May 2011 (BST)

I made those edits after I posted the case and notice that he'd given other users permission to edit his user page. I made the talk page edit using the "+" button, reading the talk page is still slightly painful (the wikicode will rapidly become convoluted with the goonsig template if there's an actual discussion happening.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 23:09, 27 May 2011 (BST)

So change the Position:Absolute in the span tag to Position:Relative and explain why you were doing it and leave it at that. We don't give users escalations for simply not being aware of policy violations, they have to be intentional and malicious. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 23:18, 27 May 2011 (BST)

You (and all users!) are empowered to fix shit like this. It's only vandalism if he puts it back after being told not to do it. Not Vandalism. (Please avoid submitting reports which are petty.) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 02:02, 28 May 2011 (BST)

In the case below a user was brought up for a single edit and you immediately ruled vandalism and only notified the user when he did it again. Consistency, much?

However, having said that, I admit that this case was made on the presumption that, being a goon, he wouldn't to have a reasonable discussion: That assumption was not in the spirit of a wiki. My apologies.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 08:28, 28 May 2011 (BST)

To be fair this wasn't altering another users signature simply because you don't like them/it. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 10:42, 28 May 2011 (BST)

As long you learned from this it's all good an' fair. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 11:56, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 08:33, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Case closed as Not Vandalism. Should the user in question be unwilling to comply with wiki-law though (like reverting your fixes), feel free to bring him back here in a week orso. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 11:56, 28 May 2011 (BST)

I fought the WIKI LAW and... the law I won!
Just for the record, don't assume that someone isn't going to give you 'a particularly helpful response' regarding something that someone else put on their userpage just because that person is a goon.
Furthermore,
"The best part of that retarded report is basically everybody jumping down his throat because they all KNEW he didn't even bother trying to talk to you about it"
<3<3<3 you guys.
Sincerely, --ебут этом гомосексуальные земля́, ebut ėtom gomoseksual'nye zemlя́ ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||_{Retarded things go here -->} 2 3 4 User:MisterGame 03:05, 30 May 2011 (BST)

Lord_K

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

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Replaced the sig of beauty with plain text. Given the user, it's more than likely due to sheer stupidity. On the other hand the user's history shows he knows how to wikify things and thus should not be making such retarded mistakes so clearly it was done with malicious intent. --||||||||||||||||||||||||| 04:22, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Altering another user's signed post = impersonation = Vandalism.
You can alter signatures to be plain links on your own talk page, but you can't do it on others' pages. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:44, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Did it again. Warning user on his talk page. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 05:35, 24 May 2011 (BST)

I'm unimpressed. Tell the fools to make a template if they insist on using interchangeable and unintelligible shit as their sigs. --Lord K 05:42, 24 May 2011 (BST)

I too am unimpressed. Does this guy not approve of certain sigs, so he changes them around as he sees fit? Can I do that too?--ебут этом гомосексуальные земля́, ebut ėtom gomoseksual'nye zemlя́ ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||_{Retarded things go here -->} 2 3 4 User:MisterGame 05:55, 24 May 2011 (BST)

It is a template, but there were concerns about using it as such. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 05:58, 24 May 2011 (BST)

While templateing it would save clutter, it would also very likely break pages - a lot of transclusions of large templates tend to do that, as often enough seen on A/VB, large talk page archives and other pages where a lot of signature templates (of modest size) are transcluded. (And trust me, if I was sole tyrannical overlord of the wiki, this mongtarded aberration of wiki-coding wouldn't be allowed to exist, whether as substing or as transclusion.) Thanks for your concerns, but please let other users sigs be, or ask at least before you apply changes. (Unless it are trivial and obvious errors like unclosed tags.) -- Spiderzed█ 06:14, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism I can perfectly imagine why someone would try to fix these obnoxious signatures, but they meet policy, and we don't just change signatures on the whim. This isn't impersonation, but this is an invalid attempt at changing another person's sig. So don't do this again please. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 07:08, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Nice to see an impartial sysop making a WIKI LAW ruling. -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 09:57, 24 May 2011 (BST)

To clarify, this case is right, but I'd still go with a soft warning-- Thadeous Oakley Talk 10:47, 24 May 2011 (BST)

While I can certainly see why he would object to a signature which is 20 lines long, it is allowed under policy and editing other users signatures isn't. Therefore, technically vandalism.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 12:22, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Vandalism - His comment on this case was all the intent I need. Don't do it again, and it'll become a completely irrelevant bit of history.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 15:55, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Vandalsim and warned. ~ _{16:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)}

Grim_s

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

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None

I am reporting myself in accordance with the policies of the wiki. Specifically the Signature policy, more precisely: "The handle portion of your signature must link to your user page or one of its subpages so that it is easy for readers to learn more about the person behind the signature.". The spirit of the rule is to allow people to learn more about me, but with my user page deleted, that is impossible. There is no functional difference between my dead link and no link. I hereby turn myself in for violating the spirit of the rules. --The Grimch 02:25, 23 May 2011 (BST)

I can learn from you by hitting 'user contributions' in your user page, therefore your link is still in compliance with the sign policy --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 02:41, 23 May 2011 (BST)

And were your sign in violation of the sign policy, so would all the other red signers... you dont want us warning more than half the users in this wiki, do you ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 02:42, 23 May 2011 (BST)

Wow. I never considered that. However the required link says user page, not user contributions, and you cannot expect a new user, which is the only kind of person unlikely to know about someone, to look up a users contributions, almost all of which will be minor edits. If it really is that big a problem, propose a policy to amend it and deal with it that way. --The Grimch 06:33, 23 May 2011 (BST)

There is no need for a policy to deal with something that is not an issue beyond being one in your head --hagnat 12:31, 23 May 2011 (BST)

And in an unrelated note, linking to your user page provides anyone with a link to your user talk page, which is another way users can know about you... or get in touch with you --hagnat 12:42, 23 May 2011 (BST)

Vandalism for shitting up admin pages with fasicious cases. Now shoo, you know better. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 02:50, 23 May 2011 (BST)

Vandalism as Karek. Just because your original attempt at creating drama didn't work... -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:36, 23 May 2011 (BST)

I wasn't aware that allegedly "shitting up admin pages" was worth an automatic warn and vandalism these days. Else MisterGames case against Revenant should have been thrown out and treated in exactly the same way, as should countless other petty cases brought here by the "in crowd". Just saying (Wasn't it always a soft warn once or twice, then a "fuck off"? That is the entire reason I created the concept of soft warnings back when I was around regularly). Can you rule on the merits of the case, rather than based on your own obvious bias against me?
Also, if I wanted to cause drama, I would demand that all 9127 edits I have made to date be removed under the copyright policy before you can patch that up (Number gathered from my preferences page). My purpose here is to demonstrate the silliness of the rules and force people to think about them and, possibly, act to amend them, since I do not actually have much time to spend here. I figured I would be an ideal test case since I had my page deleted a ways back, and that way I didn't fuck anyone else over right away. It is also interesting to note that neither Karek nor DDR have challenged my interpretation of the rule, just called me names and said I was shitting the page up. This is not what I was attempting to do. --The Grimch 06:33, 23 May 2011 (BST)

