UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2009 03

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

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.

March 2009

Keifer Jones

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

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Blanking a group's page without permission. Owner thinks it's vandalism. Linkthewindow  Talk  23:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser doesn't show it as an alt of anyone. Linkthewindow  Talk  23:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Persists. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC) Warned -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:41 17 March 2009 (BST)

User:Zink

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

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

Editing another user's user page. This guy has prior escalations on various other accounts for edits like this so it's not like he doesn't know. See this post for more information. -- Cheese 23:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm confused Cheese. What does he mean by this on your talk page? Linkthewindow  Talk  23:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That was a different user. I saw him also editing pages belonging to Sessa so I checked up on that. The one I link to is for a completely different user. -- Cheese 12:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright then, guess it's vandalism. I'll wait for a second opinion on this one since it's a month ban + permaban vote. Linkthewindow  Talk  05:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Lady Clitoria

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

Verdict	Withdrawn
Action taken	None needed

Messing with them pages she doesn't own. She caused quite a stink earlier this morning, but she deleted my humble requests and did the above actions instead. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 06:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Scrap that, I've sorted it out with the user. No need to scare her away just yet. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Not Vandalism - Seems like a genuine misunderstanding. That said, if Neurotoxic comes over saying this wasn't requested, this ruling will change in a heartbeat. Linkthewindow  Talk  07:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It Was Approved Because i did not know of zolams wiki name i thought that someone outside of the group had been changing the wiki for vandalism purposes. however, zolam contacted me via forums and she's in the clear. it was a mistake on my part Nuerotoxic2213 14:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Good, thanks. Linkthewindow  Talk  20:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Imthatguy

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

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

oh no.... D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 23:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Chill i was just messing around with haliman we're actually pretty tight --Imthatguy 02:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Met fan

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

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Ban

This piece of art. More at here. _■^■ 04:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism and warnings for both . On the house. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This is his 3rd VB. It's a ban. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Woah woah woah. Wait. This wasn't a flame war. We did it because it was funny, and you can even ask him. --Haliman - Talk 20:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion moved to talk page

User:Haliman111

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

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warning

har har. More at here. _■^■ 04:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism. This is a silly flame war. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Alex1guy

Alex1guy (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Blanking a user page --_Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 04:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Also making edits to other user's comments on a suggestions page. --_Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 04:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Warned Linkthewindow  Talk  06:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Abcvirus

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

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Permanent Block

repeated impersonation, despite Boxy's reverting and several informative (non admin) warnings on his talk page D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

two more. Argh, it may not be bad enough to get the bandal award, but its soooo annoying to read! D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty clear vandalism (it's likely he's seen all the unofficial warnings on his talk page,) but I'm waiting for clarification by what Boxy meant by "This is your last warning..." (here) - is that now a permaban, or a simple 24 hour ban? Linkthewindow  Talk  07:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

My last warning meant that if he didn't start actually contributing in a worthwhile manner, and continued his vandalism, he would be permbanned on the next offense. And I can't seen any helpful contributions being made since my warning. He's just going around Mall danger report pages after they've been sacked by the Mall Tour, and posting "go survivor, ra ra" messages. Unless any other sysops object in the next few hours, I'll permban him (if no one gets in first) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:19 6 March 2009 (BST)

Perma'd, as in agreement with Boxy's view.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 11:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Scar

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

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Permanently Banned

Spamming. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 16:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Spamming?! After I finish you, you will be spam! --Scar 17:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism and 3 7 counts of Threatening. Banned. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 18:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

That's streching quite a bit of what "threat" means. The only one that could in any sensible way be construed as a threat is the one directed at me, the rest are pretty obviously RP (what with the present tense, brackets and all). --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 19:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a known spammer. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I know. That makes the "7 counts of Threatening" (with a Capital Tee) all the more ridiculous and pointless. Don't try to twist his words into threats and ban him because of them, just ban him as the ban evading sockpuppet he is. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 21:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Iscariot

