UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2008 12

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

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

December 2008

User:J3D

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

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

Not vandalism - for cris' sake, learn to take a joke, people! If J3D is gonna get warned for this, then i guess there is plenty of people that should be warned as well. --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 10:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
FUCK THE RULES --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 11:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
FUCK YEAH! --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 11:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

As a regular User on this wiki, I lol Soft Warnings off. They aren't official, so pretty much they are redundant. As many people who aren't boxy or grim or minions have said in the past, "Soft Warnings are fucking stupid". Did someone scream agenda?--CyberRead240 21:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for making the case for why it's pointless to give him yet another soft warning. He's had his chances to stop being a twat, so it's clear that it's a deliberate drama generation now -- boxy talk • teh rulz 23:59 18 December 2008 (BST)

User:Honestmistake

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

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

Meh --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 12:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
fuck the rules amirite --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 12:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm torn. If I vote Vandalism it looks like I am being petty since he "voted" Misconduct. If I vote not vandalism it looks like we are saying that anyone can "rule" on cases. I'll just split the difference and ban him outright. --– Nubis NWO 13:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

This has to stop. Claiming "precedent" because one sysop says something is stupid. Especially when it is someone like Hagnat. (At least pick someone more consistent like Karek or even geez, Grim) It's especially laughable when you look through the history at his other posts and can almost always find one where he reverses himself. Pick a better horse. --– Nubis NWO 04:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Strangely enough, this quote is from a case of misconduct against you for posting a ruling in another case of against you, and you claimed there are no rules that forbids sysops from voting in their own cases (common sense clearly says they can't, no need for a rule on that). A similar case was brought upon myself in may, and you asked for my demotion. Who is the inconsistent now ?
In a case against yourself, you do not contribute as a sysop but as a regular user (therefore your ruling weighted the same as honestmistake). The only difference between a sysop and a normal user in this case is that, through inaction of the rest of the adminsitration staff, the ruling of the first can become official. --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 11:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I know where that quote is from. You voted misconduct on your own case and offered a light punishment (warning). That case was part of a larger situation in which you were accused of vote striking and ruling on VB cases to create precedent to use on another case against you. That was the main issue. You were trying to change a VB ruling to use in your misconduct case. Trying to set precedent on VB to apply to Misconduct is entirely different from defending yourself and bolding Not Misconduct. When a sysop tries to change the rules improperly for their own benefit they should be demoted. --– Nubis NWO 17:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Thats why i meh'ed this case. Honestmistake "ruling" will only be valid through inaction or verbal agreement... otherwise is just a user stating his opinion there. --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 18:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
actually, honestmistake's opinion will never be accounted at all (cuz he is not a sysop, thus unable to make adminstrative actions). But he is still free to voice it. --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 18:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

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

We used to have unclear presidents on this wiki? ;) --ZsL 02:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism. Here is a user getting voted Vandalism by Cheese because he warned a user on his talk page. That's impersonating a sysop. Here's the precedent.--– Nubis NWO 04:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Your precedence is from a user impersonating a sysop in another's talk page. This is a case where a user simply bolded his opinion (which incidently ressembled the way sysops rule) in a public page about a misconduct case... unlike the first case where the impersonaction could hold water, any attempt to impersonate a sysop in a misconduct discussion will easily be dismissed by the administration staff as we weighted our opinions to decide on a ruling. Thus, not vandalism --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 04:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
So you can impersonate sysops on Admin pages, but not on user pages? Well that sounds like a great rule! People's Commissar Nubistalk mod 17:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
impersonating a sysop as in pretending to be part of the administration staff... any user pretending to be a sysop in admin pages will be quickly be noticed and dealt with, so no harm will be done and punishment unnecessary (unless the user keeps acting like a sysop, when intervention will then be needed). A user pretending to be a sysop in another user talk page, on the other hand, will only be noticed if another user spots the faker in action, and that can take several days or weeks, and by then harm will already have been done and punishment for such action will be necessary. --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 18:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Jerrel Yokotory

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

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

And here. --Janus talk 14:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Last time I checked, idiocy didn't count as an A/VB offense, but the other two clearly to (violation of page ownership guidelines. Meh, he posted a similar message on my talk page before. Linkthewindow  Talk  14:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I posted the idiocy thing because of all the signatures+timestamps he wrote on your talk page. I don't see that alone as vandalism. --Janus talk 14:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
A lot of dodgy edits and in the case of his borehamwood template edit a plain lie. But at least one vaguely helpful edit. IP check shows he's not a regular spammer. You've explained to him what he's doing wrong, and as such I'm willing to wait and see what his next edit is. Any repeat offence and he gets warned. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 14:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
The edit to the KOTA page is an edit to a group page that he is not a member of, and one to an archive and not in any way constructive. Such edits have been ruled vandalism this month on this page. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 14:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Actually Iscariot is right (Wow twice in a week). Misread it as a talk page, but as an archive page it it Vandalism and a such a warning. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 15:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Had I been in my normal vindictive mood I'd have made a new case for this edit, editing a user page with no apparent good faith. You can include this in the first warning or go for a second escalation, I'm not fussed, I must be ill or something. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 15:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Yep. But thats half the point. and you've already done like 40. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 21:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
250 is shit all fyi.--xoxo 05:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Soldier

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

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

Content restored with an explanatory note. Page ownership guidelines are clear, if Cortez wishes to remove your comments, he can. Soldier cannot. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 19:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

