Administration Services

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

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

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.

User:Luckydogpsycho

[Created http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Necrotizing_Fascist&diff=prev&oldid=1293707] a page for a person he does not like in game, as seen here and here. Bad faith. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 02:20, 13 October 2008 (BST)

User:Secruss

Blanking of Talk:Crusade '08 page here and again here, because he thinks disagreement is trolling. --Silisquish 22:52, 12 October 2008 (BST)

October 2008

User:Jackspar

Adbot. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 14:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe thats 3 out of the last 5 ive caught. I'm so cool. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 14:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

PURGED.--Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 15:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Iscariot

Keeps unstriking his vote which was struck by A Helpful Little Gnome as a trolling vote, and as such may only be unstruck be a sysop. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 11:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I point Midianian at the Voting Rules template, oh, wait, I did!

It clearly says 'strike out', Gnome did not strike out my vote. I am therefore not unstriking, I am unblanking, which any user may do. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 11:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

As the voting is not due to finish soon, would it not have been better for Midianian to go to Gnome's talk page and inform him that he had incorrectly removed it and he should follow the Voting Rules in order for it to stick, rather than begin an edit war in which he posted and signed as another user? But that would have been good faith....

Though with the current climate, I'm wondering which way this case will be ruled on.... --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 11:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop the reverting war. Let the vote as it is right now and let Boxy decide if it should stay or not. Thank you.--Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 11:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism - If Gnome struck the vote, Iscariot, you should have taken it up with him rather than unstriking it yourself. That would be a warning unless someone (sysop-wise) disagrees. -- C h e e s e 17:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Gnome did not strike the vote, he blanked it, de facto removing it as any user can do, I restored it as I could do to a blanking. As it was not struck in the manner described it does not count as a sysop strike and you have therefore been misled by Midianian. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 20:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, are you so pedantic that I must use <s> those instead of the Template:Strike? -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 20:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that what the Voting Rules say? Why I believe they do! So we're now understood that you caused this by incorrectly editing my vote, I await you to vote not vandalism and overturn this vicious and unwarranted slight on my character. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 21:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You're free to remove the strike out and replace it with a justification about the suggestion, Iscariot. But not the same vote. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 17:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yet again another case of sysops twisting the rules to suit their own ends. Gnome has admitted that he did not strike the vote in the manner required by the voting rules which makes it ineligible to be considered a sysop strike. Yet still Cheese issues a warning based on this corruption on the rules. Are you getting why sysops aren't considered trusted users anymore yet?

Let us consider the situation using an example. If a page is requested to be deleted, and instead of using the delete button the sysop in question blanks the page. It would be highly wrong to then warn a user for recreating a deleted page by reverting that sysop's edit because the procedure in this case is clear. Although functionally the same, the two are different as demonstrated (and admitted by Gnome himself). The lack of other sysops overturning this warning is yet another symptom of the degeneration of the sysop team from trusted members of the community there to assist in the smooth running of this community into a favour trading limited members club displaying their abilities as a status symbol. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Such hyperbole. It was quite clear that Gnome was acting as a sysop striking a trolling vote, because he said so right there on the page. If you have a problem with the method of his striking, then take it up with him on his talk page. Someone even comes along and fixes Gnome's formatting for him, yet you continue to revert it. Why don't you just justify your votes properly, and suggest a change to the suggestions policy so that keep votes don't need to justified (because by their nature they should be assumed to be agreeing with the author, and thus the feedback of a justification isn't necessary in most cases) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:47 29 October 2008 (BST)

Vandalism Seconded... and btw you don't get to set parameters Iscariot. Every Sysop has equal authority, and you can't pick and choose what sysop rules on any given case or prevent any particuular sysop from ruling just because... Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 02:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

User:J3D

Edited another user's comment. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Not vandalism - He just added bold text to the ruling, how can that be impersonation?--Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 07:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry he doesn't actually think it's impersonation. --x o x o 07:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so you can read minds now? Marvelous.--Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 07:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding emphasis that can be assumed to have been unintended given the fact that boxy did not do so at the time, perhaps? It isn't "impersonation" in the classical sense (making a post using someone else's username) but it's definitely changing the message of someone else's post. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I totally understood that part. But I don't think he's changing the message Boxy intended to send.--Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 07:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps. I kind of see any change to someone else's post outside of fixing typos/improving formatting (the latter being mostly restricted to incorrectly formatted votes and the like) as changing their message... but maybe you're right. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not, another ~~mod~~ sysop will fix my ruling.--Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 07:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

User:J3D

Restored a page whose deletion by Karek has been ruled not misconduct and whose undeletion request was denied. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 08:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not the case is ruled misconduct the evidence proving this page should exist is irrefutable. Nubis' undeletion explanation had no justification and no one has been able to give a reason as to why the page should have been deleted. --x o x o 08:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

My explanation was on my vote on the deletion page. I just didn't think I needed to repost it. --– Nubis ^NWO 00:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't get to make that call, sorry. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 08:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Your apology is graciously accepted.--x o x o 08:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Polite warning given, further recreations may be viewed as vandalism -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:40 26 October 2008 (BST)

Want me to put it through A/U again? Or just chuck a cyberbob/MF/Grim/Sonny/Hagnat/Kevan/probably about a trillion others? --x o x o 08:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Come again? --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 08:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

no.--x o x o 09:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

User:DanceDanceRevolution

Shitting up an admin page (such a wonderful meme) despite boxy's soft warning. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 06:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I was merely voicing my opinion guys. It was the first post I had made in over 24 hours on this admin page, so I was hardly shitting up an entire admin page with a single post. Now, because the sysops should view what I did as from good faith before they assume I was merely trying to troll like Bob does here, I honestly appeal to you that what I wrote was not just malicious trolling, and if I may suggest, that Bob is just a little hurt from the fact his attempted case (the one I am accussed of 'trolling' above) is going down the toilet.

All in all, regardless of what I say, I figure the sysops should be able to deal with it, as what I said was no more than a simple comment that I thought I had the right to say. Having said that, if public opinions aren't allowed to be expressed on VB cases which don't involve them (which I am admittedley not so sure about), then feel free to label this as vandalism. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 23:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

And may I also beg the ruling sysops to check the current VB page, and the talk page, to notice the amount of cases and discussions (that even directly involve my friends) that I absolutely did not participate in, once. The only case I argued on at all (let alone consistantly) was the Karek case which I brought up in the first place. If I have to go so much further, do the same with the accusing user Cyberbob here, and honestly, tell me which one has been screwing up admin pages. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 23:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

*cough* --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 01:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Not Vandalism - He seems to have calmed down, and boxy who issued the soft warning, hasn't spoken up. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 21:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Nallan

Impersonation. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 06:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I had previously (a long time before the history purge) grouped all my warnings together under one header titled "Warning". I decided to change the header I had placed there to better reflect my sentiments on the subject. And it's about time I had a case brought against me - I was beginning to feel left out :( --Nallan (Talk) 06:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're going to have much luck convincing anybody "LOLZ" is anywhere near boxy's original heading (which I suspect was "Warning", as that would explain why you didn't attract a report before), somehow. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 06:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Well we'll see I guess. I'm sure they'll be shocked and appalled that I would dare change a header I created in an archive of my talk page over six months ago.--Nallan (Talk) 06:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You grouped all your warnings (notice the plural) under a heading "warning" (singular)? That's funny, I could have sworn that every time I warned someone, I am the one creating the "warning" header (1, 2, 3, 4 & 5). That said... meh -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 07:24 26 October 2008 (BST)

