UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2007 01

4325435345

Changed an edit on the suburb page. --Slice 'N' Dicin' Axe Hack 15:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Warned. Can someone merge the crap he removed back into the page? I've gotta run. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 07:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Retribution

[| Vandalised] the DK13 group page by altering the group name on the page in an insulting manner.

–Ray Vern phz ^•T 22:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

He did it again! --Slice 'N' Dicin' Axe Hack 22:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Permabanned. --Darth Sensitive

^W! 23:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

And main alt warned. --Darth Sensitive

^W! 23:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

WatchesYouPee

Other than having an extremely gross name, he has an extremely gross actitude that fits with it. Look at his "contributions". And don't be confused, I'm not in ayone's side on this... thing. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 06:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC) EDIT: look like he has a penchant in making alts too. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 06:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Arby's. --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 06:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This guy is zerging the wiki though... any sysops that wish to discuss this can post here. If you don't have access I can arrange it. We can't talk about CheckUser results in public.--Gage 06:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Okey dokey. --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 08:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you guys brainless? He's a member of my team; therefore, he can post on my page and in my discussions. Have you guys ever thought that two people at one house decide to join the wiki at the same time? I don't think you can come to the conclusion that this person is zerging. So, I suppose you are going to ban him because Fahrenheit is too big of a sissy to have this "gross name" posting on the wiki? I fart in your general direction. --RevivalOfTheFittest 04:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I heard the UN Diplomatic Corps is starting up a new recruitment drive. You should look into it. --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 04:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Muchas gracias, amigo. --RevivalOfTheFittest 05:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

RevivalOfTheFittest

Impersonation. He's a PKer being targeted by The Black Knights, yet he signs as them on their talk page, here. Let me guess, trying to set up an ambush? -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 23:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Warned.--Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 03:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

What's the rule you follow? Is this a three strikes and you're out, or are the warnings pardoned after a period of time? --RevivalOfTheFittest 05:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The order goes: warning, warning, 1 day ban, 2 day ban, 1 week ban, 1 month ban, 1 year ban. The warnings get struck out after two months time and 250 edits, but bans never get struck out. The vandalism rules are at UDWiki:Vandalism. --Toejam 21:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Captain911

Vandalized the South Paynterton Aces' page. --Will Smogg 02:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Warned. --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 02:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Pchem

Good-faith. Rollbacked.--Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 16:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

GODhack

Edited the ZHU page. That fourth edit came after my reversion of the original vandalism. --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 17:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Banned-for-zerging moron now vandalising the wiki? Permabanned. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 17:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

0001

0002

0002 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss) More crap. --Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 17:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

0003

0003 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss) Another GODhack account. --Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 17:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

4

4 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss) --Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 17:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

5

Faerie Queen

I'm sorry to come back to this issue, but this account is an alt of somebody, I'm not sure who but I have my suspicions, and after I said something, the owner repeated what I said in order to create drama. Most Mods know what's the joke behind this, and I request the account to be blocked as any other alt account that is created only in order to create drama (Rev. Bubba Flavel anyone?). Thanks. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 04:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Got any proof? --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 04:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

For anyone interested, I'm of course asking you to do a Checkuser check. I hope not to be asking too much... --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 04:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You are. The privacy policy is very clear.--Gage 04:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

As I read it, it prevents you from revealing other people's IP publicly, and of course you'll want other guy than me saying that so here you have Kevan himself. You yourself didn't have any problems in performing a Checkuser check in other cases, even reported by me. But I'm fine with the ruling anyways, I'm tired, really tired of discussing things with you guys and the only thing I don't want is the alt above to indifenitely make jokes on me and feed drama unpunished. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 05:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You know... this should've been taken to Arby's. --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 05:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

We can do the checkuser all day long. We can't, however, reveal the results to you unless this account actually commits some act of vandalism. Last I checked Matt, being annoying wasn't vandalism. Otherwise, I'd have banned you.--Gage 05:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Alas. I will warn the user and ask him not to repeat the same thing you are saying. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 04:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This is Arby's material, not M/VB. --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 05:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

