UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2011 03

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)

March 2011

User:Lawliet Yraola

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

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Impersonation. --VVV ^RPMBG 23:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism - Warned. ~ 23:45, 7 March 2011

Not Vandalism - Warning retracted. Should probs have checkusered before warning. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, remember to link to case when A/VDing :( -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, fucking facepalm at myself. I've just read the discussion this case was involved in. Was said user trying to pass an alt account off as an enemy, and then accidentally signed as the wrong one?? Ugh, fail ddr. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

(and you did checkuser him before issuing the warning anyways, so sorry about the above) -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the checkuser logs, it seems like Lawliet was purposefully speaking with a forked tongue. I'm really on the fence about this one, since it is at the same time an underhanded use of wiki alts and likely done in bad faith, but also futile (RRF doesn't go out of its way to kill mouthy harmanz or do favours for strangers), not one of the established clear-cut wiki alt abuses and something done by a newb. However, I think the bad faith part is the decisive one, and thus, Vandalism. -- Spiderzed▋ 01:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It's really going to be a discussion point here. Had I realised she was deliberately masking her alts to deceive, I probably wouldn't have mentioned it and therefore I might be misconducted for this (which I won't mind). I don't know the extent of this entire thing so I can't tell what is the right thing to do just now especially since a case exactly like this hasn't come up at all that I can remember. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

At least I won't drag either of you to misconduct. I could see Vapor's reasoning for acting swiftly to put a stop to this show, but also your reasoning for withdrawing the warning, as this could be a complicated topic. There was no clear-cut "right" approach in this one. -- Spiderzed▋ 01:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Vap didn't do anything wrong. he used checkuser but I'm pretty sure he didn't check the IP which revealed the alts L is using. Hence, his view of the case was a textbook case of vandalism and there's nothing wrong with insta-ruling on that case. With a tie in votes, the end ruling is not vandalism so when contested the ruling should go down. Besides a possible checkuser breach of privacy by myself, everything here is dandy but perhaps wait for another ruling by an op before reinstating the warning, methinks? -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

One former op has already disagreed with my reasoning on the talk page, so you can bet that I wait a bit to the give the rest a chance to add their opinion. No need to jump the gun twice. -- Spiderzed▋ 01:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not checkuser abuse, it's relevant to it not being impersonation. Any not Vandalism ruling would have required as much. --Karek^maps?! 01:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. My thoughts were the same until I realised it was a deliberate cover and not just some noob who was signing as say, a lost account or on their known alts behalf. Aware of cases like this, I was open to the idea of being put forward for wrongly revealing checkuser info. But in retrospect they pretty much shot themself in the foot by cocking up the signing and putting their accounts in this situation. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You're covered on this stuff usually. When it's part of an active VB case and relevant to decisions, that kind of thing is a lot less sensitive than when it's pulled out of the blue in spite. Talking about checkuser info for a VB case concerning misuse of alts is par for the course, and I'd probably spit blood if I saw someone seriously take an op to A/M for doing their job properly based on an irrelevant "precedent". Anyway, with the case at hand, I'm inclined to agree with Vapor and Spider, as this seems a deliberate, albeit failed, attempt to misuse alts in a sockpuppet manner. Vandalism. Also keep an eye on account activity for the next few days maybe, if one alt is mostly a sock it should be banned as part of this escalation. No need to hit one now in case they end up being used right. 04:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah thourough checkusering after the warning was issued revealed what was going on and I'm fine withdrawing the impersonation ruling since its obvious it is not. However, like Spidey I believe its still a bad faith issue. Coupled with nefarious alt use, I'm still ruling vandlaism. ~ 03:37, 8 March 2011

Vandalism - while using a wiki alt is not encouraged, it is still allowed. However, when they are used to attempt decieve an enemy, that is bad faith. Seems clear that this is the intent here, so the alt should be banned, and the main account gets an escalation, and it's not a breach of privacy to reveal who owns the main account either -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:22 8 March 2011 (BST)