There's plenty of precedent, one example being on this very page. Check out WOOT's case further down. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Eh... times change. I sometimes get my plural and singular mixed up :P --Nallan (Talk) 07:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

*cough* --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 01:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Not Vandalism - See boxy. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 21:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Karek

He has no right to change peoples userpages and signatures (Edit: and a group talk page, to clarify more edits) to suit his own sysop actions. For the first count, he tried to mask it by merely innocently changing a dead link to the old Ron Burgundy. For the second, he could have just asked me. Also, for the second, before you say it was to rid of my link attempt, it has to be said that bad behaviour does not justify more bad behaviour, especially from a sysop. I will repeat he could have just asked me, as the entire signatures's effect was, by that point, void. The worst part was the pages were going to be deleted anyway, and my signature cheating scheme was very well exposed hours before, and therefore this was unnecessary, yet he still insisted on going on this spree on pages he had no right to edit.

I don't want this to be a huge deal, or I would have jumped onto the A/M island. I just want whats been done to be right. I trust sysops to make quick decisions if its for the good of the wiki, because thats what they have been entrusted to do, but this entailed nothing of that.

Also, I'm not a wikigod at rules. So if this is justified I will be wholeheartedly sorry for insisting this. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:32, 25 October 2008 (BST)

Actually user page sovereignty stops roughly somewhere around using templated sigs to try and rig and falsify a deletion vote. That being said it was absolutely necessary to see the actual usage of that redirect.--Karek^maps?! 04:04, 25 October 2008 (BST)

Then why did you change smokerjoker's userpage, and alter the "actual" usage of that redirect. See, the definition of the actual use of the redirect was the removal of the signature, which, under your argument was justified, but said argument just makes you clearly guilty of modifying the actual usage of the link DDR as seen on the BBK talk page archive and the userpage of a BBK member who idled out a year ago. You resorted to altering his page to justify your quick deletion. Explain? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:27, 25 October 2008 (BST)

Yeah, and I've also done it with every other speedy delete request that qualified for deletion but had some incoming links outside of A/D or A/SD. Hell I did it just earlier with Caleb Usher, I also try and do it when I serve a move-delete. So should every other sysop because wiki maintenance is part of the reason for deletions and it would be ridiculous to counter that by leaving 2 or 3 or 4 nonworking links every time something got deleted or was up for deletion for lack of use(Crit 3). --Karek^maps?! 04:55, 25 October 2008 (BST)

Also, Read reverted the related edit you made on the BBK talk page archive, and the Boxy reverted it back to your edit. Because of this, may I request someone other than Boxy rule on this case, please? I know this isn't a rule but I hope that it be honoured given the circumstances. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:32, 25 October 2008 (BST)

Sure, I won't rule (this time), but can I have an A/VB case all of my own, seeing as everyone else has one? I've been doing this sort of thing all morning long so that underused redirects that fit crit 9 can be deleted (there is no requirement for them to be unused to be speedydeleted, fixing the links is a courtesy) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:55 25 October 2008 (BST)

Thanks Box. However, Karek has admitted that he changed the links to see the true use of the DDR link, and of course, his true actions were an overextension of that. What you say and have done Boxy does justify his changing of the BBK talk archive and Karek has justified his changing of my signature to some extent. So I am content with that. But Box, you didn't change another user's page. Regardless of the above, that is still against the rules, and was unecessary. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 05:09, 25 October 2008 (BST)

An edit to Onipar's user page to remove an unnecessary link. There is no page I wouldn't edit to fix up such links, because it's done to maintain the wiki, and I have a long history of doing such. If it was just someone doing it to stir up drama, then you may have a point, but Karek didn't go out of his way to find this to annoy you, it was forced to the attention of the whole wiki by a day of drama creation, so he did what he always does, fixes thing up -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:18 25 October 2008 (BST)

Difference is those were being speedy deleted and you were being an all round nice guy and cleaning up the links. With DDR it was on A/D having received keep votes so removing all the stuff that links to it (not to mention deleting the page!) would influence people who might vote keep on the deletion.--x o x o 05:21, 25 October 2008 (BST)

Actually, we've always done maintenance changes to user pages when necessary to preserve proper usage, links, etc. It falls under helpful edits usually, most commonly happens with Categories on user pages(I'd show you some from my past contribs but I have done hundreds of edits to banned vandal pages so it's kinda massive under User).--Karek^maps?! 05:22, 25 October 2008 (BST)

J3D is right about the context. The link DDR was in Deletions, Karek did not delete it post-SD, like Boxy did with the respective links. Yes, the signature had the be changed for DDR to be accurately seen in that context, but it still didn't warrant the modifying of an innocent's page. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 05:25, 25 October 2008 (BST)

Not Vandalism - It's just normal cleanup tasks following a page move/deletion. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 16:11, 25 October 2008 (BST)

I think the main point was that, the pages were on the Deletions page, not on the Speedy Deletions page, at the time of deletion.--CyberRead240 16:18, 25 October 2008 (BST)

They shouldn't be deleted (or kept) until the deletions request is finished. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 16:23, 25 October 2008 (BST)

What do you mean? So was Karek allowed to delete the redirects while they were on Deletions, or not?--CyberRead240 16:25, 25 October 2008 (BST)

He shouldn't have deleted DDR, the others were crit 6 and need to be brough to Undeletions. Unless I missed something, I was asleep when this all happened. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 16:30, 25 October 2008 (BST)

So it is more misconduct, as opposed to Vandalism?

All the pages were on Speedy Deletions, and before they were deleted there was a Keep vote on them from either nick or jed, I can't remember. Anyway, they were all still existing when they were posted on Deletions (by Boxy). They then protected the Deletions page, so nobody else could comment, and deleted everything except ALHG and Nallan. Just to get you up to speed :P--CyberRead240 16:33, 25 October 2008 (BST)

Neither, it's rather petty, but DDR should've been kept. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 16:38, 25 October 2008 (BST)

Well, I understand that it would be a misconduct case that one would cringe at its petty-ness, but as I have decided to learnmorewiki before getting so involved as a result of all this, it is still a breach in the rules right? Like, he deleted it without letting it pass community voting etc--CyberRead240 16:40, 25 October 2008 (BST)

If DDR was up at the time of the deletion request and deleted, then yep. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 16:46, 25 October 2008 (BST)

Yeah DDR was up, they all were. Thanks for that, I am trying to do this right...trying..haha--CyberRead240 16:47, 25 October 2008 (BST)

Let me make this very clear. DDR wasn't deleted under crit 9, it was deleted under crit 3, it also qualified for crit 9, and DDR invalidated voting on it through his own actions. It would be ridiculous us to allow him to keep a page that was only kept because he rigged the initial vote, that's vandalism, however I didn't feel we needed yet another case relating to this so I dealt with it without asking for an escalation that I sure as hell could have gotten with ease.--Karek^maps?! 17:49, 25 October 2008 (BST)

But, hey, whatever. I should be leaving for that thing announced on my user page today and it looks like I may be gone for that full time. So work it out amongst yourselves.--Karek^maps?! 17:52, 25 October 2008 (BST)

WikiPolicy said:

A Speedy Deletion may be circumvented by a single vote of Keep under the request. If this occurs, the system operator shall move the Speedy Deletion request to the Deletion Request Queue, where the normal rules for Deletion of the page shall apply. Further, a user may choose to move a request from the Speedy Deletion queue to the Deletion Request Queue should they feel that the deletion may attract controversy within the wiki community, but do not wish to cast a Keep vote for the request. Should either of these circumstances occur, the deletion candidate should remain in the Deletion Request Queue until the alloted two weeks is up.