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

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Banned for 29.5 hours

Needlessly insulting people on a personal level based on their religious beliefs, also mentions molestation of minors. More evidence of Iscariot purposely insulting believers in a specific religion..--Super Nweb 05:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, here it is. Vandalism by constant harassment of users. User has a history of being hostile, insulting, and creating nuisance cases here and on A/A. Requesting a ban for a user that has shown a majority of his edits are vandalism rather than actual good faith contributions. --– Nubis ^NWO 07:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to A/VB. Next time try and use specific edit difference when you bring a case. Now, assuming there's no bias in the ruling on the case, this is open and shut Not Vandalism. We have no civility policy on this wiki, also as much as you'd like to suppress the truth, everything I'm saying is true. Of course, Christians have been trying to silence those who have been disagreeing with them for the past two millennia, so this is hardly a surprise. Perhaps you should follow the advice of someone who understands the religion better than you. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflicted - There's the bias, notice the ruling on this case, yet with no ruling on the one below that's still open. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrong again. Thanks for playing. --– Nubis ^NWO 07:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Since when do you need a reason to insult stupid suggestions? Not vandalism -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 07:49 5 March 2009 (BST)

Ah, yes, boxy takes the simple route and ignores the big picture. You never surprise us. You see, there is a pattern here. When people accuse Iscariot of basic vandalism most often it is NOT vandalism. When people accuse him of harassment it is ALWAYS harassment. It's that black and white. Is he blanking pages? No. Is he threatening and attacking users? Yes. Nice to see that you will let him stay around so that we can deal with more of his petty cases and general bad attitude. --– Nubis ^NWO 14:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Read everything you just said, and think about it for a while... it may help if you think of it in relation to your goon mates when they last invaded the wiki, and how they interacted with Teslita. Then come back and say it again with a straight face. Basically, if you put up a stupid, stupid suggestion, that includes religious content being used as flavour, suck it up when someone decides to ridicule those beliefs -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:12 6 March 2009 (BST)

That Tselita thing isn't really valid Boxy. Tselita had a history of harassing users who voted against her suggestions or pointed out something incorrect in the numbers for them. --Karek^maps?! 17:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, the Tselita "issue" was really confined to Suggestions and follow ups on the talk pages that she bitched and moaned on. The goons did not constantly make petty A/VB, A/M cases, they did not dick around in A/A, and lo and behold after 2 months they stopped. I think we see the glaring difference here.--– Nubis ^NWO 14:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

He has been warned for dicking around on admin pages already, that's got nothing to do with this case, Nubis. This is simply about the edits in suggestions, and if you weren't on a witch hunt, you'd be ruling not vandalism too. There have been plenty of examples of much worse suggestions harassment, you know it, Conndraka knows it. You can't go around gagging people from giving their opinion on stupid suggestions just because they annoy you on a totally different part of the wiki (admin pages) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:39 8 March 2009 (BST)

The report was about the insulting nature of his comments. It wasn't about him signing someone's name to his post, it wasn't about him blanking a page. It is a user complaining about being harassed by another user that has shown a history of harassing users. How in the world can you overlook that? This isn't the first report about this. This isn't a new problem with this user.

If I was on this alleged witch hunt I am pretty sure I would have voted Vandalism on every report against him. But no, maybe if you throw out enough accusations one will stick. Should I start calling you St. boxy? --– Nubis ^NWO 12:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ouch, calling me a Saint. That hurts. He'll get banned soon enough, if he continues on his current path, no need to set ridiculous precedents like this to get him. Basically, some n00b makes suggestions on talk suggestions, and then takes them straight to voting despite the poor response they receive there, and he thinks he's being harassed because someone calls his shit shit. HTFU, or GTFO Suggestions -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:43 8 March 2009 (BST)

Silly me. I expected you to get the connection with the "St." part. What was I thinking? What are you thinking by making such an empty threat as He'll get banned soon enough, if he continues on his current path? The path he has been on for well over the last 8 months at least? Oh no, in 2010 you might consider finally maybe doing something about him! I'll mark my calendar.

You are like those worthless parents that say "I'm going to count to 3" and then do the 1 ...2... 2 and a half... crap. Do you not see what he has done? He gets away with being an asshole constantly to other users, any case brought up against him is either a drama bomb because he is guilty of vandalism (in which case he screams BIAS! and that the sysops are going against the will of the community), or it is a drama bomb because what he is doing is vandalism but most of you don't have the balls to do something about it. Look at this case. Why the fuck has it not been "decided"? There are other cases posted after this one that are decided. It doesn't make sense.--– Nubis ^NWO 23:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It hasn't been decided yet because it is a tied decision. Yet again you don't make any case against the actual edits sited here, only more "but he's an arsehole" rhetoric. He's an arsehole, no question, but that's not the same as being a vandal. Plenty of others have reveled in being arseholes on the suggestions pages, so until he does something that is vandalism in that context, he should be given the same freedom there as anyone else (unless someone arbies his arse). Your parent metaphor is a bit off too... I'm not counting anything, I don't want to ban him, and have never threatened to do so. A/VB is here to try to modify behaviour before it gets to the banning stage, and if you step back a bit, it is actually working, even in this case -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:03 10 March 2009 (BST)