Vandalism --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Tallying this after 5 rulings in, we are at a 4:1 majority for a warning (assuming DDR sticks with NV). Of the usual suspects on A/VB, only Ross and Thad are missing. Unless someone beats me to it or this gets surprisingly overturned, I will set the verdict and issue a proper warning in some hours. -- Spiderzed▋ 16:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

So Lawliet Yraola has replied to the previous warning posted on their talk page and appears to be claiming that they are not using alts. It should be noted since it may affect actions taken. We're possibly in ban avoidance territory now. ~ 16:13, 8 March 2011

Because of the confusing nature of the "impersonation" I don't think Vapor should have insta-warned especially since there was no direct threat to speak off, but beside that everything else has been said, so I'll leave it at that. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 16:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I should have used check user before issuing the warning rather than after. The insta-warning was because it appears to be clear-cut vandalism without looking deep into check-user results. ~ _{16:38, 8 March 2011}

I have nothing of any real value to comment. Hi Karek, good to see you. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm fence sitting with this one because I think alt abuse on this scale is sort of harmless in most ways except politically (that's assuming she isn't zerging ingame alongside this), so having acknowledged the views of either side, I'll probably just leave my ruling as Not Vandalism but Warn her as per the vote. As for the alt, I'd prefer it not banned because bar the act from the combined accounts (which I put as an action from her main account) it hasn't really vandalised, my personal preference is to just tell her the rules about alts and honesty and not vandalising, but I'd prefer we have a casual vote over it to see what should be done with it. I haven't banned the alt in the meantime. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 22:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh...first I am a man....and second I am sorry about it...the account is not mine. The email is mine but the urbandead account is not. This account belongs to my cousin...so sorry for the big fuss...won't happen again...there is also one thing you should know...another account that uses my other email does not belong to me...this belong to my friend who I allowed to use my email to verify his account.....User:Lawliet Yraola/The End

February 2011

User:100kills

100kills (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Perma

Vandalt alt. Perma --Thadeous Oakley Talk 14:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Checked the edits, Michealson reverted everything. Looks like it was another Cornholioo alt. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 14:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Quick question, do vandal alts like these normally get an entry into Vandal Data? I noticed the earlier vandal accounts from this month, April Jones and No, didn't get it. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 14:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No, they don't. Bless corn, trying to declare his zerging group to be brilliant because they've killed people. I particularly like the career zombies with no survivor skills he's killed. He must be so proud. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 14:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Bus driver Jim

Bus driver Jim (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Perma

Old school Spammer Returns. Perma'd. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Eric Cartman

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

Verdict	3 edit
Action taken	Perma

Vandal spree. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

User:DeathFromTurds

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

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Removing himself from text-raper list without permission by the RG/FANNY. I'd claim three edit rule, but would like a second opinion before taking such a harsh step as a permaban. -- Spiderzed▋ 14:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Warned -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:17 18 February 2011 (BST)

A little guidance would have been nice. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 14:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and Spiderzed, this user doesn't comply with the three edit rule. It's very important you understand that rule before using it, as unintentionally patronising as I sound. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 14:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The three edit rule is pretty simple... 3 edits, none of them "constructive" and at least one of them deamed to be vandalism. This guy has only edited once, and that is to remove potential "slander" against his "good" (lol) name. It's clearly vandalism, but doesn't warrent a permban, unless he comes back and continues in this vein. Occasionally these types of accounts get with the program, but it's rare. We've got to give them the chance to learn the rules.
That said, some accounts have been banned because they have made their intentions abundantly clear, even before editing 3 times. But they are special circumstances, not this, which is a run of the mill, in-game griefer -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:31 18 February 2011 (BST)

Have re-checked and seen it that it is a minimum of three edits, not a maximum of as I had in mind. (Not that I would have been the first to misapply it at first :p ) But as I consider permabans as a serve step, I'd first check back for a second opinion anyway, unless it is to stop an ongoing wild vandal spree. -- Spiderzed▋ 14:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yup. He did it again I think, UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Aichon/2010. Took it like a man. I miss aichon :( -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 14:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I still check the main page every day or two. And edits to my talk page will get my attention still, even if I'm not around much elsewhere. Feel free to poke me at will. —Aichon— 07:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Hagnat (2)