So there you have it. Policy doesn't say DDR can't vote keep on his own page. It had a keep vote, it was moved, according to policy, you have committed misconduct. Nobody is going to file you, but yeah, you have.--CyberRead240 00:46, 26 October 2008 (BST)

Also, I find it humorous that you lied, you actually wrote "Crit 3/9" in the deletions log when deleting DDR. --CyberRead240 00:46, 26 October 2008 (BST)

User:Cyberbob240

Shitting up admin pages in direct breach of this soft warning.--x o x o 02:24, 25 October 2008 (BST)

As Sonny. Ruling plz.--Nallan (Talk) 23:17, 25 October 2008 (BST)

It's the same stuff as the case below, and seeing he hadn't received his warning until just now (do I have to do everything around here?) I'm inclined to allow him to have this one come under the one ruling. Stop pushing, bob, bans will be applied in the future -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:41 26 October 2008 (BST)

This is EXACTLY what read got banned for, consistency plz.--x o x o 07:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

And a ban is exactly what bob will get next time, now take it to the talk page... plz -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 07:12 26 October 2008 (BST)

User:Cyberbob240

Making this edit to A/SD after User:zombie slay3r has requested in this edit where he unprotected A/SD that no more username redirects be put up for awhile.--x o x o 00:17, 25 October 2008 (BST)

Not obeying a request made to avoid rehashing recent drama is not vandalism. It's a shitty thing to do but, not vandalism.--Karek^maps?! 00:35, 25 October 2008 (BST)

Shitty thing to do = bad faith edit = vandalism.--x o x o 00:36, 25 October 2008 (BST)

No, the two are not the same. Being a dick and ignoring a request by another user isn't bad faith towards the wiki. Please stop trying to get another user banned for a personal dispute.--Karek^maps?! 00:40, 25 October 2008 (BST)

User:Eric bessette

Spamming of tons of group talk pages like Codename V. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 18:28, 24 October 2008 (BST)

I know the drama fest is more interesting but can justice please be served? --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 05:40, 25 October 2008 (BST)

He hasn't spammed 20 pages. I'm pretty sure it's 20 before it is vandalism. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 15:54, 25 October 2008 (BST)

User:Sexylegsread

Sexylegsread (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss) Continues to ignore my soft warning about their shitting up the admin pages by repeatedly posting rubbish here. They've been going for over an hour, both here, and on A/SD -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:05 24 October 2008 (BST)

You never officially told me of any Soft Warning. I was never told on my talk page. You mentioned it briefly, not even in my own Vandal Case, but in somebody elses. I am not obliged to read every single part of the wiki to find out if I may have been soft warned or not. If you had properly informed me I may have reconsidered the timing, and the placement of my edits.--CyberRead240 10:16, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Also, you have stated that we have been going on for "almost an hour, both here and on A/SD". The only posts I have made on the Speedy Deletions page came BEFORE you "issued" me the soft warning.(see:wrote so in a random VB case because you were too lazy to tell me personally, and expected me to just pick up on the fact that you had given me a soft warning without actually letting me know in any way). You have since given me a vandal escalation for said edits on A/SD, therefore there is no need for you to mention the fact that I ever posted on A/SD, as it has nothing to do we me not abiding to the "Soft Warning" that you failed to tell me about in the first place.--CyberRead240 10:52, 24 October 2008 (BST)

So, just to clarify for other Sysops who may decide to rule on this case, lets show what you are therefore putting me on A/VB for. Two edits. One in reply to an inflammatory comment left by another user, alluding to a questioning of my sexuality in a very immature manner, and one telling the same user that I was done with arguing with him about a certain event, in an effort to stop the back and forth posting that was happening, and by history and precedent, would continue to happen had I not replied with something calm, but instead opted to antagonize him back.

Keeping in mind that you are posting me up for vandal banning for defying your "soft warning" (which I was never officially issued with, nor was I even told about, I was just left to somehow stumble across amongst the edit war and Recent Changes frenzy that was happening).

So you are saying I am a vandal, because I didn't adhere to a made-up warning, that wasn't even given to me, nor was I informed about by anybody, because I posted one reply on the A/VB page in response to an inflammatory comment by a User, and one in an obvious attempt to end a conversation that should not have been on this official page in the first place.

Nice work, buddy.--CyberRead240 10:52, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Of course your posts to A/SD came before the soft warning... that's a big part of the reason for my warning. And I only picked out 2 edits after you got the soft warning... and you did read it, because you've been commenting on it just down the page. I really don't want either of you warned for this, but there seems to be no other way to get through to you other than official warnings/bans. You were told to take it to a talk page somewhere, you both choose to ignore that, leaving me no option. At least I don't have to repost this 4 or 5 times, now, because of edit conflicts -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:06 24 October 2008 (BST)

I was told about it on the BBK IRC, after I had made all the comments, I simply missed what was said, didn't read into it, and posted a reply to Iscariot about Soft Warnings in general, as I hadn't yet been told (or even considered) you using the Soft Warning system. Every post was completely innocent, as I did not know about the Soft Warning on me until you posted this Vandal report. You should have posted it on my talk page to make sure that I got it, and not blindly skimmed through replying to whatever was relevant in the whole editing skirmish that was happening earlier. I am up to speed now.--CyberRead240 12:24, 24 October 2008 (BST)

I must add, your comment does nothing. You still haven't justified why you neglected to make sure I got your Soft Warning. Regardless of if you think my posts are relevant and that I have understood I have a soft warning (by commenting on its implementation and policies on a general basis), you still should have posted on my talk page to make sure that the message got through to me. All you have is my word here, but when it really boils down to it, you cannot prove that I ever read the soft warning, and that is nobody's fault but your own. I can assure you that if I knew that I would have been put up for Vandal Banning for continuing I would have stopped, as I am sure you have noticed that I have remained out of the "shitting up the admin page" game for a while now. (That is, if you do understand that I truly r noob and I don't know how to resize images). So, I think that if you are going to implement Soft Warnings, you have to contact the User on their page. It is the only way to do it.--CyberRead240 12:49, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Congratulations! All your chattiness has given me everything I need to justify giving you a warning for Bad Faith Spamming with the intent to Rules Lawyer. Won't work here, you knew you shouldn't be doing it and did it anyway. Vandalism be my ruling.--Karek^maps?! 13:03, 24 October 2008 (BST)

You are indeed somewhat of a smug C-word, but please go on and tell me how you can prove that I knew about the soft warning.--CyberRead240 13:11, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Also, what do you mean about Bad faith spamming with the intent to Rules Lawyer? So what, if I feel there is an abundance of information in my own favour I'm not allowed to post so in my own defence? Sweet wiki you guys are running here--CyberRead240 13:13, 24 October 2008 (BST)

