UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2009 11

This page is for the reporting of vandalism within the Urban Dead wiki, as defined by vandalism policy. On this wiki, the punishment for Vandalism is temporary banning, but due to security concerns, the ability to mete out this punishment is restricted to System Operators. As such, regular users will need to lodge a report for a Vandal to be banned from the wiki. For consistency and accountability, System Operators are requested to note on this board their actions in dealing with Vandals.

Guidelines for Vandalism Reporting

In dealing with Vandalism, time is often of the essence. As such, we ask that all users include the following information in a Vandalism report:

• A link to the pages in question.

Preferably bolded for visibility. If the Vandalism is occurring over a sufficiently large number of pages, instead include a time range of the vandalism attempt, or alternatively, a link to the first vandalised page. This allows us to quickly find the damage so we can quickly assess the situation.

• The user name of the Vandal.

This allows us to more easily identify the culprit, and to check details.

• A signed datestamp.

For accountability purposes, we ask that you record in your request your user name and the time you lodged the report.

• Please report at the top.

There's conflict with where to post and a lot of the reports are missed. If it's placed at the top of the page it's probably going to be seen and dealt with.

If you see Vandalism in progress, don't wait for System Operators to deal with it, as there may be no System Operator online at the time. Lodge the report, then start reverting pages back to their original form. This can be done by going to the "History" tab at the top of the page, and finding the last edit before the Vandal's attack. When a System Operator is available, they'll assess the situation, and if the report is legitimate, we will take steps to either warn the vandal, or ban them if they are on their second warning.

If the page is long, you can add new reports by editing the top report and placing your new report above its header in the edit screen.

Before Submitting a Report

• This page, Vandal Banning, deals with bad-faith breaches of official policy.
• Interpersonal complaints are better sorted out at UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration.
• As much as is practical, assume good faith and try to iron out problems with other users one to one, only using this page as a last resort.
• Avoid submitting reports which are petty.

Vandalism Report Space

Administration Notice Talk with the user before reporting or accusing someone of vandalism for small edits. In most cases it's simply a case of a new user that doesn't know how this wiki works. Sometimes assuming good faith and speaking with others can avoid a lot of drama, and can even help newbies feel part of this community. Administration Notice If you are not a System Operator, the user who made the vandal report, the user being reported, or directly involved in the case, the administration asks that you use the talk page for further discussion. Free-for-all commenting can lead to a less respectful environment. Administration Notice Warned users can remove one entry of their warning history every one month and 250 edits after their last warning. Remember to ask a sysop to remove them in due time. You are as responsible for keeping track of your history as the sysops are; In case of a sysop wrongly punishing you due to an outdated history, he might not be punished for his actions.

Spambots

Spambots are to be reported on this page. New reports should be added to the top. Reports may be purged after one week.

There were a bunch of spambit-looking account creations on the 17th, these are the live ones at present.

• HaroldBeaman (contribs | logs | block | del userpage | IP Check)
• HallieKetcham7 (contribs | logs | block | del userpage | IP Check)
• AlexanderNoyes7 (contribs | logs | block | del userpage | IP Check)--Cheese 17:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  Damn I legit missed these, thanks. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked a large surge of bots --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
• YasminLashbrook (contribs | logs | block | del userpage | IP Check) --VVV ^RPMBG 06:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
• LoganDos626 (contribs | logs | block | del userpage | IP Check) --VVV ^RPMBG 06:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  Both done DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 09:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

November 2009

User:MisterGame

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

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	48 Hour

Breaking one of the terms of his ruling. --Haliman - Talk 00:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[1], [2], [3]

If we hadn't have been more lenient on his Arbies ruling in the first place, he could have been month banned by now, methinks. I guess it doesn't help that the comments were pretty rubbish (alongside being downright wrong) also. Vandalism --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism - breaking a clearly understood, and agreed upon, arbitration ruling (not for the first time, by a long shot). He has a warning and a 24hr ban still on his record (not enough edits since his last deescalation). The arbitration policy says As a note, by requesting an Arbitration, all parties are thus obliged to accept the outcome of the Arbitration. Not doing will be considered Vandalism, and such vandalism attempts will be treated as if the vandal has already received two warnings.. So it looks to me like a 48hr ban is the next escalation, given that warnings arn't given for arbies violations -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:42 29 November 2009 (BST)

Banned for 48. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Necrofeelinya

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

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

For creating this page, and striking out the Israel Building to rename it the Palestine building. I reverted it. --Haliman - Talk 22:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