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

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Spamming admin pages. His bad faith is made even more clear by the context. --VVV ^RPMBG 01:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Getting ridiculous. Vandalism, you have been soft warned already -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:29 18 February 2011 (BST)

Which retard invented and started issuing soft warnings anyway ? Ow... wait... --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 01:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism - Sigh. Hagnat, I know you know better than this... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 01:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Only because its your first vandal ruling as a sysop axe... u get to do me * blushes * --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 01:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism - -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Warned. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That happened quickly. Just to do some back seat ruling Vandalism --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

User:AnimeSucks

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

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	Soft Warning

for shitting admin pages with his faggotry and fake sysop powers, And i still want my sister back. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 18:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Soft Warning hasn't had a escalation since 2006, generally a good kid. probably fell in with the wrong crowd.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 18:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

i ask for nothing but a perma!! --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 18:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Death by hot beef injection - God damn you Animu. 18:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

u just upset--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 22:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Nobody messes with hagnat.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

^ This--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 22:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

vandalism - I guess. remember that ruling is serious business -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 23:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Soft Warning - intention was apparently more being humourous than shitting up A/VB in bad faith, but should still be discouraged. -- Spiderzed▋ 04:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism - After trying to rule on the case below, and now doing it again, meh no more softies, time for a hard one. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 14:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean he did it again? ~ 15:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

He first ruled on the case below, which I moved to the talk page. Then hagnat created this case, and Anime did it again on his own case no less (although some else has unbolded it now) while he knows he shouldn't. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 15:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah ok I see. Well users are able to comment on their own cases. See my comments below. I still don't think it's worth making a huge deal of. Sure, it should be discouraged. But Hagnat gets off with a softy and Anime doesn't? ~ 15:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Unlike what Hagnat did ruling on cases when you're not a sysop is vandalism. Besides, he already got his soft warning when I moved his first "ruling" to the talk page. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 15:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No it's not. Non-sysop rulings don't count, and are discouraged, but they're no more serious than non-op comments in general. 15:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Soft Warning - I wasn't going to rule in this case because it is obviously was just a joke to begin with and not worth escalating over. I would have thought the other ops would recognize that and this would just fall off the vandal page at the end of the month. Seeind all the Valndalism rulings above I'm not sure that will happen. So I'm going to suggest a soft warning. Doesn't need to be escalated. ~ 15:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

meh, they dont make sysops like they used to... where is the outrage and drama ? kill whityyyy !! --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 15:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Heh, sorry to disappoint. If it's any consolation, I could take your sister off his hands for you. I'll treat her reaaaaly goooood.~ 15:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Softy --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

3 for a soft, 3 for a warning, and 1 for something I don't know. If mis doesn't clarify, where will that leave us in terms of action? -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 11:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Just soft-warn him. Need a distinct majority of Vandalism for it to be Vandalism. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 13:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

He's been softly warned. Basically, don't make a habit of messing with admin -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:51 18 February 2011 (BST)

...pages.--Thadeous Oakley Talk 13:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

<sarcasm>--Thadeous Oakley Talk 14:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You're a funny little guy, ain't ya -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:12 18 February 2011 (BST)

</sarcasm>. Dunno about being funny, I try to be creative though --Thadeous Oakley Talk 14:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Hagnat

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

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	softie

I may be humourless, but I'd like to request soft warning for his recent attempts at jokes [1] & [2], which I find to be unfunny and annoying on our more serious pages. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 09:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

still <3 u ddr :) --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 13:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Soft? yeah, sure. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

appreciated I guess, it's not like I mean anything personal, and your goofy stuff is welcome on the wiki, I'd just prefer it be away from making fake headers on admin pages. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 14:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

used to admin, know the drill... but its the admin pages where all the fun is, sooo... >:) --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 14:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Soft. Once in a while a joke on an admin page is fine, but with a second joke so quickly after the first it gains the potential to get out of hand. -- Spiderzed▋ 14:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Whatever is softer than soft - Neither of these were genuinely disruptive and neither was intended to cause any ill effect. Especially the demotions one, since that's such a low traffic page, it's really not an issue for the occasional gaming. A/PM should probably be treated the same as other joke bids and left alone unless it becomes a serial issue. 14:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Soft - Pretty much as Mis. Could just be handled on talk, really. Not even sure it needs escalations. ~ 15:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Soft Warning --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