And as Gage agrees with me... I'm retracting the warning. --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 05:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You guys know if it's a bad faith alt account don't you. An account used just to stir up drama without having it come back on their main account (or even if it's someone new with no more intent than drama). Didn't Gage try to M/VB someone (Jesus H. Christ?) for just that? I'd have no problem with the account, except for that last contribution, where he seeks out Matthewfarenheit to try and provoke a reaction -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 06:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Boxy, just leave it. You know and I know it's unfair and stupid, yet they will support it as long as I'm the one perjudiced by this. Just make it to Mod status soon, OK? ^_^ --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 06:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

We cannot disclose the results of CheckUser tests unless the account is a proxy-wielder! How many times must you be told? I'd love to tell you whether or not the account in question is an alt, but I just can't. If it commits actual vandalism, then we'll see. But until then, my hands are tied. --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 08:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue isn't who it is, or whether you choose to out them, but rather whether it is bad faith, given all that's gone before -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 10:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It is, no doubt, bad faith, but this is not Vandal Banning material. This is suitable for Arbitration. As I said before. --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 11:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Just drop it Boxy, Cyberbob can be very stubborn at times so it's not worth wasting your time trying to change his mind. People have had long conversations with him and not a word has changed his position, about the only person who he really changes his mind for is Xoid. - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S!} 11:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Has it ever occurred to you why that might be? Could it be because Xoid actually, you know, uses reason in his arguments and only picks a fight when he knows he's right? --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 11:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Your point being? BTW just a little reasoning for you: UDWiki:Vandalism, first line just under What is Vandalism? - "On this wiki, we define Vandalism as 'an edit not made in a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki'", as you said this users edits are made in bad faith. Thus it's vandalism, unless my reasoning is flawed, which I cannot see how it is so if you can point it out it would be nice of you, otherwise if you can't tell me I'll just have to take it (and everyone else) that you are extremely bais and not suitable to rule on this case. - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S!} 12:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Harassment etc. is NOT covered by M/VB. Why is it that nobody comments on other cases like this? I find it...intriguing... that SporeSore's case just below didn't draw a whisper from anyone, yet when a case is brought up by one of "the gang" an identical ruling sparks a furore. --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 12:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That difference is apromimately 400 edits, and that the person who was being harassed didn't bother to report them because they didn't feel it was desperate enough. Harassment of this kind *is* covered by M/VB because it *is* a bad faith edit like you said, and as we all should know bad faith edits = vandalism because of this policy. Common, you know that harassment is vandalism because you haven't been able to come back with any reasoning on why it's not covered by M/VB. Or are you going to flame me now because you don't want to be proven wrong and you don't have the smarts to respond with a logical argument? - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S!} 12:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, nice pre-emptive strike! Unfortunately, I cannot take your arguments on this issue seriously, simply because I smell hypocrisy. Where was the outrage over the decision on SporeSore's case? Why did you pick this particular (and essentially identical) case to make your stand on? Until you can answer me that (which I notice you handily didn't in your last comment), I'm done here. --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 12:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

1) I didn't notice SporeSore's case because it was over in two edits by the looks of things, thus I couldn't have made a comment about it because I didn't know about it. Plus the time of day is all wrong for me to have even seen it in the recent changes. (About half a days difference)

2) I chose this one because I noticed it. (Goes back to #1) I also chose it because the reporter (aka Mathew) is the one who is being affected by this case and obviously wants help. I would have done the same for anyone else in a case that I was knowledgable about.

3) I think you should double check the meaning of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy - Noun - "Insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have". I belive in what I'm saying, and even if I was being hypocritical it still doesn't take away from the facts of this case, and those are:

Mathew is being harassed and wants someone to do something about it.
Harassment is an edit not made in good faith.
Vandalism is defined as an edit not made in good faith.

Last of all, as I said just before. The facts are the facts and no one can change that. Me being hypocritical or not does not have anything to do with this case, if you can not look at the facts objectively and logicaly then you don't deserve to be a sysop. This is all I will say anymore about this case. - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S!} 13:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Very well, you've convinced me. I'll reinstate the warning. --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 13:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed that -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 11:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just quoting him like you do on forums. I'm sorry that quoting is against the rules. You should have had it there so that I wouldn't have broken it. It is very hard to not break rules that are invisible. Then again, The Hidden Tower is invisible. Faerie Queen 15:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

quote, "I'd love to tell you whether or not the account in question is an alt, but I just can't. If it commits actual vandalism, then we'll see. But until then, my hands are tied." So since that account got warned shouldn't it actually be banned if it is an alt and the main one be warned? So since faierie queen committed actual vandalism can you chekc user it tell us now whether or not it is an alt, and warn the main account if it is? WoW noob 02:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