You're not posting in your own defense, you're trying to claim you're exempt from the warning because Boxy didn't go out of his way to do everything under the sun to make sure you knew. Even when he had more than enough reason to assume you did know.--Karek^maps?! 13:20, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Everything under the sun...are you fucking retarded...It isn't that hard to post a message on my talk page, there is a link in my sig. You then press the plus button and type away. I didn't ask for a fucking home addressed ovarian-egg inked personally penned letter did I. The fact of the matter is, he posted it in somebody elses vandal case, assumed I knew about it, then put me up for Banning. Assuming is not good enough when you are a Sysop.--CyberRead240 13:22, 24 October 2008 (BST)

"You're not trying to post in your own defence, you're trying to claim you're exempt from the warning" How is that not posting in one's defence considering he is up for banning for ignoring a soft warning. How can he ignore something that he didn't know about, it's not possible. Ignorance and ignoring are not the same, and despite perhaps being guilty of the former, he did not perform the latter. You cannot simply assume that everything has been done in bad faith. There has to be some level of "innocent until proven guilty" within the wiki otherwise it will simply turn into some pissing match, as seems to be the case.--Scurley7 13:27, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Because he did know about it, not to mention he knew other users were getting similar warnings for the same thing. He's claiming ignorance because Boxy didn't post it in 3 different places, not because he's actually ignorant.--Karek^maps?! 13:37, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Name the three places I wanted him to post it in.--CyberRead240 13:42, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Also, I did not know about it. I replied to Iscariot in principal without reading the background to the story. I opened IRC to ask the BBK guys why the fuck I had been put up by Boxy. That is when I found out. But go on, tell me the three places I requested his posting.--CyberRead240 13:45, 24 October 2008 (BST)

"Because he did know about it..." - Or he is genuinely innocent and would rather not have another "black-mark" upon his record for something that he did/did not intend. You cannot know. While you do have to act in the spirit of the community, and normally I respect your decisions (I have been a Karek groupie in the past), I think that your typical clear-cut following of the rules is perhaps misguided here. He is obviously very passionate about his wiki behaviour, and adamant to clear his name and reputation, as can be seen by the fact that he hasn't had an A/VB case in months. I think perhaps a belief in good faith of others might not be misplaced.--Scurley7 13:47, 24 October 2008 (BST)

I'm not saying he isn't a good user, I'm saying he knew other people were getting escalations for this exact thing. He went ahead and did it anyway. I can't see any way that's good faith, it's believing that he isn't subject to the same rules as those other users. He got the soft warning, he knew he shouldn't be doing it even before that, he did it anyway. Very simple, very straightforward.--Karek^maps?! 13:50, 24 October 2008 (BST)

I didn't know about the Soft Warnings at all, I was eating dinner, I came back, saw the word "Soft Warning" being posted by Iscariot and went apeshit at the name. I didn't even know that Boxy had issued them to anybody, until AFTER he put me up for VB the second time. The first time he did so, was for a different issue, on the A/SD page, where I posted a large image. What Boxy failed to put in his assessment of my case at the top of this section, was that he had already banned me for that, and that the soft warning was in fact, for a couple of edits. Both acting in an anti-inflammatory manner.--CyberRead240 13:55, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Also, answer my question from the previous post.--CyberRead240 13:56, 24 October 2008 (BST)

"I'm saying he knew other people were getting escalations for this exact thing." - Well that's the thing. He didn't as has been his arguement all along. He did not know he had been soft-warned, and while his edits may have not been appropriate in their expression, they were in good faith, acting in an anti-inflammatory manner for the benefit of other wiki users viewing the page. This combined with the fact that he has openly admitted that he would not have continued if he knew he had been soft-warned, implies good faith. As a sysop, it is your duty as well to assume that users are acting in the benefit of the wiki unless irrevocable evidence can be provided. While this may seem a trivial case as it will only result in a 24 hr ban, it sets precedent. I feel that perhaps a policy discussion might follow regarding the issuing of "soft-warnings", regardless of outcome, and while I know soft-warnings aren't considered "official", if their issuing and the knowledge of their posting by users involved is cruicial, then perhaps something is needed. --Scurley7 14:36, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Vandalism - You know the rules too, Read. Unless someone thinks differently that would be a 24 hour ban. -- C h e e s e 18:39, 24 October 2008 (BST)

~~Second warning, actually. Unless I'm confused and he didn't just get a warning struck.~~ Missed the recent warning.--Karek^maps?! 18:53, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Ban applied -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:46 26 October 2008 (BST)

User:Cyberbob240

Cyberbob240 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss) Continues to ignore my soft warning about their shitting up the admin pages by repeatedly posting rubbish here. They've been going for over an hour, both here, and on A/SD -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:05 24 October 2008 (BST)

You'll note that the second of those links is the last time I made such a post; I could have responded to a number of other posts if I so chose. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 10:14, 24 October 2008 (BST)

You still committed the same sins as me. Considering that I had already been ruled on over my A/SD postings, that means that the only thing I am being pinned for is my posts on this page. Therefore, if I go down, you have to go down with me. And also, probably Nick, Jed, Charlie and Iscariot too.--CyberRead240 14:17, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Unfortunately you also have the handicap of that textwall you posted in a huge panic. I have restrained myself, and have avoided a number of tempting openings where I could have made a snippy remark. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 14:28, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Regardless of my text wall, which is all relevant, as I was at dinner as this whole thing exploded, we have both committed the same act. It wasn't in a huge panic either, I couldn't give a fuck if I got a 24 hour ban, really. It is the incompetency of Boxy, and you must agree, if they are going to use the whole "soft warning" thing as an excuse to escalate your vandal status, they must make it more official than posting it in some random VB case. My argument is that we both should have been notified formally. Also, I feel as if Boxy has worded his posts against us so that it looks as if all the edits and pages that he has linked is in violation of his soft warning. Which is untrue, because we have already been trialled for our goings on on the A/SD page and A/D page. If he was going to include the link so A/SD, he should have mentioned that those posts had already been ruled on. Because, all we have done is post a couple of comments on this page. Surely not requiring a vandal escalation. I think there is a bit more motive behind these two cases from Boxys point of view.

Unfortunately, in this wiki, you cannot plead your case, as it is considered to be taboo to find any sort of loophole, or misstep of a sysop. Plain and simple, he should have posted on our talk paged if he wanted to give us a soft warning. It can't be official, tucked away in someones Vandal Banning report. Agree? (also, take this to my talk page if you think it should be there)--CyberRead240 14:35, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Please save your spam for your own section. You are barking up the wrong tree if you're thinking I'm going to suddenly buddy up to you just because we're being accused of similar things. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 14:57, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Nope, I am just pointing out what I believe in, and showing you what I think has happened, as it is relevant to both cases and might help us both out. Don't try and pretend you care about the spamming of these pages, you can see right through it. I just think the information I have provided can help both causes and that they should be taken into consideration when someone decides to do something about this. Thats all.--CyberRead240 15:03, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Vandalism - You know the rules Bob. That would be a 48 hour ban unless some other sysop wants to overrule me. - C h e e s e 18:36, 24 October 2008 (BST)

No it isn't, it's a second warning. I had a warning struck. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 21:56, 24 October 2008 (BST)

He's right, I've applied the 2nd warning to A/VD and bobs talk page -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:38 26 October 2008 (BST)

User:DanceDanceRevolution

Posted a frivolous A/VB case that could have been just as easily resolved on my talk page. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 09:00, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Not vandalism - a soft warning has been given, to all parties conserned, including you, bob. Please step away from the admin pages, now -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:02 24 October 2008 (BST)

Does that include me? I was involved, after all - I mean I wouldn't want you to make a bad call or something.--Nallan (Talk) 09:05, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Ditto Nallan, does this also include me? Full list of all those 'soft warned' please. Also, I think you meant concerned. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 09:07, 24 October 2008 (BST)

The list is 2 cases down... but I can extend it to you guys if you insist -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:22 24 October 2008 (BST)

Not until someone tells me what the fuck a soft warning is.--Nallan (Talk) 09:26, 24 October 2008 (BST)

No boxy, you posted one list and then in a separate VB case said all parties involved. The two are mutually exclusive, mainly because you as the ruling sysop are involved. Are you 'soft warning' yourself? Also, I don't think threatening users with the extension of warnings to include them is proper sysop conduct.