That's some serious long-term planning. He's been maintaining that page for eleven months. Plus the article shows the name changing back and forth, obviously a simple joke. This isn't vandalism. 23:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Here it is. --Haliman - Talk 23:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

--> talk page -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 23:33 28 November 2009 (BST)

I'd suggest you talk to him first, and tell him not to do it again. You're right, people shouldn't be messing with location pages, especially the mini-maps, but not vandalism, atm -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 23:31 28 November 2009 (BST)

Done. Soft warning I suppose? --Haliman - Talk 23:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what other sysops think, but if it doesn't happen again, I'm happy to leave it with what you wrote there -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 23:38 28 November 2009 (BST)

I'm happy to leave it like that given this case's outcome counts as a soft warning. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

So is thad going to get a case for breaking the arbitration ruling, or are you just going to let him continue to break it over and over and show that the bindings provided by arbitration aren't worth shit?-- SA 00:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Gimme a sec ruling on many cases --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, I noticed this a long time ago, but it made me laugh so I didn't say anything.-- SA 00:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Iscariot (3)

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

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	{{{2}}}

For wiping a comment of mine from A/D. When I challenged him on it on his talk page (I half-suspected edit conflict shenanigans) he said it had to be done in order to prevent a case being brought against him. That's not good enough, I'm afraid - if he was so paranoid about cases and whatnot he should have simply asked me to remove it. Cyberbob  Talk  16:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

By removing the strike it would have left Cyberbob's comment nonsensical. There is no sense to be found in "I wanted to do that" in response to a keep vote with nothing further from Cheese present. I had to remove the comment to prevent myself indirectly impersonating Cyberbob. Standard precedent is that all subsequent replies must be removed if the beginning is removed to prevent impersonation, removing Cheese's meant I had to remove Bob's. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I already covered this - you pretty obviously didn't read the post you're ostensibly replying to (going by the indentation). You should have asked me to remove it instead of taking it upon yourself. If I'd refused that still would not have justified deleting the post, but it would have provided a good defence against the case that would never have been made anyway you paranoid twat. Cyberbob  Talk  16:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I need not ask your permission to declutter a page, the beginning of your conversation was removed by my legal act of removing the strike, preventing myself from impersonating you is an act of good faith. Weren't you soft-warned about using borderline and contentious cases against users you had personal disagreements with? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You do need ask my permission to declutter a page if said decluttering involves the outright deletion of one of my posts. I'm sorry that you can't quite seem to grasp one of the most fundamental forms of vandalism on any wiki. Cyberbob  Talk  16:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Not vandalism - it was a nothing comment, in reply to something that was going to be removed as soon as Iscariot noticed he hadn't signed. It would have made no sense to leave it there, while removing the strike notice. Good faith removal -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 17:09 28 November 2009 (BST)

Whose place is it to decide whether or not a comment makes "no sense" other than its author? Cyberbob  Talk  17:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"whydontyougofuckyourselfyousmarmyfuckingcunt."-- SA 19:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Not your best burn, I'm afraid. Cyberbob  Talk  04:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hush now, the non-smarmy cunts are talking. :D -- SA 04:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Still not doing too well. How does the comment of mine you quoted relate to this discussion at all? Cyberbob  Talk  04:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't supposed to. :( -- SA 04:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Like I said then. Not a good burn. Cyberbob  Talk  04:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I intended it to be a burn from the start to be honest. Without how shitty a burn attempt it was I don't think I tried. :/ -- SA 04:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Not Vandalism - As boxy. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Iscariot (2)

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

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Week Ban

For creating this page in bad faith in order to influence user opinion on this scheduled deletion. By creating this page, Iscariot has skewed the actual level of unused images which misleads users voting on the proposal and effect their vote accordingly. I request immediate deletion of this page in order to allow this community vote to proceed unhindered and an escalation for Iscariot to show that malicious, manipulating behaviour such as this will not be tolerated. -- Cheese 16:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Image arks have always been permitted to save images from deletion. The page is in my user space where I am allowed to store any material I like for potential future use. The number of unused images in the queue will in no way 'skew' the result of the vote in the same way that placing an uploaded image immediately on a page will. This is a bad faith case designed to further an agenda. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Such a good argument... if only you hadn't been trying to use the size of the queue as an argument against the proposal before.......... Cyberbob  Talk  16:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If it was done just to save images, maybe, but your discussion on A/D/S shows that you were making some [chickenshit] point about there not being any images in unused images... which was only true because you went out of your way to put them all in this brand new image archive. Manipulation, bad faith, chickenshit point anyway... vandalism -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 16:22 28 November 2009 (BST)