SporeSore

put this on MrAushvitz's talk page, and also look at his response on his vandal banning below.--Canuhearmenow ^Hunt! 00:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a matter for Arby's. --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 00:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Mister A and I are best buddies. Go find a real witch to burn. Canufeelmenow? --SporeSore 21:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

STU_Radio

He's making a ton of empty pages and when asked to stop by moderators, he refuses. For the love of god, someone stop him from spamming the recent changes with his empty pages. --Dr. Frank Sloth ^{Akule News - All The News That's Fit To Print.} 22:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I am going to delete all the junk pages he made just like I would with any vandal created page. I don't know that there was any bad faith here... I would like another mod to choose whether or not to warn him.--Gage 22:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Give him a verbal warning. If he chooses to continue even after that, warn him. --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 22:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

What gage said was a verbal warning, albeit not the best way to give it. Pages don't seem to be in bad faith, just stupid, but once a mod asks him to stop they become so. Warn him once more explicitly, next offense is a ban.--'STER-Talk-Mod^P! 22:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I just was wondering why he had to create 20+ pages, without creating any content for them. --Dr. Frank Sloth ^{Akule News - All The News That's Fit To Print.} 22:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Bob Hudek Voice

[1], [2], and [3] all seem to have been midly vandalized by the aforementioned user. Seems like he has/had something against the Peddlesden Village Coalition who apparently disbanded because of him. I don't really care about their feud just don't like vandals. SuperMario24 01:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Considering two of those edits are NPOVing suburb and group pages, he just deserves a warning. Some other mod can do it. I am busy.--Gage 02:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Warned.--Gage 02:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Saromu

Now this is really sickening. Making a page with the only purpose of mocking me is wrong. It remembers me of Amazing's bikes analogy. The most serious part that I'll refer to is that it specifically mentions my name as the group leader and my talk page as the contact page. I'll ask for the page to be deleted and the user in question warned, but in case I'm asking too much, the specific mention of my name as the leader and my talk page as a contact page should be obliterated. I'll accept being an "objective", but not a leader of such a thing. Either that or I'll make whatever I want to the page because, as it states, I'm the leader... --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 01:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Take it to arbitration.--Gage 01:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

So making a page in bad faith that claims an user who isn't related with the group at all to be its leader in order to taint its name isn't vandalism? Are you serious? If I start an anal sex practicioners pride group with you at the leadership, would you say it's good faith? because if you do I'm starting it. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 01:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do you hate Neopets so much? It's because of the Lenny, isn't it? --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF CRF DORIS Hunt!} 01:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Damn Conundrums --THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 02:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm still laughing my ass off five minutes after reading this. M.F., learn to take yourself a little less seriously. Saromu, good job.--J Muller 03:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say that it's bad faith, but I ain't risking miscondibration ruling on it. I would, however, like to note that Gage seems to be contradicting himself in his stance on this sort of case. He claimed that my annoying sig was vandalism under the new rules, but that this isn't?!The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 15:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You obviously don't know the meaning of "contradiction". You sig broke every page you signed on. This does no such thing.--Gage 17:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

After the recent wave of events and sleeping this over myself, I'll ask another moderator to make a ruling and delete the page like any page made by a vandal, as Kevan seems to agree that this page doesn't belong on the wiki and I have been somehow wronged, being the page both bad faith and impersonation. Then I'll scrap my arbitration case as it's obviously pointless if this is ruled in my favor. After that, I'll think about filing a Misconduct case and/or taking a rest from wiki drama and experiment on the locations project or something else where I won't be necessarily bothered by such annoying people. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 17:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, i've had a think about it and made a decision. Firstly, the page will be deleted, if Sonny wants to remake it with him as the leader, then it's up to him, but he may not use Matthew as the leader without his permission. I'm not going to warn you for it this time, as that would so more harm than good in serving as a reminder of this. I'm also not going to force you to make some childish agreement not to interact with each other, as it would be pointless, and it's questionable whether it is allowed under the current rules. However, I would reccomend that it would probably be best if you stayed away from each other.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 20:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I will remove Matthew from it. But can you please undelete it first? --Sir Sonny Corleone ^{RRF CRF DORIS Hunt!} 21:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't undeleted it, as that would restore the history, but i'm remaking a copy of the page without mathew's name in it.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Saromu