Nallan, soft warnings don't exist at all in policy. They are a device used by rogue sysops such as Hagnat to subvert the A/VB system. I really thought we'd got over using these imaginary constructs, apparently not. There's no point in taking it to misconduct, due to the judges there. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 09:36, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Which is why we need someone that actually represents people the on the wiki who aren't all buttfucking each other, to be promoted to sysop.--CyberRead240 09:38, 24 October 2008 (BST)

I guess you guys are screwed then; you've pretty much redefined the meaning of the word "circlejerk". --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 09:41, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Nah it still means the same thing ;) --Nallan (Talk) 09:42, 24 October 2008 (BST)

I'm interested to know how we could have possibly changed it? Man we are pretty fucking powerful, we have control over the english language. FUCK YES.--CyberRead240 09:43, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Apparently cyberbob doesn't have that same control.--Nallan (Talk) 09:44, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Wow, you really fail as to what a soft warning is. It's to let someone know that they are on the edge of what a sysop considers vandalism and that anything further will be considered vandalism. It's not a "device used by rogue sysops", but rather a way to let users know that the sysop is seriously considering their actions as border line vandalism. Unfortunatly they are treated as a joke since most sysops don't do anything beyond softwarning people. - Jedaz - 09:44/24/10/2008

A message on the Users discussion, and a statement saying "I have contacted the User about their behaviour" on the VB page, would suffice. There is no need to label a slap on the wrist. It's not taken seriously because some Sysops only use it when they feel like proving a point. When they feel the need to "win" so to speak. There is no regard for precedent when considering a soft warning, it is just a Sysop saying "lolursoftwarned". Why do we need to label it.

Oh thats right, because the Sysop wouldn't be able to show his power by just dealing with a user normally--CyberRead240 09:50, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Which is why we need a new chancellor, a strong chancellor. One who will not stand by and watch my people die!--Nallan (Talk) 09:46, 24 October 2008 (BST)

I came back home for this? How disapointing that this was all he could 'pin' me for. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 12:53, 24 October 2008 (BST)

User:Cyberbob240

I know its a shitstorm of Cyberbob vandal accusations, but I really couldn't see a reason for this? Legit explaination will immediately be followed with love and cuddles. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:51, 24 October 2008 (BST)

If all you're after is an explanation a note on my talk page would have sufficed. This is extremely frivolous. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 08:54, 24 October 2008 (BST)

I don't think that counts as an explaination. I'll assume it should have been put on this page then? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:57, 24 October 2008 (BST)

I did it for two reasons, one being the same as for all the other reverts. The other is that with the edited version of the request ZA put on the page the longer one is redundant. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 08:59, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Not vandalism - this is part of the last case (not allowing the A/SD request to be moved to A/D) that has already been ruled on. Please take note of my soft warning below, DDR, it applies to you too -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:00 24 October 2008 (BST)

User:Cyberbob240

Shitting up admin pages. --x o x o 08:19, 24 October 2008 (BST)

You really want to go down that road? We could sit here reporting each other's edits of that nature all day. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 08:20, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Or you could stop vandalising =p D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:22, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Soft warning, and it applies to Bob, J3D, DDR and Sexy. The number of edit conflicts I've had to work through in the last half an hour here, trying to sort through your pages of trolling is ridiculous -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:58 24 October 2008 (BST)

And yet none of it is justified because the guilty goes unpunished. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 09:00, 24 October 2008 (BST)

It's his case, he is allowed to comment as he likes. And are we really going down the soft warning route again? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:00, 24 October 2008 (BST)

User:Sexylegsread

If this doesn't count as spamming admin pages I don't know what does. That image is breaking tables. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 08:14, 24 October 2008 (BST)

More. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 08:17, 24 October 2008 (BST)

I found it a perfectly legitimate way of ending an argument that would have continued to break everything anyway. It is ironic that he needed to bring out that image to actually stop the argument between me and CF. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:19, 24 October 2008 (BST)

lol butthurt--CyberRead240 08:20, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Cancer, I really, really should have known. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:20, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Sorry to disappoint guys, but it isn't mine. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 08:21, 24 October 2008 (BST)

lololol, totally butthurt. Also, thankyou to whoever resized my images, I r noob with interweb stuff--CyberRead240 08:25, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Vandalism - a legitimate way to end the argument would be to stop posting, or at least take it to a talk page. Spamming main admin pages with huge images isn't on -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:42 24 October 2008 (BST)

"Also, thankyou to whoever resized my images, I r noob with interweb stuff" - sexylegsread. The images were relevant, the size was not. He didn't know how to resize them and didn't make them big again when they were resized. Hardly bad faith...--x o x o 08:44, 24 October 2008 (BST)

No, I honestly didn't know how to resize, or how big they were before I posted them, then it got caught up in the shit storm.--CyberRead240 08:44, 24 October 2008 (BST)

How long have you been around on the wiki for again? Not an excuse after so long, sorry. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 08:45, 24 October 2008 (BST)

It is my excuse, its the first time I have uploaded an image that wasn't already prepared for me.--CyberRead240 08:46, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Coming from the guy who can't read a/sd policy after over 2 years?? --x o x o 08:47, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Coming from the guy who failed as a sysop cause of his stoooopid handling of wiki policy? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:49, 24 October 2008 (BST)

I can read it. I figured that the obvious bad faith in which you guys made those votes rendered it null and void. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 08:49, 24 October 2008 (BST)

If that's your excuse you probably should report everyone who voted for vandalism. I'm sure User:Jen will be interested to hear what you have to say.--x o x o 08:50, 24 October 2008 (BST)

I'd love to except I know it would be pointless (being too subjective). As for Jen, had they actually gone ahead and voted that wouldn't have been bad faith as they are an uninvolved party. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 08:53, 24 October 2008 (BST)

He shouldn't have put them there, if he didn't know how to do it properly. And frankly, the nature of the images wasn't relevant to the case at all. It was trolling nonsense -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:51 24 October 2008 (BST)

Ah yes, the "trolling not allowed" policy. You're a repository of wiki lore, did you know that box-y?--Nallan (Talk) 08:58, 24 October 2008 (BST)

No, wasn't trolling, Cyberbob said he didn't have myspace, and my quick googling proved him wrong. It ended that particular conversation.