I have a clear history of being an inclusionist and preventing deletion on A/D, this is the natural extension. However I shouldn't expect any different from the person wanting to further distort my vandal history as he has previously. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

And the edit histories are clear as well. You created this page and then ambushed cyberbob with this edit that was only true because of your manipulation -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 16:31 28 November 2009 (BST)

Vandalism Cyberbob  Talk  16:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Aren't you the one always saying that DDR shouldn't vote on vandalism cases where he has a vested interest? Hypocrite. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no personal vested interest in the success or failure of the proposal. I'm just trying to do what I think's best for the wiki - if that's a "vested interest" then you should probably accuse everyone except yourself of it. Cyberbob  Talk  16:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

HA! --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Got a frog in your throat? Cyberbob  Talk  04:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Not vandalism because I like some of the images, especially the fire zombies one, and I'd have never found it if he hadn't put it there.-- SA 19:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

That's hardly an objective reason. -- Cheese 19:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

He's boned in this case anyway right? It's not like it matters. :) -- SA 19:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh! I've got something! This edit warns that he was about to do something to fix the problem. Which was before the snarky comments of cyberbob being wrong and shit. Is my vote more valid now?-- SA 20:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

...So he warned us he was going to do it, so it isn't vandalism? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not answering that. It's a trick question. >:/ But my vote is more objective now like cheese wanted! :B -- SA 01:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism - As explained to him on IRC. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, since a vote is potentially hanging in the balance of Iscariot's page, I'm ruling vandalism, striking Izzy's week ban as per descalation, deleting the page (as vandalism), and then banning him for a week. As per this discussion which happened some months ago. Izzy served 6 days of ban time that he shouldn't have, so to make up for this, this ban will be recorded as a Week Ban but in practice he will be banned for a day. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 01:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Thaedracy

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

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warning

Removing all content from the BME page--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 22:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Warned. Cyberbob  Talk  23:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

User:A11an0n

A11an0n (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	{{{2}}}

For breaking what I feel is the spirit of the arbitration ruling enacted here. I feel that the ruling was to cut down on hostilities between the two parties, and A11an0n's policy document here is not only breaking the spirit by being hostile to TZH, is also trying to bypass the arbitration ruling. If A11an0n wanted to appeal the arbitrator's decision, he is quite able to do so, and could ask Izzy how to do it, or anyone else. But to just go and make a policy like that is bad-faith being disguised as a good faith action.-- SA 00:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

"make a policy like that is bad-faith being disguised as a good faith action.". Wanna bring Izzy forward too then? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I would if izzy also was breaking an arbitration ruling.-- SA 00:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith policies are vandalism in their own rights, IIRC. Cyberbob  Talk  01:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't remember if it was, so I went with the arbies bit instead.-- SA 01:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism - If only he hadn't been dumb enough to actually link to TZH's page he might have gotten away with it. Oh well. Cyberbob  Talk  01:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Not Vandalism - If everyone was agreeing with his policy, would we be putting him up? Don't censor butthurt vendettas, good has come out of them in the past. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 01:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, the quality of the policy has zero to do with anything - the fact that he directly addresses TZH in a hostile fashion is the only thing pertinent to this case. Secondly, what good? Cyberbob  Talk  01:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, the fact he addressed TZH has zero to do with anything- would you have ruled not vandalism if they weren't mentioned, despite the fact that his intent would have been just as clear? Secondly: Scheduleds, A/REs, The A/VB "Box" are a few that come off the top of my head. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 01:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

"Firstly, the fact he addressed TZH has zero to do with anything" Arbitration.-- SA 01:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I mean Cyberbob is practically ruling on the sole fact that he actually mentioned TZH, implying that it wouldn't have been vandalism if he hadn't. Come on. Does this mean Izzy didn't do vandalism in this because he didn't specifically mention Boxy's name? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 01:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't around for it and don't feel the need to say my opinion on that case, because it doesn't have much to do with this case. Because, yet again, there is one big difference. Arbitration.-- SA 02:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

And considering A/PD > A/A, I consider what he did to be quite clever and since it needs vast majority support to succeed as Wiki Policy, one would assume that if he succeeded it would deserve to override the Arbies case. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