this vandalism case has brought more attention than the humorous comments. This wiki hasn`t changed a bit. I lieks it. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 17:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay hagnat this is a sfot warning to please not disrupt admin pages by making odd and nonsensical headers for attention. If you do it again, you'll most likely get a warning out of it. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 23:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

is it ok if i do non-nonsensical headers abou nonsencial issues ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 23:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

no. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 23:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

what about nonsensical headers about non-nonsensical issues ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 01:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Jackspear9

Jackspear9 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Got into a bit of an edit war with DeWolf, likely with the knowledge of the arbies case, policy discussion and template discussion surrounding the BCH and the Dulson group listing fiasco. Said edit war ended with this edit, which I believe to be bad faith, as the intent was clearly to cause grief. ~ 05:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyone talked to him? Not vandalism -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:24 14 February 2011 (BST)

Vandalism -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 09:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

This edit did it for me. Bad-faith. Vandalism --Thadeous Oakley Talk 09:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism. But warning not perma in my opinion. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, I won't rule as I deem myself as an involved party. -- Spiderzed▋ 15:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Warned - ~ 16:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

User:XxXD3M0NIKXxX

XxXD3M0NIKXxX (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

The guy is inactive for years, though it shouldn't matter. Scroll down on his user page. It's explicit content, so be warned. Interestingly enough, it's not an image, but extensive wiki code. Meaning I can remove it from his page but it will stay into the page history. Suggesting deleting his page (thus the history), then copy the original content back without the "image". --Thadeous Oakley Talk 14:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Not vandalism. It's a reproduction of the classic Goatse meme. Displaying it in userspace is well in line with the guidelines. -- Spiderzed▋ 15:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Meme or not, there's a load of precedent for deleting pornographic content outright. User page rights aren't unlimited, as this should exemplify (another example would be impersonation). --Thadeous Oakley Talk 15:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Most recent example. a.) Image was more explicite then this cheap wikicode replica and b.) posted on an admin page, not in userspace - still only a soft warning, and in userspace, I wouldn't even deal that. -- Spiderzed▋ 15:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

And the scheduled pornography deletion was revoked. After Nipplegate. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't revoked because porn was okay, it was revoked because porn was something that had to be dealt with on a case by case basis by the sysops to make sure tenuous things weren't being deleted unilaterally. Porn is still treated as vandalism, just through A/VB instead, remember? -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 04:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

And also: I just read Spiderzeds ruling. WOW. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 09:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You're kidding right? Goatse is way past the point of acceptable to be used on a user page. =/ -- Cheese 16:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Not vandalism. And you want to delete the page history so people aren't offended when they search through a users page history? Overkill man. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Not vandalism - also give this man a medal, I couldn't even render Blinky properly and he pulls out goatse. Wow. 19:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Reopening case on the fact that users have been permabanned for posting goatse images before. That whole archive page is full of them. Most are presumably vandal alts, but there's an original in there as well. Vandalism --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Really? You guys would be okay I uploaded this Goatse image on the wiki? A pornograpic shock image? Right. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

A) he didn't, and B) yes, if you kept it solely on your userpage. 22:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

He even gave us a warning not to scroll down. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be allowed outside my user page then? --Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I can break TOU in my userspace? I better get to work on dumping everyone's IP addresses in my namespace. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 22:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

As Mis. Userspace is largely wild west. Don't abuse it to screw with other users by impersonation or with Johnny Law by posting explosive recipes, and I don't screw with your VD. Mainspace and admin pages are a completely different beasts. -- Spiderzed▋ 22:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Why are you trying to tell me the rules here, especially when you obviously don't know them? namespaces are not wild west. Vandalism in namespace is still vandalism. Pornography is vandalism. This is pornorgraphy. Holy shit. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 04:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism - errr. yeah we have something called a TOU of which the first clause this breaks. I wonder, that could have possibly been why the original goatse wensite went down! I'm actually shocked you're calling this not vandalism. No, not because this is goatse, but because we have so, SO much established precedent for removing offensive AND pornographic imagery, of which goatse is both (offensive because of intent of using the well established meme). Wow. you all shock me. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 22:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Finally, sense! I was already asking myself: Am I really this crazy or...?--Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