You're saying that if I didn't know how to do it properly, I shouldn't have done it at all? Thats not fair, you get to pose as a Sysop every day!:(--CyberRead240 09:12, 24 October 2008 (BST)

If you want to discuss someones god damn myspace page, do it on their talk page, especially if it involves putting up huge images. Now GTFO this page with this worthless discussion -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:20 24 October 2008 (BST)

I told you sirsysop that I didn't know how to resize them, otherwise I would have. Assume good faith. It was a visual post, I used an image instead of text. This isn't worthless I am telling you that I don't think I have committed vandalism. You don't need to get all agro when someone says your a shit sysop, just prove them wrong, be a good sysop. I'll be waiting.....for a very long time.--CyberRead240 09:25, 24 October 2008 (BST)

The conversation isn't over, as that myspace is not mine. Thought you might like to know. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 09:14, 24 October 2008 (BST)

It is over as far as I am concerned, I believe it is yours, and I wont be swayed otherwise.--CyberRead240 09:15, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Why does it matter? --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 09:17, 24 October 2008 (BST)

It doesn't, end of.--CyberRead240 09:17, 24 October 2008 (BST)

For something that doesn't matter you sure seem pretty determined to press your side of the argument. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 09:19, 24 October 2008 (BST)

...look who's talking...just give up, I think its yourspace, you think it isn't. Difference of opinion. No need to continue this.--CyberRead240 09:25, 24 October 2008 (BST)

User:J3D

Insists on removing the requests for the Speedy Deletion of the Cyberfaggot and Cyberbob240 pages from A/SD despite there being absolutely no reason to - subjective or otherwise. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 08:10, 24 October 2008 (BST)

J3D has done nothing but revert. This may have been a good faith mistake as a consequence of his participation in current edit war. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:13, 24 October 2008 (BST)

I missed the part where reverting vandalism in it's entirety wasn't a reason for removing things from pages.--x o x o 08:15, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Neither of those two requests are involved in that which you are trying to paint as vandalism. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 08:16, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Please learn to read, it'd save us all repeating ourselves. Until then, let me help you: I reverted edits that included vandalism. If you don't want stuff moved, please don't incorporate it in your vandalism sprees.--x o x o 08:18, 24 October 2008 (BST)

It's your responsibility to learn how to edit properly, not mine. Laziness is no excuse. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 08:19, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Reverting vandalism is my responsibility, i did that Now shh shh and wait for the sysops to arrive.--x o x o 08:21, 24 October 2008 (BST)

In your attempt to revert "vandalism" you oh-so-ironically committed actual vandalism of your own. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 08:22, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Good faith; Learn it, he had it, you have none. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:31, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Good faith is but a matter of perspective. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 08:32, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Indeed. And your perspective is wrong.--CyberRead240 08:34, 24 October 2008 (BST)

You clearly don't know how closely the words "perspective" and "subjectivity" go hand in hand. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 08:36, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Not vandalism - but getting close. I'm going with the "didn't notice" excuse during an edit war. Be careful, J3D -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:38 24 October 2008 (BST)

Wow i'm impressed! Correct! Gotta be the first time in, what, a month? Since you probably didn't mean it i'll let you change your decision and rule based on your personal opinions of users.--x o x o 08:40, 24 October 2008 (BST)

User:Cyberbob240

continually and deliberately ignoring A/SD policy that clearly states "A Speedy Deletion may be circumvented by a single vote of Keep under the request. " Several such keep votes have been made, and 2 seperate users tried to move the pages in question from a/sd to a/d. Despite being warned of a/vb action and having his attention directed to such policy Cyberbob decided to continue reverting the edits. In addition to this he is continually placing a speedy delete template on the pages up for deletion, despite being fully aware they are no longer up for speedy deletion. I will continue to revert until a sysop arrives.--x o x o 08:03, 24 October 2008 (BST)

As will I. Voting Keep is clearly in bad faith violation of SD Criterion 9. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 08:04, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Proof of moving the contents back. If that is needed of course. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:07, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Cyberbob's continued vandalism, over 10 acts so far should result in more than just a single escalation on a/vd as he shows no desire to go with reason, general consensus of users online OR policy and as an ex-sysop, should know better.--x o x o 08:08, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Fail. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 08:18, 24 October 2008 (BST)

What, the vandalism or your defense? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:21, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Not vandalism - the redirects obviously do qualify for speedydeletion, and there was no valid reason to vote keep on them, other than DDR not wanting the rules that apply to everyone else to apply to him. The case is supposed to be moved by a system operator, by the rules, so yeah, it should stay on A/SD until revived by a sysop. However the speedydeletion nomination probably has to go to A/D, seeing as there is a keep vote on it. I'll have a look later -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:33 24 October 2008 (BST)

winnar --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 08:34, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Concurance. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:43, 24 October 2008 (BST)

User:Shakey60

This more or less speaks for itself. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:15, 24 October 2008 (BST)

I always just assumed you created it =] D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:19, 24 October 2008 (BST)

He just made it. I don't know how you would have had time to "always assume" anything. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:30, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Also, this. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:30, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Well, CF, I didn't have the time to check the history, ya dig? I just saw it on the RC and had a little giggle. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:31, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Warned -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:22 24 October 2008 (BST)

User:Rober e killer

Warned [1] -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 18:45, 22 October 2008 (BST)

User:McWaffle

Created this suggestion. His comments included "honestly I just thought it was funny" and in response to a vote of Humourous "glad someone liked it anyway ;)". Clearly intended as a humourous suggestion.

Adding a humourous suggestion to the main system is vandalism as defined by point 10 of the suggestions guidelines. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 15:40, 22 October 2008 (BST)

It was borderline. I left a note on his talk page about it. Not Vandalism.--– Nubis ^NWO 16:38, 23 October 2008 (BST)

User:Gamestriker4

I'm all for a bit of friendly sandbox/sandpit trolling but this edit really fucked up the page. It's not his first massively page breaking edit to the page and/or sandbox either.--x o x o 00:04, 22 October 2008 (BST)

Meh - it's the sandpit, a place for testing shitz, he's testing out how annoying he can be... and succeeding. Better there, than anywhere else. I suggest you stop using the sandboxes/sandpits as your private chat/advertising rooms if you don't like people experimenting in the middle of your conversations -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:14 22 October 2008 (BST)

Sigh you are predictable, policy out the window for personal vendettas. --x o x o 08:41, 22 October 2008 (BST)

I don't do vendettas, but it looks like you're working on getting another one going again. The whole point of sandboxes is so that people can do stuff that would get them warned if they stuffed it up elsewhere. There are limits (pron links and what-not), but this doesn't reach it for me -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:57 22 October 2008 (BST)

Repeated intentional breaking of the page doesn't reach it for you? Hmmm, each to his own i guess. --x o x o 09:06, 22 October 2008 (BST)

You might try Arbitration. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 09:14, 22 October 2008 (BST)

I use this page, and when I clicked the link it caused srs lag on my end. How inconvenient, for me a regular user :(. I hope my elected sysops do something about this annoyance.--CyberRead240 09:32, 22 October 2008 (BST)

You see, I always thought 'bad faith' was designated as an edit made with the clear intent to not improve the wiki. Can these edits to a community page in any way be seen as 'good faith'? Is this person repeatedly testing things so that he can improve his wiki coding and be constructive elsewhere in the community? If this cannot be seen as 'good faith' in any way the a vandalism ruling should result. Bad faith = vandalism. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:58, 22 October 2008 (BST)