So, what you're saying is that you want people to be able to use policy discussion as a way to get around arbies, and make it to where they can easily puppet through what they want done because we don't strike meat puppetry? As CB "your dum" -- SA 02:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I never said that. If A11an0n was anywhere near as capable at gaming the rules as it would take to meatpuppet a policy, he would have had a random ally feign "no knowledge" of him or Grohl to become Arbitratot and rigg the entire A/A case anyway. As A11an0n attempted to make a policy that affects the information flow of the whole wiki, if the whole wiki passes it for that reason, it has every right to override the ruling of the recent A/A case. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 03:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Not vandalism - The arbitration case said nothing about anywhere on the wiki except for the user talk pages and TZH group space. A11an0n needs to get the fact that others will post things from their POV on their pages. And unless we're going to become "the Truth Police" (despite the problems involved in determining the "Truth" in this type of environment), we have to allow quite a bit of latitude to them. There are already limits to what you can do on group pages, however, he's getting a clear message from the community on that policy talk page as to how happy the majority is with the situation as is. He has a problem, he is suggesting a fix via the policy page, it will be rejected... but he still has a right to try to change the system that "let him down" -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:54 26 November 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism Look at his contributions, he's got a massive axe to grind, and has so far in deletions, vandal banning, arbitration and policy discussion. We can put up with this until he uses up all avenues open to him. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, we shouldn't. It sets a bad precedent. Whats the point of arbitration if people who don't like the ruling can go around forum shopping until they find a way to squirm by it?-- SA 09:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Because the only person they hurt is themselves. As soon as the user realises that the more he responds, the more ammunition TZH have, the better. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

No, Censoring things that we choose to remove, prematurely, rather than the community, sets a bad precedent. A horrible precedent. I still propose; would you have put this case forward if the 10 people that put the A/PD down on the talk page had actually supported it blindly? Otherwise, listen to Boxy. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

just thought you might like to know that you aren't as perceptive or wise as you think you are, have a nice day~ Cyberbob  Talk  14:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Just reminding one of how his opinion is currently, and will most probably remain, the minority in this situation. Sleep well. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 14:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I still propose; would you kindly shut the fuck up? Cyberbob  Talk  14:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Only when you do, considering you started it. Can you manage this? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 14:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

"NO U"? Really? Cyberbob  Talk  14:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Ragedy

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

Verdict	Sock Puppet
Action taken	Permaban

Butthurt Zerger making unwanted Edits on the ZHU page.

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Zerg_Hunters_Unlimited&diff=prev&oldid=1605427 --THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 18:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Warned -- Cheese 19:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

A quick check of checkuser brings up this guy. This account has been banned and DeadStawker has a warning for sockpuppetry. -- Cheese 19:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

User:DeadStawker

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

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warning

For the record, warning. -- Cheese 19:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Cyberbob240

Cyberbob240 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	{{{2}}}

Repeatedly reverted my attempts to move an off topic and disrespectful comment from the page. 2 of those reverts were after i specifically contacted him via his talk page. Bob should know that his sysopship is not a free-for-all commenting get out of jail free pass and i can't see how i could have gone about this in a more avoiding drama way. xoxo 10:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

bloop Cyberbob  Talk  10:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

what's this? jed... using proper english...? must be something dearly important to him Cyberbob  Talk  10:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm a right bill shakespeare! xoxo 10:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Not vandalism - you went out of your way to comment specifically on his ruling. He replied -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:42 16 November 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism. As the boxman states. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

See the talk page Cyberbob  Talk  10:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't care how this case turns out, but damn it I'm getting tired of the community bitching one way or another on the topic of commenting.-- SA 22:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Not Vandalism - As a sysop any comment/reply such as that can be conjoined onto justifying his ruling, yo. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 01:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me you aren't implying that what he wrote was a 'justification' or that a sysop can write whatever they want on any case!?!? xoxo 06:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Is that what I said? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'll elaborate on that poor rhetorical question: No. I wasn't implying that. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Then i have no idea what you meant. xoxo 10:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

User:J3D

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

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warning

For practically baiting Boxy into a misconduct case without any perceivable desire to have his data actually struck.

This case was brought after he "asked" (threatened) Boxy into striking him as per guidelines. He didn't ask anyone else, just Boxy, and he said Boxy would face A/M over it if he didn't. Responding aggressively to the moronic threat, J3D put Box up after 4 minutes. He didn't even wait to see if Boxy was going to stand by his ambiguous reply. 30 minutes later, it was easily struck as one would expect, and J3D happily retracts the case.