For the record, Vandalism --Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

"Please do not cite this page as a reason why something is a problem". Failing that, it specifies "illegal pornography". This isn't illegal pornography. 22:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and regular ponorgraphy is already vandalism on this wiki, regardless of TOU standards. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 04:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the TOS is built around vague legal terms. It depends on context, precedent and the evaluation of the judge to be filled out. Personally, I think goatse is established enough in web culture (and tolerated on enough web servers with similar TOS) to not be deemed as "illegal pornography" by today's context. -- Spiderzed▋ 22:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

As it's been decided in precedent on this wiki that goatse is vandalism, that arguments doens't really fly.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh God, a man stretching out his anus completely, and this isn't pornography because it's a meme? Man, in the past sysops have been accused of being "puritans" this is the extreme opposite. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 23:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thad, no one said it wasn't pornography. Just that pornography, especially the way it's been posted, isn't worth escalating for. Ever since the old puritans there's been a move away from doing so, and recent precedent has been more of the wrist-slapping variety. In fact, the last porn-related case centred more on admin-page spam than content. This just isn't worth escalating over, since it disturbs and disrupts nothing on the wiki, and exists in a user's namespace out of the way of regular traffic. The argument isn't about whether it's porn or not. It's that porn's okay. 23:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

*Ignores Mis' comment as Mis has blatantly ignored my link to precedent above*--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh fuck off. I read it. I clearly stated that recent precedent (as in, NOT OLD PRECEDENT, which you linked) moves away from older attitudes. You just make your own holes, Yon. 23:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Most recent goatse precedent is the one linked.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Not the most recent pornography precedent, stop being an idiot. 23:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Being right =/= Being an Idiot.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Then start being right. You're pulling up udated precedent that's been over-ridden by newer, more pertinent precedent (as newer cases take priority, being issued by members of this team and not of an older team, and as the newer case and this one both concern facsimiles more than images). Stop pretending that this old nonsense is more pressing than newer cases. 23:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Lol, not actually how precedent works.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't talk about wiki precedent. I talk about Poundhost precedent - it's the only relevant one for TOS issues. Even if we stick with wiki precedent, why insist on the one of yesteryear when there is more recent stuff on offensive/vulgar/pr0n material? -- Spiderzed▋ 23:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

If we accept that departing from precedent is perfectly acceptable, as you seem to be saying by the fact that we should use newer precedent, why use precedent at all? Why not just leave it up to the whim of the system operators on this case?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Precedent should be a litmus test and nothing more. If an admin team feels the right decision goes against precedent, they're free to decide that way, which is how the last case was ruled upon. So either you admit that precedent is not law, and stop forcing a bullshit one at people, or learn to accept precedents as they apply, and use the more relevant one. Either way, stop being so fucking obtuse. 23:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Stop acting like during the recent precedent porn was somehow found "okay". The image got deleted for a reason. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 23:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It was ruled NV and that's the point. 23:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yon, you miss the point about the vague legal terms. What I try to tell is that Poundhost doesn't care about the little fiefdom of them that UDWiki is, and especially not about our rulings. It's completely up to them to decide what a violation of the TOS is. What we say means jack to them.
As for the wiki side, see Mis. Our evaluation has evolved. (Check also Gnome's comments on the talk page about the context of the 2008 bans, it's enlightening.) -- Spiderzed▋ 23:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't cited TOS once, but breaches of it have been ruled vandalism before (see any case made by Conn). Your argument about the wiki side, however, shows absolutely no understanding of how precedent works. Precedent either needs to be over-ruled by a higher judicial office (we have only one), deemed unjust (we have no process of judicial review) or re-evaluated by an equal court, if such a clause exists. Either we have this cluase, in which case any old precedent is useless, or we don't in which case it's the earliest precedent that matters, not the latest.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Bullshit. This case is about the legitimacy of porn here, not about the punishment of it. The precedent case specificies the image wasn't allowed. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 23:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually the uploader of the last image consented to its deletion and this case isn't about an image which can be deleted. 23:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we not delete text now?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't play me a fool. Porn=Porn, image or not. We can't say if consent or not would have mattered so this is moot --Thadeous Oakley Talk 23:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