This is good faith?. I suppose drunk ramblings in the talk page of a guy that asked you nicely for an opinion could be called not vandalism, so I'm leaving this report to see what will be the precedent set by this case, or was the precedent set by previous cases about similar situations. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 23:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

What a world, what a world. You can't even be honest to someone on their own talk page without the Wiki Monitor(s?) mucking things up. I also guess it is bad faith for having a filthy mouth. Next thing you know people won't be able to say anything foul. Fuck, let's just get it over with and call the game Neopets. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF CRF DORIS Hunt!} 23:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I got a spooky pet pet paintbrush--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 23:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I want to paint my zombie into a fairy feral. Oh, also; not vandalism. Precedent set?--Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 23:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Lyk fairy paint brushes r so not kewl. i got my shoyru a snow paintbrush for teh holiday seson. ^_^ --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF CRF DORIS Hunt!} 23:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

And the second opinion that matt will ask for? Not Vandalism.--Gage 23:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Not vandalism, but an excellent example of e-douchebaggery. --Darth Sensitive

^W! 00:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. ^_^ --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF CRF DORIS Hunt!} 00:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, now I have a better idea on where to draw the line. And Gage, I kinda trust Thari on this, I wouldn't ask for a second opinion after reaching an outcome I really don't care, neither I'll spend my saliva (or fingerprints) in complaining about the ruling. You guys have the strange idea that I just make complaints to amuse myself... And my 10 years old brother used to play Neopets, but quitted after he turned eleven. Thanks again for showing me what level of maturity to expect from you Saromu and AS! --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 00:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The Hidden Tower lol! --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF CRF DORIS Hunt!} 00:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Senister/Zephyer

I'm not exactly sure it goes here, but here it goes anyway. If you look at their contributions, their only edits are on| this suggestion. Zephyer was the only person who voted Keep, on something that didn't exist. Kevan himself voted Spam to confirm this. I can't check their IP, but I have a suspicious feeling that they are one and the same, and the rules state that use of multiple accounts for votes is illegal. -Mark 23:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, their IPs are not the same; but they are from the same country and most likely, from the same ISP. I don't believe that they are the same person, but I think someone asked his friend to vote on his suggestion. I'd like a second opinion about this, though.--Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 23:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be his brother, not friend. Even if he lived next-door to his friend, their IP would be different. -Mark 23:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

They are different. That is the point. Duh.--Gage 00:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

1423

1423 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss) all his two edits were made in the Caiger Resistance Front, where he changes 'barhah mall' to 'caiger mall'... pretty annoying guy. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 02:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Warned. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 04:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan

Warned. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 04:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

RevivalOfTheFittest

Uploaded Image:Black knight.jpg. It's an image used on a rival groups page. It wasn't there because it was deleted as unused after one of RevivalOfTheFittest's group, Yourmom (actually, I wouldn't be surprised if they were actually one and the same person), repeatedly vandalised The Black Knights page (VB case here) and during it, replaced their image with one to mock them. And just as the black knights are starting to reassemble their page, after one of them was wrongly banned because of this guy's "mate", he is trying to help out, by putting up a lego figure black knight? Yeah right. Bad faith edit to vandalise a rival group page via a back door loophole for mine -- boxy ^{T L ZS PA DA} 05:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

To hard guys? Want more evidence of the anomisity between them? I'm sure I could come up with plenty just from the talk pages. Want to think on whether making a rival's groups image a children's toy is ridiculing them or not? Confused with all the editing back and forth that has gone on with The Black Knights page? (Well you did let it happen.) Or do you just not care that a minor group like this, without the know-how to defend themselves, is getting shafted? -- boxy ^{T L ZS PA DA} 14:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I warned him. Overwriting an image previously uploaded by a member of another group with obvious intent to attack the group seems like vandalism to me. Having said that, I have no idea what the hell is going on in the edit history of The Black Knights. --Daranz^{.t.mod.W(M)^∞.} 14:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I somehow don't see how it is my "obvious intent to attack the group." I wasn't the user responsible for bringing the Black Knights page to ruin nor was I the one who blanked it (believe what you will). As a token of my appreciation for the groups reassembling since they made my gaming experience enjoyable, I uploaded a picture of a black knight for the Black Knights page. A black knight picture for the Black Knights page... without a picture at all... I'm failing to see the "obvious intent" in this one. --RevivalOfTheFittest 23:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Daranz, yeah, the page is a mess now. There was so much vandalism over such a long period it's hard to work out what is wanted content, and what is vandalism. Doesn't help that neither Keith 921 or Vidad12 seem to have much idea of how to revert vandalism. It must have been very confusing for them because every time they started to get some order to it, the vandal would come along and change little parts of it that are easy to miss unless you check thoroughly -- boxy ^{T L ZS PA DA} 05:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey moderators, take back that warning! The Black Knights accepted my gift like I thought. It's not the first time you were wrong. --RevivalOfTheFittest 02:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Scheffler