We don't use A/M just to get such petty things done and it's a waste of the system and makes a mockery of of the red tape we already have in place- If he really wanted the striking J3D could have easily just have spammed several sysop talk pages, including Kevan like he did yesterday, when he didn't even qualify for descalation at the time. I'm sick of his jump-the-gun fire-at-will attitude towards sysops kissing his feet and licking his dick within minutes of his whim.

The last case which J3D got escalated for this crap.

--DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah i can't think of one reason why i chose boxy....oh wait, according to RC he was the only active op!!! And as i clearly explained on the a/m case, i am sick and tired of sysops consistently dragging the chain with regards to my strikings and making as much debacle out of the thing as possible. I wanted it done while i was active and at the time i thought i was only going to briefly active (then i found out this net is actually functioning now and entirely free :D). As you are well aware ddr i have been repeatedly fucked over by ops regarding striking so either unprotect that page and let me do my own striking or accept that i will be aggressive in expecting that sysops strike while i'm online to supervise. xoxo 10:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

RL doesn't command what happens on udwiki- your 4 minutes on a shifty internet connection may seem precious there, but it doesn't mean that 4 minutes on here is an appropriate timeframe to threaten a sysop with A/M to have your way. As I said before, you should have gone for the whole shebang and just spammed every Aus Sysop- there are plenty to go around, and given that the only reason we hadn't struck you already was those 3 edits; it wouldn't have been too difficult to imagine it being done. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 10:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Last time i 'imagined' having it done it wasn't, which in the end resulting in me missing my next striking by a matter of days and thus coping a ban over a warning, while yes you can say i just shouldn't have vandalised or whatever - sysop laziness or whatever you want to call it meant i coped an extra escalation when sufficient time since my past vandalism had passed for a striking. Eh, theres nothing more to say on this really. Although i'm surprised by how bob voted and how clear and articulate his justification was. xoxo 09:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Given the very loose definition of "250 good-faith edits" we use (basically any 250 edits) for deescalation, you should simply STFU already. You're already on a pretty good wicket, all things considered -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:30 16 November 2009 (BST)

As opposed to SA's stunning display of prose? Mayhaps you should just not bother the next time the idea for making a little snipe like that pops into your head, you aren't very good at them. Cyberbob  Talk  09:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism Cyberbob  Talk  10:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

dasgfadsjkasgdklnvasgdiurewhgfuiahguioeg-- SA 15:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Just Vandalism. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

So are you fucks gonna settle this so my edits can start counting towards another striking due to your circlejerk intentional misinterpretation of the guidelines? xoxo 11:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. Warned. Cyberbob  Talk  11:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Iscariot

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

Verdict	Not vandalism
Action taken	None required

stricking vouches in a promotion bid. Promotion bids are NOT votes, therefore any input made by any user while the bureaucrat team doesnt reach a decision IS VALID. After i removed the strikeout, Iscariot struck the vouch again. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 17:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Precedent. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

we used to enslave other people, should we use this precedent to allow slavery back ? These strikeouts werent removed back then, but yours got and you were pointed out that vouches shouldnt be struck, yet you reverted the strickeout, therefore vandalism. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 17:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Can someone translate this so I can respond please? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I think he means to say this: "These strikeouts were not removed back then, but your strikeouts got removed and you were told that vouches shouldn't be struck, yet you reverted the strikeout back on the page, and that is vandalism." I think he means that this is vandalism because you struck the vote again, after you were told not to do. Personally, I don't see the vandalism here, this is more a dispute about the interpretation of the rules then vandalism, but Hagnat thinks otherwise it seems.--Thadeous Oakley 18:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Not Vandalism - The two week thing and its status as not-a-vote are independent of each other. Cyberbob  Talk  17:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

yes, but does this give the right of a user to strike other user's vouches ? And remain stricking them after being told not to ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 17:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does give the right to users to strike vouches/againsts/whatevers after the two-week expiry date (actually it doesn't as that right always existed just as it does with unsigned votes on things), and I don't really see what him having been "told" has any bearing on anything given that you don't have any authority to pass that kind of judgement. Cyberbob  Talk  17:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