Because copyright demands have always been honoured in the past! And yes, you're doing this because of a failed agenda and the action itself is failing and not doing anything to change the status quo. Congrats! -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 07:33, 23 May 2011 (BST)

I don't recall calling anyone names. But, as for your point in the case description. You don't have one, you're allowed to not have a user page. Your non-userpage still provides users with access to information about you but, you already know that. Just like you know that I don't softwarn for self reported cases, you want an escalation so I offer one. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 09:54, 23 May 2011 (BST)

Uhhh ~ _{03:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)}

Not Vandalism. This case is, however, POINT-ful, and people have been warned for submitting VB cases against themselves before. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 07:02, 23 May 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism. But don't make dumb cases like these please, just to make a shitty point. As above too, although I'll play nice; consider this your soft warning from me. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 07:10, 23 May 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism for this case, but if soembody submits a case for shitting up admin pages, that would be. You know full well that sig policy means you need to warn the user a week beforehand, and only after then make the case. Funnily enough, I see no message on your talk page asking you to change your sig. If you make such a message, then come back in a week, I will happily vote vandalism against this "Grim s" character. Oh, and if you're worried about newbies not understanding enough about you, maybe you should turn your sig in to a MASSIVE link to your coup. --Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 09:01, 23 May 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism - But soft warning for shitting up admin pages.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 09:22, 23 May 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism - Don't submit cases against yourself. It's just stupid. -- Cheese 10:15, 23 May 2011 (BST)

Linking to a blank page is perfectly legal and thus Not Vandalism. Now stop submitting crappy cases against yourself on my A/VB. -- Spiderzed█ 16:27, 23 May 2011 (BST)

OK. Case closed as Not Vandalism,--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 16:30, 23 May 2011 (BST)

User:Ryu

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

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

This and this, for starters.--The General ^{T U! P! F!} 22:22, 21 May 2011 (BST)

The one on Rev's page is not vandalism because he has a notice on there allowing anybody to edit his page at will. The policy one definitely is Vandalism though.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 22:26, 21 May 2011 (BST)

Soft warning – Nüb error. (And yes, my user page has been open to community editing for quite some time now.) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:31, 21 May 2011 (BST)

He dumped images into the middle of A/VB and A/PD and an individual policy discussion and changed text on the page. Good faith?--The General ^{T U! P! F!} 22:46, 21 May 2011 (BST)

Of course it is, he's one of revs friends so there's no way he could do wrong on purpose. and after all the talk about us covering arses. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:51, 22 May 2011 (BST)

Heaven forbid I assume good faith based on the evidence visible to me at the time. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:42, 22 May 2011 (BST)

Cause this is a good faith attempt to improve the wiki! -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:55, 22 May 2011 (BST)

(not to mention the dif shows obvious remnants of the dif before where he completely and utterly fucked up the page) -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 04:06, 22 May 2011 (BST)

That was why I said “Nüb error”, he's been fucking up shit like that everywhere he's been editing – check his contribs. It's been fairly amusing in a laughing-at-you kinda way – sorta like watching a kid mash buttons at an arcade. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:11, 22 May 2011 (BST)

Noob Error is supposed to be someone new enough not to understand the rules, designed to protect them when they are obviously trying to not do bad but don't know the particulars of the wiki. This is not one of those instances. He's been fucking around a fair while now and while I see the humour in it (yes it's a very original way of feigning retardedness ha ha) ruling that it's a noob error under good faith is just a joke. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 04:15, 22 May 2011 (BST)

And he uploaded the images specifically for this purpose.--The General ^{T U! P! F!} 22:50, 21 May 2011 (BST)

Missed that. Changing vote to Vandalism, not that it changes anything at this point. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:42, 22 May 2011 (BST)

Messing with policies is a double-edged sword. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 21:17, 22 May 2011 (BST)

Vandalism Clear and cut, he's spamming large images everywhere, removing conversations, making a mess of things. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:58, 21 May 2011 (BST)

Vandalism - Not the first time he completely mangles pages and puts giant pics on them. When he does that on user talk pages, it's a matter between the users. When he does that on an admin page, it's a matter of WIKI LAW and thus UNACCEPTABLE [[Image:Wolverine-4-6-09-2.jpg|9000px]] --Oh, and vote on Project Funny, by the way. -- Spiderzed█ 23:42, 21 May 2011 (BST)

Vandalism ~ _{00:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)}

Warned before you all go too far. Result is clear already and there's no need for needless reaffirmation of that. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 00:13, 22 May 2011 (BST)

User:Ender the Xenocide

• Ender the Xenocide (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Persistent Vandalism
Action taken	Permaban

Blanked the RRF page. Also a bunch of fake updates and what not that's not so important. -- Papa Jadkor ^{(RRF) (MotA) (MT11)} 04:49, 6 May 2011 (BST)

Oh dear. Well, can't say we didn't give him more than reasonable warning. (Moonie reported his initial vandalism via IRC.) Banning as a persistent vandal. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 05:05, 6 May 2011 (BST)

Vandalism and warned for blanking the page. ~ _{05:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)}

Ugh. Didn't see Rev taking action. Well do whatev you think you need to do, Rev. ~ _{05:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)}

I think you were right to be lenient, but about 2 days too late. I gave him a soft warning on his talk page; didn't feel the need to log it here at the time, since technically RRF would have been well within their rights to have him banned under 3ER. Given that he's come back for more, I feel no remorse banning him as a persistent vandal. (Although we might want to alter the templates somewhat to allow users to appeal their blocks. I know on Wikipedia blocked users can still edit their own talk pages; anyone know if that applies here, too?) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 05:14, 6 May 2011 (BST)

I think banned user's only appeal option is via Special:EmailUser to email an op. Either that or the new A/DE procedure for permabanned users but that involves another user putting them up for de-escalation. BTW I didn't go for 3ER b/c of the first few edits he made, which looked real and not at all fake to me. Looking closer I can see that he didn't update the timestamp. I have no idead what this is all about, except that the file name is slightly different. ~ _{05:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)}

That might be because we routinely protect their talk pages, though. Shall we leave it open and see what happens?
Yeah, I wasn't quite sure WTF was up with that last, either, but he didn't seem to have broken it so I didn't bother trying to revert it. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 06:03, 6 May 2011 (BST)

I think he may have updated the Bale Mall status in uppercase rather than lower, which I believe causes the mall danger status image not to display correctly. He probably clicked the red link that it created and uploaded a duplicate image of File:Mall-ruined-small.jpg. I believe this is the message a banned user receives when they attempt to log in and since all edits to the wiki require that you're logged in, editing your own talk page is out of the question. I'm about 90% sure of ipbanned users can't edit his own talk page, even unprotected. ~ _{06:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)}

Aye, just came to that conclusion myself and am en route to check Bale Mall's current status. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 06:31, 6 May 2011 (BST)