An image can be deleted right off the wiki. Text needs to be meticulously deleted from the page history and I'm not consenting to that becoming a viable tactic for whenevr an op finds something they don't like. Don't open a new can of worms just because you don't like a grainy pixelated render of a man's bum. 23:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, as I've been teached and grown up in a legal system that isn't as heavily built around precedent as the English/'merican one, but isn't re-applying similar cases to the same op team effectively "re-evaluation by an equal court"? It's not like we have, want or need the bureaucracy for a full-blown legal system with higher and lower courts, so re-evaluating as cases come up is our standard way of revising and refining judiciary practice. -- Spiderzed▋ 23:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

In which case we do things case by case, and there's no need for precedent. See the dilemna?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Precedent isn't 100% binding on UDWiki. Never has been. It's useful as a shortcut for standard cases as impersonation, or for backing up your position. But it doesn't substitute the op decision, particularly as op teams, the community and the customs change with time. -- Spiderzed▋ 23:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism is vandalism regardless of the form. If I type your IP here in text, or upload it in separate image doesn't matter. It's vandalism, and will be deleted regardless. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 23:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Bullshit. vandalism. ~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 23:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

"It's that porn's okay" This should ring all alarm bells. This isn't a pornsite, both mainspace and userspace. Not disturbing? Dude, porn, not everyone shares this thought. Out of the regular traffic? Not if this case passes as NV. I could paste a porn image on all my userpages, and I'm a sysops, so every time someone goes to my page or talk page they get this shit. No, just no, this isn't encyclopedia dramatica. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 23:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism - too graphic, crosses a line. Just remove it from the page, no need for history wipe bullshit -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:13 14 February 2011 (BST)

Vandalism - As Boxy. Just wipe it (see what I did there). ~ 05:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The case was closed and the warning served by Yonnua Koponen. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 09:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I knew I'd forgotten something. :P Thanks.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 10:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure :) --Thadeous Oakley Talk 10:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Wutz

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

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

I'm a bit suspicious of this guy. His only edit is on the Wutz page designated to listing as many wutz accounts as possible in-game. It's not vandalism, but I'm thinking either alt of a banned user or proxy. Can someone look into this? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 23:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Nothing listed. 23:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, so I just got all worried for nothing. Guess we could let this matter drop for the time being. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 23:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Nothing. Not Vandalism. ~ 23:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Bit suspicious, since you have to log in to the accounts to know they're suspended, no? -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 00:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I wouldn't doubt if it's the actual Wutz, but he hasn't vandalized the wiki, even if he has made a real shithead of himself in-game. ~ 00:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Gotten himself banned. I am not particularly for offering sanctions for users who have been banned in the game this wiki is about. Plus we've highly suspected in the past that Wutz is Cornholioo, I thought this was the accepted case already. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 00:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I couldn't make any tie to User:Wutz and cornhole, but maybe someone with more proxy checking experience could back it up. I didn't personally think Wutz was Corn. Seem to have different MOs. And I'm not making concessions but I'm also not tossing out ban rulings. I'll keep an eye on him as I'm sure everyone else will. If he makes a move or somehow reveals himself as a vandal alt we'll be all over the little fucker like white on rice. ~ 00:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with leaving the account this way. Now, to get that stupid page moved out of the mainspace... -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Technical levels seem too different between corn and wutz for me. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

User:No

No (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Ban Avoidance
Action taken	Perma

And another --^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 17:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Stupidity is doing the same thing repeatedly expecting different results. Perma --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