We all remember this, yes? Not Vandalism, but methinks the striking should go. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 23:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Not Vandalism, Iscariot can strike things after the voting period ends, he, along with others have done it for ages now. You are in no position to tell anyone not to strike a vote hagnat. In fact, you should have came here first instead of trying to take charge over another user, when you have nothing showing that you "rank" higher than him. Also, fuck striking.-- SA 00:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Kkkkkkkkkooo

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

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Perma

Tonight's entertainment is vandal sprees it seems. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Permabanned by cheese/crazy as an account purely used for vandalism. or someting. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Malikronthedouche

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

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Perma-ban

Second vandal attack directed at RDD personnel in, what, a week? We're getting popular. Please perform a check user test on this one, as well. 20:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, just fucking wow. Someone's a fucking child. 20:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I was Just waiting for the third edit, permabanned. checkuser shows nothing. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Shut up noob

Shut up noob (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Perma

I was just about to accuse him of being a sock when he vandalised Winman's page.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

He is a sock. Check user shows it. He's using the noob account as a cover up to try and say "Look he's mesisng my stuff up it's not a sock!" or something.-- SA 18:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Banned V-- SA 21:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Winman1

Winman1 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warning

I don't quite remember what we do when we find multi-account abusers, but Check User confirms Shut up noob as an alt, and he's using it to vote on his own things along with his main. So, I have to leave, I need groceries, but here you guys go.-- SA 18:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

We ban the alt, Shut up noob in this case, and warn the main. All multi-votes are then struck. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Iscariot. Bannen'+warning naow-- SA 21:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Matt_Aries

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

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Already dealt with.

While looking at D.o.W., a group page recently put up for deletion by the above user, Matt, I checked who originally created the page which led to User:XxCannon_FodderxX. When I checked his page history I stumbled on this little gem. I'm not sure what the policy on dated vandalism is, because in three days it will be exactly a year ago since this edit was made, but it is vandalism nonetheless. --Thadeous Oakley 18:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

He does claim that a character by that name is an alt he doesn't use. Lets hear what else has to be said, eh?-- SA 19:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

He's CannonFodder? It would have helped allot if he mentioned he was the author at Deletions, it would be a speedy, rather then all those keep votes. --Thadeous Oakley 19:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thats the thing though. He could easily NOT be him, and could quite easily be trying to take over another players alias. :/ -- SA 19:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This was missed vandalism from this case. Vandalism, but already dealt with accordingly -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:26 9 November 2009 (BST)

Well alright, I undid his edit, so I guess this is case closed.--Thadeous Oakley 20:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Rdd member

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

Verdict	Sockpuppet
Action taken	Sock banned, main warned

Two edits to RDD. Both against the wishes and principles of the group. Talking to the group leader confirms that this is not a member of the group, hence request perma under impersonation grounds, precedent as when someone registered Bob's signature name and that alt was perma-ed. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

As RDD leader, I can confirm that this is not one of ours. Petty schoolkid vandalism, but throw the book at 'em nonetheless. 14:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Check user confirms this as an alt of C whitty. Alt banned main escalated.-- SA 15:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Iscariot

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

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	{{{2}}}

using another player's RL name to harass him. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 17:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You want to escalate me for linking one of my characters to the game's wiki? Have I got that right? People get to be escalated now for doing what has been done for years?

If I wanted to make a point I'd make a google bomb to the specific edit that details this supposed person's identity. I say supposed because you haven't even confirmed that this person is who he says he is, have you? Nope, you just jumped on here created a case (wrongly I might add) in a desperate attempt to have me escalated. Weren't we escalating pointless cases after the Cyberbob/Read drama whoring that went on here? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Please prove he is your character Iscariot. -- SA 01:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

;) -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's proof enough for me. Now, if I had an idea what I was going to do with that proof, I'd be better off.

Anyway, being that it's ingame, it's a bit hard to come up with a judgement. In-game shit isn't exactly our thing to take care of.-- SA 01:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This is why I emailed Kevan instead of bringing Iscariot here. Cyberbob  Talk  01:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, see hags, that's what should be done if you have a problem with this. Anyway, like I said, it's in-game, we can't really do anything about it as that isn't exactly our jurisdiction. So I'm going with nv here. Anyone agree?-- SA 01:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I will if we change Iscariot's link reference to "name withheld" as per all the others... Just because that is the bad faith action at hand here, it isn't the creation of the account, which is beyond our control, but the instance where he used it with the intent to hurt the user. I just want all these goddamn names gone though. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 01:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I already made that change. Cyberbob  Talk  01:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Great minds ;) Well, that's enough for me, I'm happy to just close this as Not Vandalism. The name change should have happened as per the below case anyway. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 01:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