It's a setting in the config, I believe. No idea what it's set to here, though.--The General ^{T U! P! F!} 08:40, 6 May 2011 (BST)

Assuming he uploaded File:Mall-Ruined-small.jpg because the template is case sensitive and he didnt know why "Ruined" didn't work (when it's because you have to put in "ruined" for the image to show up) -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 13:23, 6 May 2011 (BST)

That shouldn't be an issue any longer. I've updated the template involved in choosing the correct image for the respective statuses. Whatever statyus a user types is converted to lower case to match the image names. ~ _{14:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)}

Aye, came to that conclusion once I had the time to have a more detailed look – wasn't quite sure why it was included on so many pages, but I forgot danger reports are linked all over the show. As it's now unused (Good work, Vapor! ), have deleted it as scheduled. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:11, 7 May 2011 (BST)

User:Aichon drew my attention via {{WikiIRC}} to some facts of the case of which I was previously unaware. We may want to review this further. Am unblocking the user, and inviting them to come explain themselves. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 23:37, 12 May 2011 (BST)

As participant in that IRC conversation, I want especially to point out that there are deleted revisions of User:Ender the Xenocide from as far back as 2008. It looks like Ender is an old user whose contribs have plainly been swept away by the purge. Since we have no access to his old edits and thus can't confirm that all his edits were non-constructive, I err towards lifting the ban and giving a proper warning. --Oh, and vote on Project Funny, by the way. -- Spiderzed█ 23:43, 12 May 2011 (BST)

2006, actually. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 00:13, 13 May 2011 (BST)

Also worth noting that his first recorded edit appears to be constructive in nature, and seems to be confirmed (or at least not invalidated) by suburb danger reports from around that time, as well as some data Rev dug up on IRC. He definitely has an escalation (or two) coming his way, but he isn't eligible for 3ER permabanning from what I saw and heard. —Aichon— 00:18, 13 May 2011 (BST)

He wasn't signed up in 2006, the page was created by someone else, and later deleted as a non existent user page, so it couldn't have had contributions back then. So this could either be the character, that the page was originally created for, signing up (and vandalising), someone imping them, or some other random person who picked the same name (Ender is a name from a somewhat popular series of SF books). I see no evidence that they have lost old contributions in a history/page wipe (but I couldn't find where they had voted on the project funny page) -- boxy 02:23, 13 May 2011 (BST)

Nope, creation of the account is impersonation. It was created the day it started editing. Btw, we can now look that up. Also here's a more correct link of the page logs that shows the original deletion and probably also the original creation because 'STER's comment and Judas Mikalos page match up. I'm also fairly certain this was a Desk Sergeant but can't quite remember why, simply the fact that it was in that deletion request lends itself to the theory though. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 04:18, 13 May 2011 (BST)

If it was a desk sergeant that would explain a bit. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 07:28, 13 May 2011 (BST)

I stand corrected as of Boxy's and Karek's investigation skills. Still, that leaves up the first recorded edit Aichon brought up. It looks constructive in nature, so I'd still err towards lifting the ban and treating Ender like a regular vandal (although possibly with more than one escalation). --Oh, and vote on Project Funny, by the way. -- Spiderzed█ 00:33, 14 May 2011 (BST)

That edit is still clearly impersonation; as Karek points out, even the existence of the account could be considered impersonation. I'd suggest emailing them, but wouldn't you know it? they declined to enable that feature. More to the point, does anyone want to lay odds on this account coming back and making any constructive contributions? If I were a cynical bastard, I would suggest that first edit was made as an attempt at avoiding 3ER, but as it constitutes impersonation, it can be considered Vandalism, especially in the light of subsequent edits.
We are required to assume good faith only if that does not controvert the evidence. In this case, the account returned after being warned on its talk page to cease vandalism and blanked the page of the group it was targeting. It has also not made any reply to various messages left on its talk page. (In fact, I've a mind to contact DHPD and see what gives…)
Clearly editing in bad faith, clearly a persistent vandal, and if you want to go via the regular escalations and it comes back and vandalises again I reserve the right to tell you “I told you so.” ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 15:31, 14 May 2011 (BST)

^ -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 10:28, 15 May 2011 (BST)

Wrapping this up

Would it fair to say that consensus following block review is to re-block this user as an impersonator single-purpose persistent vandal account? (BTW, I did check and there is a circa-2005 profile by this name, but it's MIA.) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:26, 19 May 2011 (BST)

Yeh, that's fine with me. ~ _{05:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)}

Go ahead. --Oh, and vote on Project Funny, by the way. -- Spiderzed█ 06:05, 19 May 2011 (BST)

Block. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:17, 22 May 2011 (BST)

Reblocked. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:03, 22 May 2011 (BST)

FYI, based on what you said here, even though he did impersonate with that edit, it would still be considered constructive in nature. The things that were said in that case seem to be inconsistent with the ruling in this case. Even so, I'm not going to pursue it any further. —Aichon— 21:41, 25 May 2011 (BST)

IMO it's a matter of opinion. I know where you're coming from and I would agree but he impersonated by even making the account, and then eventually faked danger reports and that brings the integrity of the other reports and his whole existence into question IMO. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:45, 26 May 2011 (BST)

User:Boxy

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

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None

Attempting to set me up for an impersonation charge by signing another's post as my own. Original post here This type of behaviour is absolutely unacceptable from anyone, especially someone who supposedly knows better. --||||||||||||||| 22:56, 2 May 2011 (BST)

This is shameful behavior from a wiki warrior. Dreadful...--[[image:ryux.jpg]] 22:59, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism. Error of haste. Maybe Boxy would have known better if your sig would have been recognizable as yours to begin with? -- Spiderzed█ 23:02, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Thank you for proofing exactly why these signatures are fucking garbage. Understandable mistake, with good-faith in mind. Not Vandalism -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 23:11, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism - As Spiderzed.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 23:16, 2 May 2011 (BST)

In his own words, it's pretty easy to check diffs, and anyone using {{unsigned}} should be doing so or they are committing Impersonation. Vandalism per policy; give 'em a Soft Warning on the condition of writing instructions on how to use {{unsigned}} properly, both for own and others' edification. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 23:17, 2 May 2011 (BST)

“	[A] user shall be guilty [of] impersonation if they improperly sign comments to mislead readers into believing that another user posted them	”
—UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Impersonation Law

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 23:19, 2 May 2011 (BST)

The irony here is actually mind blowing. So you do this to others who can't sign properly on votes when they are voting for you, completely against policy, but the second someone else does it in an unrestricted context because the user is using a signature that (in that form) doesnt link to the user and is illegal, you rule vandalism? Sigh -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:27, 3 May 2011 (BST)

I kinda think it's more simply that boxy signed it wrong and if he's attributing comments he should be damn sure before doing it? Not really about sides or bias. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 01:32, 3 May 2011 (BST)