Edited a group's page of which he is not a member. --A Bothan Spy ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 14:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats not cause for warning, if anything he just was trying to help out, maybe someone should post on his talk page telling him he can't do it, but It wasn't bad faith--General Lee A. Dickhole _{Malton Rangers} 03:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

For once, I agree with you. Not bad faith, ∴ not vandalism. I can understand his frustration though, I'll tell him to bring it up with them on their talk page. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 04:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

SporeSore

Removed a conversation form the Mod Conspiracy talk page. He isn't a member. Cyberbob Talk 19:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to ban on such a minor offense, so I've put him on double-secret-probation and given a third warning. If he screws up again we'll ban him.--'STER-Talk-Mod^P! 23:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the text because I was mean to someone, and as the response to it said, I had posted it in an inappropriate place. It was not "an edit not made in a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki". But go ahead. Ban me. Then I won't waste anymore of my life here. Think of it as euthanasia.--SporeSore 02:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't be so dramatic, the first ban lasts only 24 hs, and the second 48... Look at the Guidelines for further information. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 04:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. The first part of my post was sincere, but the last part was sarcasm, not dramatism.--SporeSore 01:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Rogue

Editing my comments on my own user page? Tch tch. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}}19:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Warned.--Gage 19:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

DeadMale

Blanked seemingly random pages for no reason. -Daranz^{. t . mod . W(M)^∞ .} 18:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Permabanned.--Gage 18:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Interfici

For messing with RedZeko's page here. Fixed (kind of) by Ruar here. -- 02:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Minor as it is, yep, vandalism. I'll warn him.--'STER-Talk-Mod^P! 03:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

User:SporeSore

Editing my vote. --Funt Solo 15:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Warned. Cyberbob Talk 16:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Asheets

He's using a circular reference to attempt to DUPE vote two suggestions (ie he's saying they're dupes of each other, and both still under voting). Calling the latter a dupe of the former would make sense, but this seems to be clear troll-voting. I don't know anywhere else to report this than here - whether you want to warn him for vandalism or delete his votes is (of course) your business.

--Funt Solo 15:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is a case of bad faith - rather, a somewhat puzzling misunderstanding of the rules. Cyberbob Talk 16:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If this is a misunderstanding of the rules, it's a pretty darn big one. As well as a misunderstanding of basic common sense.--J Muller 23:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the same guy who voted No on The Gray's historical status bid simply because they failed their last one. Cyberbob Talk 07:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This doesnt, however, go against any rules. There are no rules against people being idiots, and if there were, we would have to ban 90% of the wiki's population. --Grim s-^{Mod U!} 11:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I didn't warn him. As I said above. Cyberbob Talk 20:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I said I was sorry, and retracted the votes after Funt brought them to my attention. I've also made it a point to severely limit my participation on the Suggestions page. I kinda wish I knew why he didn't bring this to my attention, though; as it is, I'll just stay away from that part of the wiki altogether. Asheets 22:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Rock89

He wiped this template and edited this user's page.--Lachryma 03:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Warned --Max Grivas ^{JG / M.F.T.} 03:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

User:MK

for this. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 14:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Being retarded is not a banable offense, unfortunately.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 15:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

On this wiki, we define Vandalism as "an edit not made in a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki"... how the fuck does that improved the wiki ? you even deleted it! that is clear vandalism for chris sake. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 15:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like the opinion of another mod. I don't have the willpower to fight any more M/M cases.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 15:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The General

On this wiki, we define Vandalism as "an edit not made in a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki"... check this page here. If that isn't a bad faith attempt to break every page he signs on, I don't know what is.--Gage 17:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

We have a tendency to play by the letter of the law. You lot rejected an acceptable signatures policy! If we went round banning/warning everyone who made "an edit not made in a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki", then we'd have basically no one left. However, as a gesture of good faith, I will remove the text in question.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 17:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. Not Vandalism. Gage, please try to think things through before you go off and do them. Cyberbob Talk 05:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Large discussion moved to Talk page.