User:omglol

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

Verdict	Ban avoidance
Action taken	PERMA

And again. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

User:April Jones

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

Verdict	Ban avoidance
Action taken	PERMA

Quite disappointed by this, I've spent several days tracking the edits, placing my level one survivor Geckoman in each of the NT's targetted by the group according to April, keeping a list of which of corn's alts had been active in game before April posted, sent PM messages about it to both DDR and Boxy, only for Corn to use the same IP address as his Heil Hitler Alt. Just slack really. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 14:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Took me 20 minutes to revert all the edits. Wonder how long it took corn to make them. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 14:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I wonder who that is...--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 17:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly who we all expected, if Ross' actions are any indicator. -- Spiderzed▋ 17:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

User:"jew"

User:"jew" (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Ban avoidance
Action taken	PERMA

Seems If he can't beat them, he joins them. Perma --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 14:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

My lordy. His buttons are so fucking easy to press. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 14:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hows that hurricane thingy? Destroyed Australia yet? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 14:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. The new south welshmen were making jokes about it before the cyclone had actually hit. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 06:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Corn

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

Verdict	Ban avoidance
Action taken	PERMA

What a surprise. Even more work for me because of Mis' vandalism. Stop feeding trolls you gimps. Perma for another corn alt. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Lol he thinks encouraging vandalism is vandalism. Hurr -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 13:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Then again he also thinks that we're all jews and that he's part of the master race even though he's dutch -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 13:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Dutch people are the tallest people in Europe. True story. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

But chronic weed STUNTS growth! -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 13:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I blame the bicycles. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 14:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Deuce Bigalo should have stayed away from that asinine place. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 14:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually Sean Connery's one passable accent attempt was dutch. Diamonds are forever. I'd recommend it. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 14:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Misanthropy

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

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Misanthropy has taken it upon himself to make a page at Wotan's Templar, quite blatantly trolling and impersonating the group. I'm anticipating him adding it to some arbitrary character field, but the fact of the matter is that he doesn't represent the group, and he even demonstrates in the edit summary that he's trolling. It's completely petty and designed entirely to troll a permabanned user who can't create or edit the page himself.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Clearly this is cause for A/SD as a previous deletion and nothing more. 22:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Clearly this is trolling and impersonation, and since you knew it was a speedy deletion when you made it, a stellar example of bad faith.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

As I've stated, trolling alone is not cause for a vandalism case, and I've already explained that I'm not impersonating anyone (at no point did I make any claim to be a member of said group). 22:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

If you aren't a member of the group, then you're vandalising the page.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Can't vandalise another group's page if it didn't exist at the time. Simply created a new page. 22:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

In the space of a stats page group, so fuck off or come up with a real reason why it isn't vandalism.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

If they're on the stats page, then they're clearly active enough to maintain a valid page if they so desire. If they don't, then a mainspace page that doesn't exist is fair game for anyone to create. Now come up with a reason why it is vandalism other than "Mis did it". 22:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Their leader is permabanned, as you knew when you created the page, so that argument has no credit. It's blatant vandalism under almost every precedent on the wiki, so I'm going off now, and I'll leave it to the next few sysops to arrive to rule on that precedent.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