My apologies, I thought the post had been made by Laughing Man, was edit conflicted in explaining. Even still, this is simply a product of the shitstorm that idiotic sig has made, he was trying to help out and failed because others are failing and not using a signature properly to have it link to the user who made it. It's good faith, we have precedent protecting people who are baited into "vandalism" (as a bold one may try and call it), still failing to understand how an advocate of "ignore all rules cause it's good faith" can just burst in on a vandalism ruling on a contentious issue of sigs (the similar rules of which he's broken scores of times) -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:35, 3 May 2011 (BST)

Incompetence all around with you dipshits, isn't it? It's not fucking difficult to check to see who made what edit and fix things accordingly, but apparently you can't even handle that. --||||||||||||||| 01:51, 3 May 2011 (BST)

Incompetence all around with you dipshits, isn't it? It's not fucking difficult to make a signature that links to you, but apparently you can't even handle that. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:58, 3 May 2011 (BST)

--||||||||||||||| 02:00, 3 May 2011 (BST)

things this user needs to deal with -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:02, 3 May 2011 (BST)

Please read what I am saying (including the links) before jumping to conclusions. Tagging comments, votes, or anything you believe to be lacking a valid signature is permitted by policy. Tagging them incorrectly constitutes Impersonation per the same policy. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 21:22, 3 May 2011 (BST)

You just linked me to a rejected policy. Congratulations. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 16:00, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Finally, someone I know followed the link. DDR, you win a cookie!
Yes, itdid not pass voting, but it and the attendant discussion are still very relevant, IMO. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 16:39, 4 May 2011 (BST)

To be fair, while the policy as a whole was rejected, it still summarizes a lot of cases that constitute an act of impersonation, and have been applied as such on A/VB. However, I still think boxy's good faith and the marginal magnitude of his error by far outweigh the "impersonation" he has done in this case. It's not like the identity of the original poster was easy to determine to begin with, so he hardly made the wiki worse. -- Spiderzed█ 16:44, 4 May 2011 (BST)

“	In his own words, it's pretty easy to check diffs…	”
—I wonder who said this?

Not Vandalism Bless the goose. --Rosslessness 23:22, 2 May 2011 (BST)

You mean the gander? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 21:22, 3 May 2011 (BST)

Nice to see this go about the way I expected. The important part is getting your bias and incompetence out in the open where everyone can see. Also, I love the way you all quickly ram your cocks into each other's asses to make yourselves feel good. It's just a beautiful thing to behold. --||||||||||||||| 01:18, 3 May 2011 (BST)

Whatever floats your boat, dude! -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 16:46, 4 May 2011 (BST)

You consider cocks rammed into male asses as a beautiful thing to behold? Eww! *backs away slowly* -- Spiderzed█ 16:56, 4 May 2011 (BST)

He's a goon. He knows just how low the Internet can go. |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 17:10, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism - Lol are you fucking serious -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:27, 3 May 2011 (BST)

in before the intelligent ones answer the rhetorical question -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:28, 3 May 2011 (BST)

--||||||||||||||| 01:31, 3 May 2011 (BST)

things this user needs to deal with -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:35, 3 May 2011 (BST)

Yeah umh, case closed as Not Vandalism. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:17, 16 May 2011 (BST)

User:Sykic

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

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None

Deliberately signing with an illegal sig on the case about that sig -- Spiderzed█ 13:22, 2 May 2011 (BST)

If you'd paid more attention and tried to see through your hatred of Goons, you'd notice my signature changed about an hour ago. But hey, we can't let a little thing like "facts" get in the way of a good witch hunt, right? --||||||||||||||| 13:29, 2 May 2011 (BST)

I'll give them a day as a grace period before I rule, but if they don't change them, then yeah.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 13:26, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Abstain – Conflict of interest. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:30, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism-- Thadeous Oakley Talk 13:32, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism Bless. --Rosslessness 13:35, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism - Read the sig policy properly before bringing folk to VB over it. -- Cheese 13:38, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Also, until we sort out the mess below, don't keep spamming VB with goons. -- Cheese 13:43, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism - Lack of bias on my part proven. Can we now move on? -- Spiderzed█ 22:43, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Your point has been made. I'm tempted to take you to A/VB for posting these. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 23:23, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Go ahead. I'm not one to pretend that I stand above the WIKI LAW -- Spiderzed█ 16:42, 3 May 2011 (BST)

“	Before Submitting a Report Avoid submitting reports which are petty.	”
—A/VB#Before Submitting a Report

I hope you can see why I am conflicted. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 21:27, 3 May 2011 (BST)

Vandalism I'm afraid I have to rule that using a signature that appears identical to so many others is in fact vandalism. I feel that they purposefully cause confusion by being misleading. While there are no governing guidelines that state explicitly that shared signatures and identical looking signatures aren't permissible, I feel a judgment call should be made. I have never invoked the Sysop General Guidelines stating that I have the right to make these types of judgment calls nor do I plan to make a habit of it but in this case I do believe it is warranted. I recommend that the other ops try to come to a consensus over shared signatures and in the meantime I recommend a soft warning to whomever uses the signature in question. ~ _{01:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)}

Not vandalism - let's just let these go as long as they weren't used after the case below was finalised -- boxy 12:26, 4 May 2011 (BST)

User:Laughing Man

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

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None

Deliberately signing with an illegal sig on the case about that sig -- Spiderzed█ 13:22, 2 May 2011 (BST)

What's it like being retarded? Do you realize you are an incompetent mouthbreathing fuckstick or does what passes for a brain filter the world into something that shelters you from knowing just how fucking stupid you really are? --||||||||||||||| 22:32, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Abstain – Conflict of interest. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:30, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism - Read the sig policy properly before bringing folk to VB over it. -- Cheese 13:38, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism - asked to change, changed. Perfection. --Rosslessness 22:36, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism - Lack of bias on my part proven. Can we now move on? -- Spiderzed█ 22:43, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Vandalism See my justification in the above case regarding User:Sykic. ~ _{01:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)}

Retard See my post above for why this moron is a fucking sperg--|||||||||||||||||||| 22:32, 3 May 2011 (BST)

Not vandalism - let's just let these go as long as they weren't used after the case below was finalised -- boxy 12:25, 4 May 2011 (BST)

User:Capt Schwartz

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

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Isn't it against the rules to post Humorous suggestions on the main page?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 10:31, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Vandalism - Why yes, yes they are. --Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 10:54, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Vandalism -- Spiderzed█ 11:37, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Not funny, ergo Not Vandalism.
It is, however, crap, just like its subject material. Last I checked there was no rule against crap suggestions, but you better believe that I am watching it like a hawk for enough Spam votes to appear so that I can sysop spaminate it. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 12:02, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Technically, I believe it only requires intent for it to be humorous rather than actually being funny.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 13:30, 2 May 2011 (BST)

vandalism - (and even if you do it humorously but deadly seriously it's still intent and vandalism). -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 14:36, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Can we get a final ruling on this?--The General ^{T U! P! F!} 11:20, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Warned - taking skills away because you hit them with a book... right. Warned -- boxy 12:07, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Huh. I forgot it was {{notfunny}}. I'll pay that. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 16:40, 4 May 2011 (BST)