Fail. For one, the page in question is not a community page. For two, this case is too subjective to be subject to A/VB. Like I said to the guy who actually made the case - Arbitration is where this should be taken.--HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 10:34, 22 October 2008 (BST)

It isn't under anyones userspace?--CyberRead240 10:37, 22 October 2008 (BST)

No, but as a sandpit it can't really be placed in the same category as something like Suggestions. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 10:58, 22 October 2008 (BST)

True, but there should still be boundaries on pages like that, perhaps not as stringent as we'd have on suggestions. porn links for example as boxy said, repeated page breaking (imho) would be another.--x o x o 11:11, 22 October 2008 (BST)

This is exactly the sort of discussion that would be best had in an Arbitration case. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 12:32, 22 October 2008 (BST)

No, it's not. Disputes over a/vb aren't arbies material (see countless past examples). At least hold out for a few more sysops views. If it's a unanimous no i'll drop it, if it's not, then boxys may have to accept he's on a vendetta :P --x o x o 12:34, 22 October 2008 (BST)

This may be a more suitable location for your private chat page? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:51 22 October 2008 (BST)

That's right boxy, head in the sand. --x o x o 12:53, 22 October 2008 (BST)

You should replace {{Sandpitwarning}} with {{ALiMNav}} though, to make it clear that you get to say what should, and what should npt be on your pages -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:54 22 October 2008 (BST)

WARNING, AGENDA ALERT, AGENDA ALERT..UNFIT 'CRAT IN THE VICINITY--CyberRead240 12:56, 22 October 2008 (BST)

That'd be bitter ex-crat. Seriously boxy, do you have the ability to look at this even slightly objectively? --x o x o 13:01, 22 October 2008 (BST)

You guys make me lol. Not in a good way, though. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 13:07, 22 October 2008 (BST)

Cool story bro--CyberRead240 13:10, 22 October 2008 (BST)

Not Vandalism - Oh my people, it's a sandbox. People are pointed to these things to make test edits or fool around. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 18:28, 22 October 2008 (BST)

Did you scroll down and look at the edit? Also, it's a sandPIT :P--CyberRead240 05:06, 23 October 2008 (BST)

Not Vandalism this time. Note left on his talk page explaining that perhaps he should make his own sandpit. --– Nubis ^NWO 16:41, 23 October 2008 (BST)

User:Ottotorrens

Oh well look at that, whoops?--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 22:27, 20 October 2008 (BST)

Was already warned for that. See below. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 22:31, 20 October 2008 (BST)

its a different vandalism though... This has nothing to do with Sonny... or am I missing something...--/~Rakuen~\^Talk

I Still Love Grim 22:43, 20 October 2008 (BST)

Check the link in boxy's ruling. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 22:48, 20 October 2008 (BST)

oh... lulz--/~Rakuen~\^Talk

I Still Love Grim 01:48, 21 October 2008 (BST)

User:Tomer

Wiped the page BEGINNERS MSF FORCE as seen here.--SirArgo ^Talk 05:39, 20 October 2008 (BST)

Not vandalism - it looks like it's his page, it's just that there's been a history wipe -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:44 20 October 2008 (BST)

User:Fluffy

Serial spammer with no valuable contribs:

etc. etc. --Funt Solo ^QT 17:51, 19 October 2008 (BST)

Gone. Again. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 17:52, 19 October 2008 (BST)

User:WOOT

Impersonation. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 05:24, 19 October 2008 (BST)

OH SHI- *This hip bopper just got sent to the cell ya dig?*--/~Rakuen~\^Talk

I Still Love Grim 05:49, 19 October 2008 (BST)

Warned - please go back on the medication, WOOT :P -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:39 19 October 2008 (BST)

I lost my pills... all of them... ;_; --/~Rakuen~\^Talk

I Still Love Grim 17:51, 19 October 2008 (BST)

User:Smackelbap

looks like vandalism to me...--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 00:19, 18 October 2008 (BST)

Oh, and this, what a fag--/~Rakuen~\^Talk

I Still Love Grim 00:23, 18 October 2008 (BST)

Permabanned. Only one contributive edit which he then undid. -- C h e e s e 00:25, 18 October 2008 (BST)

Ah, so, how's little Timmy doing? You ever tell AHLG that I'm the father?--/~Rakuen~\^Talk

I Still Love Grim 00:42, 18 October 2008 (BST)

User:Imthatguy

Vandalism --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 21:47, 17 October 2008 (BST)

Not vandalism - looks like a newbie mistake, commenting on the main page, rather than the talk page. I've left him a note about where to leave any comments -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:09 18 October 2008 (BST)

Ottotorrens

Pasting Sonny's talk page this time. -- C h e e s e 18:53, 15 October 2008 (BST)

24hr ban for the above edit, which is trolling impersonation, and also for this edit which was immediately undone by the page owner -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:41 16 October 2008 (BST)

User:ScouterTX

this looks like impersonation to me.--Kristi of the Dead 20:32, 15 October 2008 (BST)

It is indeed. Warned -- C h e e s e 20:36, 15 October 2008 (BST)

User:Ottotorrens

Here --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 00:53, 15 October 2008 (BST)

And isn't this impersonation? --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 00:53, 15 October 2008 (BST)

Warned -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:28 15 October 2008 (BST)

User:Luckydogpsycho

Created a page for a person he does not like in game, as seen here and here. Bad faith. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 02:20, 13 October 2008 (BST)

If anyone cares, this vandalism was turned into a page.--SirArgo ^Talk 03:11, 13 October 2008 (BST)

Warned Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 05:46, 13 October 2008 (BST)

User:Secruss

Blanking of Talk:Crusade '08 page here and again here, because he thinks disagreement is trolling. --Silisquish 22:52, 12 October 2008 (BST)

Per Specific Case Editing Guidelines, users & groups do indeed have the right to remove content from their talk pages, although it is considered poor form to do so without creating an archive. You are always free to post your comments on a page of your own. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 05:21, 13 October 2008 (BST)

Heh, I didn't know that --Silisquish 20:28, 13 October 2008 (BST)

Not vandalism, and if you, Silisquish, restore those bits that Secruss has removed again I will report you for vandalism yourself. Groups have special ownership rights on their own pages, and the associated talk pages. They can remove conversations that they don't want there -- boxy ^{talk • i} 08:28 13 October 2008 (BST)

User:Leon365

Check This entire history with his edits. He just added some lines of insults. Like Here and Here.--SirArgo ^Talk 01:37, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Warned - -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:10 11 October 2008 (BST)

User:DCC

Vandalism on my user page here And again hereand again here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stephen Colbert DFA (talk • contribs) 05:35, October 9, 2008.