Spamforbrains

Act 1 and Act 2. I suppose I'm reporting this because no one at the PKer Alliance seemed to think to, and I, you know, kinda like them. --Sirens^{T RR} 02:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Warned.--Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 03:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Spamforbrains is an alt of MolotovH. There is even an entry where he uploads a pic of his alt to the wiki

(Upload log); 01:31 . . MolotovH (Talk | contribs | block) (uploaded 
"Image:SpamforbrainsPKs.jpg": A griefer killed my alt, and all I got was 
this lousy screenshot.)

Main account warned. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 03:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it was a one-time thing when I was a newb. Mostly just revenge against spamforbrains rather than against the group. Definitely won't happen again... It's much more fun to harass them on Brainstock. MolotovH 21:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Goolina

Removed her entry from another group's kill list (on their group page), presumably without their permission, and not in good faith to improve the wiki. --Barbecue Barbecue 06:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Warned.--Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 06:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If I may, She's new to wiki-ing, maybe a project welcome template instead?--General Lee A. Dickhole _{Malton Rangers} 03:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

For what? Warnings aren't permanent now.--Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 08:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well in that case warn the shit out of her--General Lee A. Dickhole _{Malton Rangers} 03:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Bangadouche

Redirected another groups redirect page to his own spoof group. And I don't think he has the right to wipe, even his own, comments off someone else's talk page -- boxy ^{T L PA DA} 05:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Warned.--Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 06:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Bangadude

Could be a sock puppet from above, used to make the same redirect to the spoof group -- boxy ^{T L PA DA} 05:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this one was a sock puppet and banned like one.--Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 06:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Bangadesh

Repeatedly removed references to himself on another group page. While I sympathise with him wanting the character assassination removed, and some vengeance for the vandalism above, this isn't the way to handle it, and he's been warned about it before -- boxy ^{T L PA DA} 05:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

~~Warned.--Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 06:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)~~. My bad. Banned for 48 hours.--Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 06:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Gage

Deleted a comment of mine while archiving, most likely purposelly as the time between the edit and the archiving was no less than 15 minutes, not short enough for an innocent slip, the commentary wasn't favorable for him, and probably because he likes to have the last word. There's enough presedent of people adding comments and/or questions and even flames after the Arbitrators ruling without their comments getting deleted, and decency and the concept of Good Faith asks for at least having them moved to the Talk page. Gage deleting the whole case and then archiving it with the comment deleted. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 05:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see how your trolling was relevant to the case. Regardless, I have edited back in your trolling comment. It doesn't make me look bad at all. It makes you look bad. I gave the best ruling that I think I could have in that situation, and you are just bitter that I didn't do whatever you wanted. How childish of you. As my kindergarten teacher would have said, "You get what you get, and you don't pitch a fit". --Gage 06:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

When did I say that the comment made you look bad? Your ruling does! Anyways, you added back the comment so you admitted you were wrong, and it could be enough for me but I let this decission to be taken by a Moderator, that of course you won't let him/her to be somebody like Hagnat or The General, but more like Cyberbob or maybe Xoid. Am I right? --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 06:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope. While there is precedent for placing people's comments on the talk page, there is also precedent against it. Note that this pretty much only applies to the arbitration page; garbage has been wholesale deleted before when it literally adds nothing to the case. It's usually up to the discretion of the arbitrator — with the exception of patently absurd cases (e.g., Xoid vs Xoid) which can be deleted by anyone who could be bothered to. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 07:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Not Vandalism. Matt, you are making yourself look bad. Cortala.--Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 06:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

What does that mean? Cyberbob Talk 07:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It's an old wiccan incantation. I can't tell you because you would lose your skin.--Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 07:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh. OK. Cyberbob Talk 07:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The comment (and the one before it, for that matter) may not have made Matt look very good, but that's no reason to delete it.--J Muller 23:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2007 01

Senister/Zephyer

RevivalOfTheFittest

Navigation menu

Search