User:Deadman Walken

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

Verdict	Not vandalism
Action taken	Soft warning

Pointless account designed to impersonate thad and prove some point about impersonation by signing as such on admin pages. Thanks. Banned under 3ER--Rosslessness 00:48, 2 May 2011 (BST)

This op approves of the action. Also, filled out verdict. -- Spiderzed█ 00:51, 2 May 2011 (BST)

I love the ones we can nuke. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:32, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Confused. Account has no contribs? Was it all images or something? --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 15:29, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Wrongly formatted verdict template. You should now see the surviving contribs. The others were about creating a sig to impersonate Thad. -- Spiderzed█ 15:33, 2 May 2011 (BST)

The surviving edit looks like they were trying to make a point, not impersonating. Still confused. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 15:36, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Here's one of them Sig.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 15:39, 2 May 2011 (BST)

another one. --Rosslessness 16:17, 2 May 2011 (BST)

That's the one I was commenting on about him obviously just trying to make a point actually. I was more looking for the missing 2 edits that aren't in his contribs history.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 16:50, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Did the user only make two edits... -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 17:03, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Like I said, its no doubt an alt account of someone trying to make a point, if other people want to vote not... ill happily overturn my actions. --Rosslessness 17:28, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Alts aren't autobannable, making a point isn't bad faith. You really probably should overturn and have a real case here. Especially when it's obviously not an account for impersonation. Also, is the alt claim based on checkuser evidence? --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 22:55, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Checkuser doesn't confirm, and neither shows a proxy. Ross, is there a third edit and/or something I don't know about the IP? Else, we need to undo the ban ASAP. -- Spiderzed█ 23:16, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Do I get to rule on this one? He posted on my talk page, after all. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 23:26, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Why would that be relevant? --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 23:29, 2 May 2011 (BST)

↓ ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:08, 3 May 2011 (BST)

We aren't as dedicated to selecting and claiming bias here as you are, so no. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 00:57, 3 May 2011 (BST)

I have no idea why I said no. I meant no problem, not no you couldn't. sorry. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 04:26, 3 May 2011 (BST)

I was wondering… OK, newbie error, Not Vandalism. I'd say Soft Warning but that seems redundant considering the ban they've already served. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 16:22, 4 May 2011 (BST)

I've unblocked the account thus far. It does not fit 3ER rule and no proof of impersonation has really occurred yet that can't be ruled on by the ops -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 00:57, 3 May 2011 (BST)

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to comment here, but I'd like to thank Karek for being the coolest head here. Really, I was just trying to be funny/witty and I was hoping it was abundantly clear that I wasn't at all impersonating thad. Sorry for the trouble, and thanks again to Karek for being so kind as to step back from the drama and give me my fair shake. --Deadman Walken 01:11, 3 May 2011 (BST)

As the accused user, it is your right to respond here; thank you for coming back and being so polite after such an unfriendly welcome. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:11, 3 May 2011 (BST)

burn the witch! --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 10:10, 3 May 2011 (BST)

It wasn't witty, and copying someone's sig exacly, and just tacking it on after your own name is likely to, and is intended to, confuse or annoy others. So don't do it. Vandalism -- boxy 12:21, 4 May 2011 (BST)

I apologize. Confusing or annoying others wasn't my intention. I figured that tacking someone else's (an established someone else, at that) sig onto my own, a red name, new user should throw up flags right there and then that "No. I am not in fact Thad." to anyone involved in business relevant to this page. Given the way the argument was escalating, I thought it would be a good time to finally post, and see if we could steer discussion away from slap fights. Given the content of the post (as compared to the first post), anyone with common sense could tell that Thad was not posting. I'll give you that it was probably inappropriate at the time, and truly, I apologize for that, but I think the post was negligibly disruptive and I felt the content brought up valid points for discussion.--Deadman Walken 16:15, 4 May 2011 (BST)

The whole point of sigs is that even the stupid and technically challenged should be able to easily tell who made a post. But, OK, we'll call it a soft warning this time (ie. please don't do it again), seeing as you've already "served time", as it were -- boxy 09:35, 5 May 2011 (BST)

I just don't see how there could even be confusion with something like that, but I'll take my (already taken) lumps --Deadman Walken 20:23, 5 May 2011 (BST)

Soft Warning. User is a newb and has already amended the signature. Along with the misapplied ban that could have stayed under the radar forever if Karek hadn't spotted it, I see no point in slapping an escalation on that user. I think he had a rough enough start as it is. -- Spiderzed█ 16:27, 4 May 2011 (BST)

User:Underisk

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

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None

Using the Template:Goonsig in his signature counts as impersonation.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 00:33, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Will hold off on that for now until the case below is sorted out. There are more than them two involved. -- Spiderzed█ 00:39, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Fair enough. Yeah, I know more than two of them involved. I've put this guy up because he said in the case below that we should be A/VBing the people who are using the sig.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 00:44, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Gonna go ahead and point this out now for you WIKI LAWyers: I haven't used this signature anywhere but on this very page, where it's currently being discussed. --|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Underisk (talk • contribs) 01:06, 2 May 2011 (BST).

not vandalism - You could at least wait for us to outlaw the template officially before trying to get everyone on here. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:34, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Abstain – Conflict of interest. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 06:47, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism We can start escalating the use of this once the case below has been solved, but not earlier. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 07:09, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Nothing for now - We can do a case about it after the case below is ruled on.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 10:54, 2 May 2011 (BST)

So, yeah, now that the case below is sorted out: Vandalism. Creating such a sig is one thing, and a thing that has been resolved by getting it fixed. Using the non-fixed version on an admin page despite knowing that it is against policy? That's different and blatant bad faith. -- Spiderzed█ 11:36, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Shouldn't he get the required notice and grace period specified in the signature policy? It's only just changed, FFS; there's a reason those provisions exist. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 12:06, 2 May 2011 (BST)

There is a difference between a casually active user making an innocent mistake in his sig formatting, and deliberately switching to an illegal sig to comment on an admin page on the very same case that is about the illegality of the sig. -- Spiderzed█ 12:13, 2 May 2011 (BST)

It wasn't established as illegal at the time he signed, though. We don't throw out due process just because someone does something we don't like; in fact, we should adhere even more closely to process to avoid personal bias. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 12:23, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Why the hell would anyone have a personal bias against this guy? He hasn't done anything to anyone here. No one cared what he did, until he decided to post a sig that he knew was controvertial (he was responding to the controversy after all) on the one page that would ensure it would be noticed (and nowhere else, as he proudly proclaimed above).
Counting coup. Meh -- boxy 12:45, 2 May 2011 (BST)

“Personal bias” as in a personally biased viewpoint. It it so hard to ask people to rule by the rules we have rather than making up new ones or citing vague, conveniently unlinked “precedent” and using the sysop badge for intimidation? (I don't think you're guilty of this, but some certainly are.) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 12:55, 2 May 2011 (BST)