Umm... Boxy, it's two votes Vandalism, to three votes Not Vandalism. Unless I'm missing something here. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's the other way now because reading through this discussion Nubis actually does have a good point with this:

Nubis said:

The report was about the insulting nature of his comments. It wasn't about him signing someone's name to his post, it wasn't about him blanking a page. It is a user complaining about being harassed by another user that has shown a history of harassing users. How in the world can you overlook that? This isn't the first report about this. This isn't a new problem with this user.

And as such I have to change my comment. The case is about his harassing users in general and the admin edits and arbitration actions show a long and clear history of this behavior. Vandalism --Karek^maps?! 22:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism as Nubis. I would have ruled sooner but for some reason Vandal Banning doesnt show up on my watchlist. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 18:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a new archive, you didn't add it yet. Dork. :P --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The hell? There is no civility policy on this wiki. That's been shown in several cases across different parts of the Administration. How you can rule Vandalism here beggars belief.-- Adward  20:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

There is on suggestions which is why his vote is struck but it's not vandalism. Honestly though if he keeps up harassing users that's not a civility issue that is one of vandalism and users have been escalated for as much in the past.--Karek^maps?! 21:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I ruled vandalism because we now have the Host TOS in play, and IMHO this violates restriction 1. And although the Wiki does not have a civility policy, TOS supersedes Wiki policy. The sysops will be working on exactly how things are going to have to be interpreted initially and then we'll go to the community from there once we have an impact evaluation and discussion. Yes ladies and gentlemen, the Red tape just got even better. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 22:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Still even if he isn't blanking pages it isn't helping, and mostly harming the wiki to make needless insults on people's character and religion. This should be a punishable offense.--Super Nweb 22:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a ToS violation here. His idiotic opinion isn't particularly at the point where I'd call it racist just characteristically uninformed and biased. --Karek^maps?! 22:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

So it would be fine if I called you one of the "delusional fuckwits" who doesn't agree with me. that is completely called for and relevant to a civil discussion on using a piece of wood to hit a zombie? Yeah I don't see the logic there. His statements are irrelevant personal attacks on users.--Super Nweb 23:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that using the ToS page I just created as a backing reason for any ruling is just...dumb. We still have to set it up, find out it's interpretations and how they'd relate to us specifically with our policies and such, and everything else that's required with something like this.

Also, Not Vandalism as I've seen worse things being said. Also, lack of a civility policy FTW. Can someone point out to me how his user page insults those of a particular faith? The only thing I see is a lovely Dune quote (Ya Hya Chouhada! Muad'Dib! Muad'Dib! Muad'Dib!) and a quote I have only heard from the Legacy of Kain series.

All this is not to say that he will forever be excused from punishment should I decide that his treatment of other users goes too far. Iscariot, please tone it down some.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 01:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 01:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not his userpage, it's the comments on the suggestion pages I linked to in the post.--Super Nweb 06:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Who hacked Karek's account? He would never say something as asinine as this: Honestly though if he keeps up harassing users . Keeps up? Like this is the first time or he has shown any behavior other than harassment? Do I need to link the lovely rant you (Karek) typed up responding just to Iscariot's sysop nomination?

And SA, you didn't even know what the case was referring to (thinking it was his user page) not to mention that lovely "should I decide that his treatment of other users goes too far." How many times do we have to show that he has a long habit of being an asshole with no positive contributions?

FFS, people, when you have a stuck up, hostile, mean spirited, and petty tumor you cut it off. It's not going to get better on its' own. --– Nubis ^NWO 15:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, shouldn't his second warning have not been counted towards this escalation as he incurred over 250 edits and a month passed since his 24 hour ban? --Johnny Bass 17:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

He's also at his 48 hr ban, not 1 week. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

48 hr ban, anyone? --Pestolence^(talk) 20:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Should only be a second warning as he would only have 1 outstanding warning due to deescalation. Next escalation would be a 48 hour ban after that. At least that's what I read here --Johnny Bass 20:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes and No... It should be a 48 hour ban...Clock on 250 edits starts over if you get hit with another Vandalism (As I understand it) so the 9 January warning wouldn't have cycled until 250 constructive edits after the 30 Jan 24 hour ban. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 21:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

From his 24 hour ban until now he's had over a month and 250 edits. The escalation of the 24 hour ban should stay, but the second warning should be cycled out because of the time frame and edit quantity. To promote users to reform and become good contributors to this Wiki, a single vandal escalation can be struck out for every 250 good-faith edits the warned user makes, provided that one month has passed since the user's last infraction, with another month for every subsequent striking after the first in the series, restarting in the event of a vandal escalation. If a user has more than two vandal escalations, the first escalation struck shall be the second warning, followed by the bans in descending order of severity (If any), and finishing in the first warning. Last incident was January 30th, this case was filed on March 5th. The punishment should only be a second warning. If he gets another escalation after this, it should be the 48 hour ban, then week, etc. --Johnny Bass 21:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Jarethshadow

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

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Editing a userpage without permission from the owner. Page clearly warns against this at the top and provides the link to authorised users. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Warned--– Nubis ^NWO 07:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Rick Astley

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

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Permanently Banned

Go right ahead and demonstrate bias again. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

DA page too Linkthewindow  Talk  00:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You've just been Rickroll'd! =) Rick Astley 00:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

There's this page as well - not as clear cut as the above, but it can hardly be called good faith. Linkthewindow  Talk  00:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

sup --Cyberbob 00:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Clearly a pure vandalism account, so b&. --ZsL 00:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Athur birling

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

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Looks like impersonation. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 12:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Admission of guilt. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 13:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Warned -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:38 2 March 2009 (BST)

User:Abcvirus

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

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

This and other repeated vandalism to Mall Tour pages. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

So far we've had, repeated vandalism to every Mall Tour page, two suburb pages and impersonation of an admin. I want an IP check on this, I suspect I already know the culprit. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I truely sorry, I am truely sorry about all the things I done in the webpages, I hope you can forgive me, and I will never do this again. I promise with my good-side of my whole heart.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abcvirus (talk • contribs) 03:46, March 1, 2009.

Warned - and very close to an instant perm-ban, but the edits to the suburb page can be seen as trying to be constructive, perhaps. If the vandalism continues, it will be upgraded. Doesn't show up as an IP match for anyone here lately -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:49 1 March 2009 (BST)

A warning? Are you serious Boxy? Those edits in Shackleville were in no way constructive, nor were they in any way an improvement to the wiki. I don't think we should give him a perma-ban now that you've already pulled this shit, but Boxy, the fact that it happens to be something Iscariot is heavily involved with makes me wonder that for once, his cries of bias may be true.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 14:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No, wait, strike that, he added an and into a place where it was needed. How could I EVER doubt that that was constructive?--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 14:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between someone with a known problem and someone without one. Permabaning is a last resort and should only be used on a three edit in the most extreme cases where it is blatantly obvious that they will never attempt to contribute. If he keeps it up he gets permabanned, right now he's essentially a new user that broke some rules and Iscariot is gonna whine about and probably threaten instead of behaving like a grown up. Don't indulge him, Vandal Banning isn't here to ban users, it's here to let them know when they start crossing the line and provide them with the chance to alter their behavior. --Karek^maps?! 18:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, come on now, Karek. You have to realize that in order to show how not biased they are against Iscariot they have to go to the other extreme and support Iscariot. It doesn't matter that banning was never meant as a punishment of a bad user, but as a last ditch effort to stop vandalism. You are either with Iscariot or against him in this world. --– Nubis ^NWO 15:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Before another round of complaints roll in, I noticed that he's started submitting danger reports without signing them (like this). So it looks like he's impersonating other users. However, considering he didn't sign his comment on this topic either, I'm inclined to think he does not know how. So I posted a WelcomeNewbie to his talk page, along with an offer to answer questions. I think he's trying to help, but he's on a dangerous course if he does not start to learn. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 04:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The danger reports thing is the single most problematic part of that template. Has been for years which is why I started working on a auto-signer in ProjDev. It's not much to go by for making an impersonation case really.--Karek^maps?! 06:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

He is continuing to do so: [1] [2] [3] [4]. Now, these comments might be trying to be helpful, but they're really not. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 03:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)