Are you serious? --

#99 ^DCC 06:18, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Ok, let's take this to the talk page, fellows. I'm pretty sure I'm going to vote Not Vandalism on this, but you two seem to need to talk this out. --– Nubis ^NWO 07:31, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Yep, not vandalism, he just missed your talk page. Stoopit doesn't equal bad faith -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:15 9 October 2008 (BST)

Not vandalism - As Boxy. Tabbed browsing is convenient but does have it's drawbacks. -- C h e e s e 21:36, 9 October 2008 (BST)

User:Reader5

Removal of a vandal case. No idea what he was hoping to achieve. - User:Whitehouse 17:36, 8 October 2008 (BST)

Warned -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:41 9 October 2008 (BST)

User:Schizoidgull

Sockpuppet to evade ban. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 23:50, 7 October 2008 (BST)

Banned the sock. I call a Permaban Vote. -- C h e e s e 23:53, 7 October 2008 (BST)

Yep - Continues to evade bans despite having 3 socks killed in past hour or so. -- C h e e s e 23:53, 7 October 2008 (BST)

Wait up, that sock puppet's contributions are from the same time the last one was banned, so the puppet gets banned, but not an escalation. And when you ban someone who's using sock puppets, please make sure you block the IP addy for the same period, which should have stopped this rot 2 cases ago -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:37 8 October 2008 (BST)

User:Cyberbob240

I have asked cyberbob twice to cease posting exclusively to troll on my misconduct case, as you can see here, he has not done so. (My requests can be found in the second deep set of indents here. Trolling is exclusively bad faith, FYI. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 23:24, 7 October 2008 (BST)

You've been warned about spamming admin pages several times, bob. That's a 48 hour ban. -- C h e e s e 23:26, 7 October 2008 (BST)

Overturned the ban since the escalation was to such a level that punishment would be a ban it is only fitting that this gets a sysop vote. Not to mention that the "offense" is so "open to interpretation" that a discussion is clearly needed on what his exact "crime" is. Not Vandalism since he has every right to post there. --– Nubis ^NWO 14:26, 8 October 2008 (BST)

~~Vandalism~~ - You have been told to stop this crap, many, many times. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 18:39, 8 October 2008 (BST)

If I was trolling, you should go and bring cases against like three quarters of the people posting in that "We have found a witch, may we burn it?" section. Whoops, damn, I forgot - you only bring cases against people that disagree with you. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 21:41, 8 October 2008 (BST)

Wouldn't that be just about the entire user base of the wiki? :/ I don't think 200kb would be enough room, we'd need to have pages like: UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2008 10/Grimdler's List/Page 4 of 67 -- C h e e s e 21:46, 8 October 2008 (BST)

Oh, I don't think that would be much of a problem for Grim. If there's one thing he has lots of it's free time. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 06:29, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Bleh. Next!-- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 22:03, 13 October 2008 (BST)

User:Schizoidgull

This ID circumvents a week ban. Persistent vandal, request perma due to repeated ban evasion. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:17, 7 October 2008 (BST)

Extended to 1 month ban. Next one gets the Permavote. -- C h e e s e 23:21, 7 October 2008 (BST)

Sweet. If he gets perma then I'm adding him to the list on the Witch Burners. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 23:27, 7 October 2008 (BST)

User:Schizoidgull

Ban Evasion using this account. Ban extended to 1 week. -- C h e e s e 22:54, 7 October 2008 (BST)

User:Schizoidgull

Intentionally putting a suggestion policy in the main suggestion system. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 07:59, 7 October 2008 (BST)

Well, he's already serving a 48hr ban, so while I'm inclined to rule this as vandalism, I'd include it in the case below (ie. no A/VD escalation beyond what has already been applied), but will remove the spammy suggestion -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:17 7 October 2008 (BST)

User:Schizoidgull

Vandalized again. le sigh. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 01:43, 7 October 2008 (BST)

Some more --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 01:45, 7 October 2008 (BST)

More after I asked him on his talk page to stop. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 02:05, 7 October 2008 (BST)

Another he did to someone else earlier today. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 02:07, 7 October 2008 (BST)

48 hour block -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 02:12, 7 October 2008 (BST)

User:Shotgun

Here's a case of impersonation, and vandalism as he's just making shit up that doesn't reflect the in-game reality, as well as altering someone else's post and trying to disguise it as if a user called "Monkeh" did the edits. Also, check his contribs, where he's edit warring on the Fort Perryn page with similar nonsense. As it's serial trolling and shitting up of the wiki, I came straight here rather than try diplomacy. Some people just are vandals (and besides, a guy called Lord Nightmare has tried asking him to stop on the Perryn edit war). --Funt Solo ^QT 20:33, 5 October 2008 (BST)

Some examples [2], [3], [4], [5] and spreading false information. No desirable edits therefore, blocked.-- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 03:42, 6 October 2008 (BST)

User:Obsdark

Soft warning given to Obsdark for deleting comments (poorly) off Talk:Suggestions. Remember kids, just because you don't agree with a poster that doesn't mean you can delete their comments off public pages. (The T:S page history is a nightmare, but he deleted a DCC post and placed ranting nonsense over it.) Just posting for informational reasons. --– Nubis ^NWO 01:05, 5 October 2008 (BST)

Since when did deleting comments merit a mere soft warning? --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 01:07, 5 October 2008 (BST)

Anyone is free to give unofficial warnings rather than bring a VB case here, if they feel that is a better way to deal with the situation. Saying that you've done it here is counterproductive. Please don't -- boxy ^{talk • i} 13:57 5 October 2008 (BST)

Nubis is a pansy ass and worries that if he comes down hard "defending" a fellow goon people will scream favoritism. He's a fucking moron.--

#99 ^DCC 02:51, 6 October 2008 (BST)

User:Happykook

This edit. Removing a signed comment from a talk page without reason. Given Happykook's history with me, this is clearly targeted and therefore a bad faith edit to remove my comment from a community talk page. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:55, 3 October 2008 (BST)

Not Vandalism - Take it up with him instead of bringing it here. -- C h e e s e 13:26, 4 October 2008 (BST)

I point all readers to the above case and this one to compare and contrast. Both regarding removals from community talk pages, however one results in a soft warning (in which the sysop in question clearly states it would be a full warning if the case was brought here) and the other where it's ruled not vandalism and the ruling sysop recommends further contact with the vandal in order to promote more wiki drama. A/VB, when you absolutely positively have to flip a coin for any decision, accept no substitutes. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 12:17, 5 October 2008 (BST)

This is why the syops need to decide, be a dick to everyone (Grim), or be kind and helpful to everyone (AHLG). Not stuck in the middle, giving out "soft warnings" to some, and "LOLBANz" to others based on who they are. And how in the fuck is this petty? He removed his whole comment...--/~Rakuen~\^Talk

I Still Love Grim 17:23, 5 October 2008 (BST)

Not Vandalism - very petty reporting from Iscariot, yet again. It was a purely coincidental comment about wiki maintenance that any decent wiki contributor should be fine with it being removed once it had served it's purpose (keeping the section from being re-inserted on the main Mall page). However I see no reason why the comment was reinserted by Cheese if there was already a ruling of not vandalism, as it did nothing but up the drama level on the page -- boxy ^{talk • i} 13:54 5 October 2008 (BST)

User:Schizoidgull

Blocked for a day. More vandalism -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 01:21, 1 October 2008 (BST)

e

Vandal Banning Archive

2006	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2007	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2008	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2009	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2010	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2011	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2012	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Q3			Q4
2013	Q1			Q2			Q3			Q4
Years	2014		2015		2016		2017		2018		2019
	2020

UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive1

Guidelines for Vandalism Reporting

Before Submitting a Report

Vandalism Report Space

Ottotorrens

Navigation menu

Search