It's a self evident fact that sigs become worthless when a dozen individuals start signing with exactly the same signature. It is so obvious that no one ever thought it needed fucking spelling out in a specific policy. And so the sysops are given the power to enforce such unwritten (but obvious) rules if they ever come up. It's not personal bias. It's common, fucking, sense.
None of the goons are stupid. They know this. So please, stop already -- boxy 13:18, 2 May 2011 (BST)

In order to prove my lack of personal bias, I've added cases about the others doing the same. No one's gonna say that I'm singling out Underisk. -- Spiderzed█ 13:22, 2 May 2011 (BST)

So we're just ignoring Signature Policy altogether now? Wow, it's like a self-fulfilling prophecy. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:26, 2 May 2011 (BST)

RE: Boxy:

“	Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.	”
—Albert Einstein

ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:26, 2 May 2011 (BST)

I grow tired of your responces (across numerous discussion) to out of context snipets while ignoring the actual meat of the post. Good night, have fun toying with others -- boxy 13:40, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Night, mate; will do! Not far from bed m'self actually. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:51, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Not vandalism - let's just let these go as long as they weren't used after the case below was finalised -- boxy 12:24, 4 May 2011 (BST)

User:Revenant

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

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	Handle Added to Sigs

For creating this piece of stupid and encouraging people to use it which basically undermines the very principle behind the use of signatures. Policy? God no, for something this obvious all that requires is the sysops team to have the balls to enforce some common sense. This doesn't require much additional discussion. Sharing signatures falls under impersonation, and should hereby be prohibited through precedent. I see little point in escalating the different goons using this sigs for now, though they will be required to change it.

The bad-faith is dripping of this one. Seriously Rev, what the hell are you on? -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:36, 1 May 2011 (BST)

Random. Is rev finished with the template yet? I initially thought the green box was going to signify the actual user signing it from the long pink list. If only there was a way of explaining that the current signature was against policy because of impersonation and clarity concerns. Somewhere like here. Oh look vapor just beat me to it. --Rosslessness 23:02, 1 May 2011 (BST)

I thought that too, but I think it's just because Katthew's colour is green.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 23:32, 1 May 2011 (BST)

Explaining that these sigs are illegal is like explaining 1+1=2. They, and especially Rev, should know much better than this. Oh and look what Vapor is getting as reactions, can we even fake a surprised face here? -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 23:38, 1 May 2011 (BST)

I don't really expect much to come of it. So far I've pretty much received the answer I expected to get. ~ _{23:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)}

Pretty much, but hey drama, if you dont want to deal with it, then you're in the wrong place. I'm sure rev can argue his case here. He's a sensible fellow. --Rosslessness 00:11, 2 May 2011 (BST)

That should be fun. Seems he's claiming ignorance of the law. The WIKI LAW. ~ _{00:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)}

So is "bad-faith" the new buzzword for things that you don't like but can't find a rule against? Serious question: which Goon ran over your dog/set your cat on fire/raped your sister (select as applicable), because you're awfully mad at us and there's no way a few wiki edits could trigger this kind of reaction. Thadeous hates Goons, can we even fake a surprised face here? --|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sykic (talk • contribs) 00:02, 2 May 2011 (BST).

I'll wait for Rev to explain himself. However, I want to make it clear that using that piece of wikicode shit as sig is absolutely unacceptable. It either gets massively altered, or it is clear-cut escalation material for everyone using it. -- Spiderzed█ 00:20, 2 May 2011 (BST)

^{Non Involved chit chat moved to talk page.}

Vandalism - As thad. I will not be responding to questions, statements or qq about my ruling in this case. My reasoning is as thad's introduction. I have no intention of getting dragged in to the drama involved in this case.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 23:32, 1 May 2011 (BST)

Nice to know how fair, unbiased, and un-prejudiced you really are. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 02:03, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Forgive him for knowing what you're like when a vandalism ruling is imminent. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:22, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Don't you start. I know what you're like with ad hominem, personal attacks and poisoning the well. “Boo hoo Revenant actually makes arguments to defend himself and won't take his shafting lying down like a good little user!” ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:47, 2 May 2011 (BST)

users that need to deal with it -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:53, 2 May 2011 (BST)

See this right here? Yeah, that's why no one is voting for you. If you're unwilling to put forth the effort to work towards a solution for a problem, you probably should not hold any position whatsoever, much less be promoted. --|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 03:33, 2 May 2011 (BST) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Laughing Man (talk • contribs) 03:33, 2 May 2011 (BST).

Why are you putting the person who created the template up for vandalism instead of the ones using it. If I dig up one of your templates and start using it as my signature will you put yourselves up for a vandal banning vote? --|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Underisk (talk • contribs) 00:14, 2 May 2011 (BST).

I too have an issue with the suddenness and unwillingness to believe that this is anything other than vandalism because the person who made it was a goon. Suddenly, it's "bad faith" and "Sharing a signature = impersonation," even though it's got a lot of clever wiki-code that gives each goon a different color and only shows the link to the goon posting at the time. Yes, you could put forth a convincing argument that sharing a signature causes a lot of unnecessary confusion and that the policy should be altered to ban it. That's a fucking stupid idea and I don't see this as anything other than an attempt to de-legitimize a candidate in the current Bureaucrat election. --|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Laughing Man (talk • contribs) 01:12, 2 May 2011 (BST).

Vandalism' - creating a template that can have no other use but to cause confusion as to who posted a comment, and then encouraging others to use it. It violates the whole point of signing to have multiple handles in a signature without any way of making it damn clear which one is the the owner of the comment. And just because there is no specific rule against it, doesn't mean that it's not vandalism to use it. We can't pass policies on every single thing that poster may or may not do, but it is amply covered in our existing policies and precedents -- boxy 01:18, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Ruling changed, see below -- boxy 11:31, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Firstly, let me state for the record that this sig would have been created with or without my involvement. As a responsible member of the community, I have endeavoured to ensure its creation in such a way that it complies with relevant policy and provides minimal load on the server.

Now, let me quote some relevant policy (emphasis mine):

“	Required Link The handle portion of your signature must link to your user page or one of its subpages so that it is easy for readers to learn more about the person behind the signature. Superscript adornments, images and other parts of your signature may link to other locations provided that such links do not violate the rules below. What wouldn't be allowed Signatures which impersonate another user. …	”
—Signature Policy

“	[A] user shall be guilty [of] impersonation if they improperly sign comments to mislead readers into believing that another user posted them, or that they were posted at a different time. A user shall also be guilty of impersonation and bad faith if the user makes an edit that alters, deletes, strikes, re-words or adds to another user's signed comments. Impersonation includes altering another user's words that the editor finds offensive. Impersonation also includes creating a user account with a name so similar to an existing user's name as to create confusion between the two. Impersonation also includes an editor making changes to their own signed statements after posting. Exceptions: Any user may strike votes that are improperly formatted or violate existing rules; any user may add an unsigned comment tag to the end of an unsigned comment; …	”
—Impersonation Law

See also: Hivemind.