But I don't care if my name is on the wiki. :( -- SA 01:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Dawgjz

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

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Soft Warning

Altering a signed comment of another user. Combined with repeated edits to a group page he is not a member of, request perma. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No. Fuck you. I will not let you potentially ruin this guy's IRL career with your rules fetish. If he wants his own personal information removed, let him. It is not our place to question why. Cyberbob  Talk  05:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you like to tell me how this will work then when I get a page for my brand new shiny character (name removed)? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 05:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

name modified as per above vandal case. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 01:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It will work when I email Kevan and request that he ban you from the game for malicious usage of someone's personal information. Cyberbob  Talk  05:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Not malicious use, just I name I got from an old group page. Also, have you checked this guy is who he says he is yet? Finally, what do we do when a group appears with this name? Given the age old statute that groups on the stats page get a wiki page due to autolinks.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 05:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Iscariot said:

Not malicious use, just I name I got from an old group page.

Bullshit and we both know it. Sorry! If you make a group page with the name, by the way, I will have it deleted and bring you here. Cyberbob  Talk  05:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You'll try and escalate me for creating a group page for a group that appears on the stats page? Good luck with that. Plus you might want to consider the content of the pages he's vandalising here when in between them on the google search he claims so much about is a comment signed under his name about rectally inserting a burger.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Tried, done, failed and escalated accordingly. Read and Jed and co. tried it with "Jed is a Nigger" or something similar a couple of years ago. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 06:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Quite a difference given one contains a racial slur, and one doesn't. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Not Vandalism --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 06:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism - I'm sorry, but you can't just wipe your history from this site because you were silly enough to use your real name for a character here. However, if Iscariot (or anyone, really) creates a page to further sully the name through their own actions, then yeah, that would be vandalism on their part as well -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:37 3 November 2009 (BST)

Talk page, if you please. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"it is possible for it to be your own fault if you get raped" - wiki user "boxy" Cyberbob  Talk  10:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you just go crib my material from Promotions? Do you have a single original thought in your head? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I love that you think I pay enough attention to what you say such that I could ever knowingly parrot you. Cyberbob  Talk  21:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Lol. Instead of complaining, you could just rule NV yourself ;D --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 10:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Not Vandalism Cyberbob  Talk  10:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Who's getting raped? The guy allowed his yahoo email to be used by multiple people in a suspect UD group, and it was part of the evidence against them. He can't just go back and wipe every reference to such evidence because he now (says that he) realises that he made a stupid mistake -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:16 3 November 2009 (BST)

Vandalism because he should be doing it properly, not just randomly wiping shit. And I really doubt that some eployer is going to care that a guy plays games on a computer in his spare time.-- SA 11:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

see the talk page--Thadeous Oakley 12:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you should be ruling on this case given your participation in his ridicule. You are also not in any position (nobody is) to be judging whether or not his name here would actually affect his chances - or indeed, to pass judgement on why he wants his name gone at all. Cyberbob  Talk  11:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Given you avoided a misconduct ruling by arguing that sysops can vote even on cases they bring, I don't think you of all people should be telling people where they should or should not vote, Hypocrite. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't "argue" anything - I merely pointed out the policy specifically allowing it. Difference. Cyberbob  Talk  00:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Although I consider this vandalism, in that Dawgjz went through blanking whole sentences to remove his name, thereby changing what people said in fairly major ways, I have gone through the pages and replaced the name with [name removed] in order to remove personal information that probably should never have been posted in the first place -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:30 3 November 2009 (BST)

Thank you mister box-man, as thats what should have been done (or something akin to that) in the first place.-- SA 21:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

May i suggest that you extend this name replacement to this case ? UDWiki A/VB has a strong pagerank in google, and it will show up there any second. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 17:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Cyberbob  Talk  01:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, Yonnua has a point. He fucked up, it is vandalism. But a soft warning is best for this situation imo.-- SA 22:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

SA soft warned him, good. Let's get this over and done with as soon as possible, I'm sick of seeing people argue over something that won't actually have any effect on Google's database for months to come. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Haliman111

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

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None required

For his last edit to this page. he is not a member of The Dead Bunnies and has no business whatsoever editing our page under any circumstances. In fact, due to his past trolling and abuse he has officially been asked to never even post on our talk page. I would think it would be clear from that that he should also not edit our main page. If we feel that someone has vandalized our page we will handle the problem ourselves. Due to his repeated abuse and trolling towards our group we ask that action be taken. --M4rduK 19:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I loled. I try to help you guys and you stab me in the back. Anyone can obviously see that I was reverting the vandalism. If what I did was vandalism, why haven't you reverted it back to the last edit? (Which is vandalism, btw) --Haliman - Talk 19:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Not Vandalism - [4]. He was just reverting Jason's edits, which any wiki user could see as an unwanted change to your page. He was just trying to help out, if you don't like what he did, revert it to Jason's version.