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

  • Sergeant William Holt identified as an alt. No wrong footing. Yet. -- Cheese 22:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
    Should his warning be transferred to the new account, then? --Pestolence(talk) 01:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
    No, the fact that he's got another account now should just have been recorded on A/VD so that any warnings the new account gets are added to the existing one -- boxy talk • teh rulz 01:16 17 December 2008 (BST)
    And it has been already -- boxy talk • teh rulz 01:20 17 December 2008 (BST)
    Ok. --Pestolence(talk) 01:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
    Don't alts used for vandalism get permabanned instantly? It's happened before. Linkthewindow  Talk  04:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
    The new alt has not been convicted of vandalism. It is not against policy to have multiple alts on this wiki. Also in order for an alt to be instantly perma-ed it must be demonstrated that the alt was created purely for vandalism or to subvert a current ban. Neither has happened in this case and even though I don't like the guy, he hasn't broken any rules by having this alt. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 04:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
    no. also, alts are allowed.for examplae user:nallan and user:sexylegsread and shit are mine.--xoxo 04:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
    Yeah, I know. Hagant's got a few. Iscarot basically answered my question-I know that purely vandal alts get instanbanned, but I'm wasn't sure about ones that make some productive edits. Linkthewindow  Talk  05:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Jaysed

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

Malicious editing of another group's records. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 11:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Warned - but holy hell! That kill list is full of links to user pages, and the great majority of them appear to be non-existent users. I thought that PK was supposed to be full of learned people... not a group of wiki n00bs who don't understand that the vast majority of UD characters don't have corresponding wiki user accounts! -- boxy talk • teh rulz 12:05 13 December 2008 (BST)
It's nice to know that each ruling now comes with a completely superfluous opinion about one of the groups in the case. Wonderful, perhaps I should start doing this about the sysop team when I make a case.... -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 12:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
You already do.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 17:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User:An unlucky guy

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

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

User:We Cell

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

Edits to the page of another group. Multiple edits, its reasons like this we need to be giving some normal users here rollback.... -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 14:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Nonono I can explain. I contacted the other group and asked them to edit or delete, but the guy who did it also deleted our page, so I assumed he is just a vandal. I then found out he's the leader of the group and will not attempt to edit their page anymore; we'll just duplicate what we had to say back on our page. Thanks for understanding.--We Cell 16:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
You sell, they sell, we sell, i ban... XD... do not edit other people group pages, We Cell. Nuff said, no warning for today since i'm in a good mood today. --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 17:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Awesome.png We Cell 19:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Clear vandalism, along with the edits to the Game Over page by An unlucky guy (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss), and both should be warned (good mood or not) -- boxy talk • teh rulz 22:05 11 December 2008 (BST)
No harm done, both edits reverted, both users already advised to stay away from each other group page... i dont see why we should punish them when their learnt their lesson. Besides, that awesome face i just got is just... awesome Awesome.png --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 23:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
A warning is not a punishment. It is to help us keep track of users prior behaviour. If they learn their lesson, then the warning will go away. If this continues, then we will be able to show the reason to take harsher measures on such vandalism. "I wont do it again" is all well and good, but shouldn't stop us recording these incidents (especially since it's only come from one side so far) on A/VD -- boxy talk • teh rulz 04:42 12 December 2008 (BST)
A warning IS punishment since it serves as a bridge for the true punishment of the ban-hammer. Unlucky guy also admitted that his actions were against the rules and was willing to accept any punishment. Anywya, warn then if you want... this is such a small issue and they both already know better that i feel it wouldn't do harm to let it pass. --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 10:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't serve as a bridge, it serves as a warning! Smart people take notice... vandals get the sharp end -- boxy talk • teh rulz 11:39 12 December 2008 (BST)

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

User:Rohanzap

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

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

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

Politics allude me, but this edit is clear bad faith, removal of another user's signed post on a past event. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 01:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Kill with fire? --Haliman - Talk 01:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism - Warned. -- Cheese 20:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

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

User:DARKSIDEX

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

Edits to a group page that said user is not a member of. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 10:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Haliman111

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

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

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

Contact 1

Contact 2

You need to show bad faith in the attepmt, responding to what seems to have been provocation or not wanting to hear from someone on the wiki doesn't merit punishment on his part.--Karekmaps?! 10:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
"First of all, in order to prevent any arguments, both parties are forbidden from contacting the other on the wiki in any form for a period of 8 weeks from today. This is binding and if broken may result in vandal escalations.". I am not a wiki law expert but the above seems pretty clear to me.--Thadeous Oakley 11:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
There's a reason he said may. That reason is that we aren't bound by anything an arbiter's whim when it comes to whether or not an arbitration violation is grounds for vandal escalation. We have a higher standard here than simply breaking what amounts to a formal agreement between two users mediated by a third user. The standard of punishment requires that there is harm to someone somewhere, not just two users disliking each other enough that they refuse to communicate.--Karekmaps?! 12:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
To clarify; In this case to get me to rule vandalism you would need to show him to be harassing you, you haven't yet. At least not to a point where I believe involvement on our(sysop's/A/VB) part is justifiable, just ignore him.--Karekmaps?! 12:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Lulz. I'm actually reporting an Umbrella member for BLATANTLY editing my page. One moment... --Haliman - Talk 01:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay Karek, I understand. Though I'd like to point out the statement by him under the vandal banning of Rohanzap on this page, another clear example of such harassing behavior.--Thadeous Oakley 19:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
And I'd like to point out the comments that Rohanzap left on the pages. "Another clear example of such harassing behavior." I smell fail. --Haliman - Talk 02:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Venger

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So the vandal alt is banned but the main account isn't warned? LOLWUT? --Sonny Corleone DORIS MSD pr0n 21:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I saw the warning had been moved to his A/VD entry, and didn't look on his talk page. Anyway, warned now -- boxy talk • teh rulz 05:23 5 December 2008 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2008_12&oldid=1340240"