Now, then, in your considered opinion, signing with this template constitutes impersonation because…?

Edit: Edit confliiiict! ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:28, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Because it is misleading. Simple. I have no idea which goon is signing with it since more than one goon is using it and it isn't unique to any individual. You could also easily argue that its just a bad faith attempt to game the system by finding "loopholes" in the sig policy. Whether it was your idea or just under your guidance doesn't much matter. You created the page along with the instructions for its use so you own it I'm afraid. ~ _{02:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)}

So, wait… you're telling me you don't routinely view pages (especially admin pages) via history/diffs? Please tell me I'm not the only that does this. I know Boxy knows his way around them – hell, so does Sexualharrison.
The template was created so that issues with Goon signing could be addressed in a standardised manner, since there have been a number of hassles with these. Tell me please, what would be your suggested changes? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 02:41, 2 May 2011 (BST)

What? I don't need to view diffs to see the sig is misleading. The evidence is right in front of my eyes. My suggestions? Stop trying to share a sig. Use a normal sig like everyone else. ~ _{03:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)}

He means that we can tell who made what comment by viewing the diff comparisons. But that is a red herring. We shouldn't have to search through diff comparisons to tell who said what, and it will become almost impossible to tell who said what in a very short time. Even someone logging in for the first time today just know would find it extremely time consuming to sort it out if I hadn't been inserting unsigned notices. Seriously, it would be extremely simple to fix this sig with just the addition of a variable for the name of the poster being inserted into a spot where it would stand out as the handle portion (ie. a larger coloured section just at the start), while still keeping the ideal of having all goons sigs looking identical. Do that, and encourage any goons using this sig to change over, and I'd consider changing my ruling. But as it is, it remains obvious this template only exists for drama creation purposes -- boxy 03:52, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Hmm. That's a good idea. Might do that. I'll take a look and see what the best method is. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:56, 2 May 2011 (BST)

He took what we were going to do anyway, and made it in such a way that it followed the rules currently in place. I'm not sure how I see that implies bad faith on his part. I guess since you are assuming our intention was in bad faith you're unfairly transferring that onto him when he explained pretty clearly that he was attempting to do this in the best way he knew how, which seems like the definition of good faith to me. Maybe if you guys didn't spend so much time pouring over every goon edit looking for bad faith you would find less of it. --|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Underisk (talk • contribs) 02:51, 2 May 2011 (BST).

So does anyone care to define what actual rule this guy broke, or is this just a case of behind-the-scenes asshurt? Because all I'm seeing here is "He made a thing I don't like". Might I suggest deleting the offending signature template? I'm sure there's a WIKI LAW for that.--ебут этом гомосексуальные земля́, ebut ėtom gomoseksual'nye zemlя́ ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||_{Retarded things go here -->} 2 3 4 User:MisterGame 03:09, 2 May 2011 (BST)

I found the idea fascinating and quite clever, but as I looked through more and more of the code I realised how much of a clusterfuck it had been built to make. Had much more useful potential but deliberately giving multiple users a means to mask the the author of a comment between a score of other names is not helpful and can not conceivably be done with good intent. Vandalism. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:32, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Part of the reason it's been left that way is because there've been users with links to multiple user pages in their sigs before and nobody seemed to have a problem with it. Unless this really is just because it's Goons doing it? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:54, 2 May 2011 (BST)

You create something that only re-establishes goons as hiveminds, declare yourself a freedom fighter for the goons and then complain that you're all being mistreated as goons.c.f

No, I couldn't care less if you all are goons or not. The previous signatures all had handles and were easy to tell who made the post. Even the signature directly above this conversation is easy to navigate and all the instances of the other users is more of an obvious parody than any other, a little bit like izzys sig which confuses me every time but I've never made any effort to have it changed. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 04:01, 2 May 2011 (BST)

So, something more similar to the version I created, say, with the signer's name at the front? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:11, 2 May 2011 (BST)

I'm not quite sure which one you mean, but ideally it will have a handle that clearly links to the poster of the comment, preferably looking significantly different than the rest of the coloured part of the sig. I'm not going to make any promises about eligibility until I see one though (you'd have to point to one sig you meant because on the page you specified it looks the same but elongated). -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 04:19, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Sexualharrison's current sig doesn't contain a “handle portion”, per se and nobody's ever had a problem with that.
How about highlighted and bold, would that do? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:37, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Because it's rather obvious who's signing it? Because he doesn't have the links to 20 other users in his signature? Cause he has an image that is the focus of the signature that redirects straight to his user page? -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 05:32, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Also, I had hoped you guys would realise that I deliberately did this in the open on UDWiki in order to involve the community. I could have easily built this, tested it, and distributed the code via the forums and you would all have been none the wiser. Instead, once again, because I have made a good faith effort at transparency and openness, I am being harassed via A/VB, mostly by the same old crew.
Seriously disappointed in you guys right now. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:45, 2 May 2011 (BST)

lolwhat the only part of udwiki I can't dogpile with meatpuppets to get my way, shock horror! -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 05:32, 2 May 2011 (BST)

“	"meat puppet" first on a satirical list of "common terms used at Wikipedia," giving its supposed Wikipedia meaning as "a person who disagrees with you"	”
—Wikipedia

You stay classy, DDR. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 06:54, 2 May 2011 (BST)

not sure what you're implying since (as I say every time you cite it) that's exactly what you do but ok -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 07:30, 2 May 2011 (BST)

AFAIK, that's the first time I've cited that: links pl0x? While you're at it, link me to the last time I called anyone a meatpuppet? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 08:51, 2 May 2011 (BST)

It may not have been you but a lackey of some sort definitely did when we had this exact same discussion a month ago. And link me to the last time I said you called anyone a meatpuppet? Getting a bit irrelevant here -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 09:57, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Do you ever take a step back from the computer monitor and realize that you're seriously accusing someone of having lackeys? If someone else insults you, maybe it's because you're a colossal passive aggressive piece of human detritus and not because of a conspiracy; I certainly didn't need Revenant's help to come to that conclusion about you. --甘いノーム愛感覚的の私の型板!!! 10:25, 2 May 2011 (BST)

You don't exactly display the characteristics of a long term meatpuppet so I wasn't really talking about you anyway. Not that I find your opinion worrying to my self esteem either ways. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 10:53, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Seriously though that's fine. But you really shouldn't have started off with a template that openly made it practically impossible to tell who the signer is without looking at difs, making each signing tantamount to impersonation (or at least breaking the sig policy). I'm fine with this sig idea as long as in practice, we have no trouble obtaining the poster's username and link to their page off a first glance. And really, I don't know if any of us care that you're disappointed in us. Be disappointed that we're doing our jobs is how I read it. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 05:32, 2 May 2011 (BST)

I'm disappointed none of you know how to assume good faith and use a fucking talk page first like it says at the top of the fucking page, is what I am. Not surprised or shocked, but disappointed. Again.ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 06:54, 2 May 2011 (BST)