Basically, if you want Haliman to be prohibited from touching your pages, go to A/A. Otherwise, vandal cases like this won't slide and your asking of him to stay away from your group pages has no basis in administrative actions. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 23:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they kind of can ask him to stay off of their group main page, because unless he's editing the NPOV bit at the top or fixing vandalism, he isn't really allowed to touch it, group ownership rights and all. They don't have to go to Arbies to get him to stay away from their main page, only the talk page. And yes, they can make this case and it will "slide" because they obviously did not like the edit to their group page, and thought it was vandalism. None the less, I'm ruling NV. He tried to help, if they don't like it, then Haliman just needs to let it sit next time. K everyone?-- SA 00:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to expand on what SA is articulating, as a group page the Bunnies have ownership rights over it and can control who can edit there or not and the content of those edits. Although this is rightly not vandalism due to lack of bad faith, it is clear that the Dead Bunnies (page owners) are happy for Stafam to make whatever edits he wants to their page. Stafam could turn it into a parody page that makes the Bunnies look like Care Bears in trenchcoats if he wants, because he has been given permission to edit that page, provided the Bunnies are happy, Stafam's not committing vandalism. Given how the group's sense of humour in the past has been displayed it would be better for Haliman and others just to leave the page alone rather than trying to second guess what is vandalism and what is a provocative but allowed edit. If vandalism actually occurs, I'm sure a bunny will start a case here. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What I was thinking. Hence why I'm pursuing Murduck about Stafam's initial edits, I knew having Bob insta-warn people would come to this eventually. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Forget Arbies. I'm done trying to play nice with the Bunnies. --Haliman - Talk 00:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm hoping that isn't you saying you're going to antagonize the bunnies. I'd much rather you just left them alone entirely, and vice-versa.-- SA 00:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hardly. I meant I'm done trying to help them. --Haliman - Talk 01:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

'kay. Good.-- SA 01:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No matter what is vandalism and what isn't, I'd rather have Jason edit our page than to have Haliman's peanut butter hands on it any day. Due to his history with us he should have known better than to touch it. If Jason gets a warning for editing a page that *he was at least associated with at some point* then Halitard deserves the same. Either they both deserve a warning or neither. We consider any editing or posting on our pages by Haliman to be malicious. --M4rduK 15:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

From here, you will notice that a few thing that arn't vandalism are listed... they are: "an unwanted edit to any page, an edit that adds information arising from a misunderstanding, an edit that improves the page from a user you don't like". Policy states quite clearly that your dislike Haliman is not a reason to have him treated differently than anyone else (unless you have an arbitration ruling covering this), and given that he obviously believed that the edit was vandalism, it was clearly done in good faith, and hence not vandalism. Now that he knows that you are willing to tolerate vandalism of your group page by Jason, a repeated revert may be viewed differently -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:01 4 November 2009 (BST)

Alright, will remember that then.-- SA 22:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Jason 'Fock'n' Stafam

Jason 'Fock'n' Stafam (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None Required

For his last three edits to this page. He made a renegade group because he was unhappy with the bunnies, and then made those edits. I've reverted back to Boxy's edit. --Haliman - Talk 16:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Warned. Cyberbob  Talk  16:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

How can this be determined as vandalism without first asking the group in question? --M4rduK 15:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you guys okay with Jason's edit?-- SA 21:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Are we "ok" with it? No. Do we want to settle our civil war ourselves? Yes. If we feel that our page has been vandalized, we'll report it ourselves. Right now we are still settling some internal issues and are dealing with the problems in our own way, as usual. --M4rduK 22:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I meant okay as in considering it not vandalism. If you don't consider it to be vandalism, then I'll strike the warning.-- SA 22:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

We did not consider it vandalism. Thanks SA :) --M4rduK 23:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, warning retracted.-- SA 23:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)