If that's true, find me precedent whereby creating a new mainspace page constitutes of impersonation or group page vandalism. Casting my memory back, the closest parallel to this case to be found is this, as an off-topic mainspace page. 22:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism You aren't a member of the group, read policy you daft fool. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm still going to re-iterate the point that a non-extant page created by someone at no point claiming to be what they aren't is a huge stretch as regards impersonation. 22:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It probably is. UDWiki:Specific Case Editing Guidelines is a much more relevant collection of words. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a nice collection of words. It's also missing anything about situations like this. No extant page = not editing someone else's page. 22:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"Groups, for the most part, have sole property of their Group page on the wiki," As you've already confirmed above, you're not a member of the group, you weren't adding an NPOV section, you can't justify it as a "Good Faith Edit", and as you have said above, you knew the page had previously existed, otherwise you wouldn't claim it was a recreation. Its trolling, pure and simple. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying that any name previously used by a group that's since been deleted is off-bounds for anyone else to edit? Why do we even delete group pages if that's the case then? 22:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Not at all Mis. I'm stating that you clearly knew this was corns group. I know this because you commented on conversations specifically about the group, you knew about its deletion, you're actively pursuing its members, and now all of a sudden "Its a coincedence I Iz creating a group with the same name." is that your argument? Please. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not my argument. I clearly knew the page previously existed and have never claimed not to. I'm saying it was deleted, rendered non-existent, freeing up the name in the mainspace due to it not being a page any more, and then I used it. I didn't claim to belong to the group, I didn't make it a page about the group, I didn't even include links to anything connected to the group at all. I took the page name and used it for something else, when the group who had it, and lost it, no longer were making use of it. If this is the route this case takes, it will become a bad can of worms in the future - remember the EVIL drama? There was no clear precedent of who owned what back then. If you now try to claim that deleted page names still belong to groups who aren't using them, things will eventually get ugly in future edit wars. I fail to see a genuine reason why I can't lay claim to a deleted group's page name, since they aren't using it, and it's essentially been freed up for use for other purposes. Yes, the intention was to troll, and I freely admit that, but that's not vandalism in and of itself. No actual impersonation was done, and since that's what I'm being cited for, I'm fighting it. To sum up: unused page name taken, no impersonation committed, so why vandalism? 23:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

On this wiki, we define Vandalism as "an edit not made in a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki". Line one of the vandalism policy. You freely admit your intention was to troll. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 23:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

So rather than back up your original verdict (which is wrong), you're just changing it? I'd have argued less if you insisted on mere bad faith to begin with (since there's been recent examples of trolling A/A cases let off as not vandalism to use as precedent). 23:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Lot of indent going on here. I'm not changing my verdict, I was answering a direct question. The page existed, it had an edit history, it still does, you edited a group page you clearly knew was originally created by another user, knowing full well that you were editing a page you had no right to. As for your "its like Evil all over again." argument, it isn't. That was a fight over a redirect of a shared acronym (mainspace page), not the pages themselves. (group page) You should probably read the specific case editing guidelines sometime. You want to bring up previous cases you think are relevant, be my guest. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 23:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I specifically stated I wasn't comparing this to the EVIL case. In no uncertain terms. So you've just proven you're not actually paying attention. Page DID exist. Then DIDN'T. It was deleted, and therefore ceased to be a page. Less than a dozen users would even have been notified that it had been a page to begin with. Do, for example, Silent Running still own their page? Do Degenerates own that page? No. They don't. Because those are deleted pages. And this is no different. And I already pointed out that SCEG doesn't bear relevence here the last time you tried foisting it on me. 23:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't mind if I stop with the indents do you? "remember the EVIL drama? There was no clear precedent of who owned what back then." - Your words and wrong , There was clear precedent. Lemons owned lemons, Irksome, owned irksome, no one owned EVIL as it wasn't a group page. Again I encourage you to find ANY examples where Group pages have been recreated as Flaming pages directed at the original group? Explain In Any way how stopping people recreating group pages they had nothing to do with in the first place is "opening a can of worms". As for "less than a dozen people would have known" that has nothing to do with the case. And as a sysop when editing the page you would have clearly seen at the top of the page there was a deleted history you could restore. I believe that degenerates still own the page, so does silent running. Explain to me why they don't. Also, as you know that their is a group called wotans... why wouldn't you follow the wiki naming preference from forever stating that your group was wotans.... (new)? Oh and you still didn't bring up those cases you threatened to earlier. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 00:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism - It's clear that the intent of the edit was done in bad faith. No amount of red tape can erase that. ~ 23:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Clearly Vandalism. Newbies get way with this sort of stuff. But not you, Missy. The content was obviously designed to annoy the actual group, who's leader is banned, which is why his version of the page is deleted. An accurate, NPOV version would have been acceptable, but placing the star of david and a jewish song on it isn't -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:01 2 February 2011 (BST)

Vandalism. As Vapor. And as far as what Boxy said, I don't even give noobs who do this the time of day. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 00:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

So that's Vandalism then. I'm assuming a formal warning? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah done. Warned. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 11:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

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