I contacted you on your talk page well before this case was brought against you and you deferred me to template talk. I did as you asked (though I felt you were passing the buck at that point) but you instead brought the discussion here. ~ _{07:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)}

You were contacted, and all they got was the predictable responces about sandy vaginas, so please. Are you going to fix it up, or just keep posting here about how hard done by you are? -- boxy 07:04, 2 May 2011 (BST)

That response was not from me. Please learn to check contributions: I hear it's pretty easy. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 08:51, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Wow... just wow. And you still don't see the problem, despite the fact that you would need to point to a buried diff comparison to prove that you didn't make the comment.
Regardless, yes, I figured you didn't make that comment, but fucked if I was going trawling through your talk page history to find out who did. But then, I didn't accuse you of saying it, eh. What was predictable, was that whoever brought up the issue was going to be abused by the "hivemind". And you made no attempt to fix the problem, and still you don't seem to be doing anything about it, despite a number of sysops saying they will reconsider if you did make a fix. But still you have time to keep the drama rolling along.
Fix it next, or my offer expires -- boxy 10:52, 2 May 2011 (BST)

OK, so you've made a start while I was checking and posting. Thank you -- boxy 11:01, 2 May 2011 (BST)

You haven't overtaken Aichon yet in being the physical manifestation of the wiki's conscience, so the boo's and woes about being disappointed is unlikely to make an impact. And in regard to your earlier comments to Yonnua and DDR, stop taking this so personal. No one is out to get you, or goons specifically. It happens to be clear as day that these signatures are illegal as mentioned earlier. Perhaps you should glance over the slight possibility that you are in fact wrong here, instead of blaming others. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 07:03, 2 May 2011 (BST)

So you think only Aichon has a conscience, and will only listen if he personally tells you he has misgivings? You'd ignore somebody because of who they are, irrespective of if they have a point? Nice admission of bias.
I was responding to Yon's “naa naa I'm not listening” post, TYVM.
If I'm wrong, I ask one simple thing: don't just say it. Prove it.
I am a reasonable man. I would rather be corrected than continue being wrong. But as a man of reason, I require proof. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 08:51, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Don't try to lay words in my mouth I didn't say. I'm not at all biased against you. As for proof, opening your eyes for once. Pretty much every sysops here has in great detail explained why these sigs are illegal. If that isn't enough, you're the last one to accuse Yonnua of "naa I'm not listening" posts, since that's exactly all you have been doing in this case. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 09:12, 2 May 2011 (BST)

PROTIP: Saying something is “clear” or obvious” does not make it so: you still have to explain your point, even – especially – if it is obvious to you. In fact, as you'll learn in debate club, someone using those words is generally a clear and obvious sign that he does not, in fact, have a valid point. ||||||||||||||| 11:13, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Vandalism I tried talking it out with you Rev but you don't seem to be getting the point. It should be obvious that different users can't use the same signature to sign edits to the wiki. Whatever steps that you've supposedly taken to ensure that people using it aren't breaking a policy have come up short and you seem more engorged on arguing that you've been wronged than you've explained how you are going to fix it. Please take steps to correct the template it will have to be deleted. ~ _{07:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)}

Soft Warning. It's finally fixed. Don't do it again. -- Spiderzed█ 11:33, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Serves me right for being helpful, eh? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 12:20, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Serves you right for setting up an illegal sig template, and amending it only once it was clear you'd get escalated for it if it were to stay that way. -- Spiderzed█ 12:23, 2 May 2011 (BST)

It wasn't clearly illegal, and hasn't been shown to be other than “because we say so”. Yay for bowing to peer pressure? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 12:29, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Every op involved so far but you deemed it vandalism as impersonation/lack of a handle, and I'd have done so too if it hadn't been amended. Clearly, the others must be the ones driving on the wrong traffic lane. -- Spiderzed█ 12:47, 2 May 2011 (BST)

To elaborate: my point here was that everything here could have been solved perfectly by hashing everything out on the talk pages with anyone who wanted to get involved, and the required fix could have been done by any user with a modicum of wiki kung fu. Instead, we here we came with standover tactics. Colour me vastly unimpressed. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 05:24, 6 May 2011 (BST)

Fixed

There we go. A pretty picture, instructions on how to link to each user's page specifically, and no more horrible template sigs and ugly {{Nosubst}} which is just a horrible hack to get around signature restrictions and IMO should be deleted and banned like it is on all sensible wikis. ||||||||||||||| 11:03, 2 May 2011 (BST)

I love it when a plan comes together. --Rosslessness 11:07, 2 May 2011 (BST)

That's good, as long as it's taken up by everyone using the template. I would have accepted a fair bit more subtlety in the handle portion (just as long as it stood out from the rest). I will change my ruling to not vandalism on the strength of this, and would encourage others to do likewise -- boxy 11:29, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Once those wonderful people have changed to the new version, I'll happily agree. --Rosslessness 11:31, 2 May 2011 (BST)

^{Copyrighted grim chit chat moved to talk page.}

{{Nosubst}} is a hack to get around software restrictions which implement a polcy we don't have on this policy; templated sigs are allowed on this wiki: If you want to get rid off {{Nosubst}} then convince Kevan to change the $wgCleanSignatures to false.

I would actually say that the {{Goonsig}} template shouldn't be substituted as it adds a large amount of messy code to the page.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 11:37, 2 May 2011 (BST)

I tried getting it to work with {{Nosubst}}, hit a snag when I discovered it doesn't pass parameters, fiddled with it briefly, and gave it up as a bad job. If you think can make it work, please, feel free. (Template namespace is community-owned: anyone can edit so long as those edits are a good faith attempt to improve the page.) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 12:13, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Also, don't you think the fact that $wgCleanSignatures is true heavily implies that we shouldn't be trying to work around what is a deliberately set limitation? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 12:18, 2 May 2011 (BST)

It would say that it implies that Wikipedia didn't want people to use templates in signatures: Mediawiki is basically set up under the assumption that everyone works like Wikipedia. The fact that they made turning it off as an option implies that doing so doesn't horribly break anything.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 13:04, 2 May 2011 (BST)

I'll have a look at it: I might be able to get it work (though I suspect it will involve an even uglier hack).--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 13:04, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism - Revenant's now taken steps to stop the problem - it's now on the goons themselves to change their signatures to the new version, the onus is no longer on Rev. Once again, I won't be responding to comments on my ruling.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 11:54, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Did I just hear “open season”? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 12:04, 2 May 2011 (BST)

not vandalism as yoonua (except I'll happily respond to stuff). -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 12:50, 2 May 2011 (BST)

So if I said “DDR smells funny”? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 12:57, 2 May 2011 (BST)

"Haha" or "Woo" ?--Rosslessness 13:01, 2 May 2011 (BST)

I would say it's a hereditary thing and I use fragrances to their fullest. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 16:48, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Archives

e Vandal Banning Archive

2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec