UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2007 12

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

Mrsmith

Vandalized Soul Hunters. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 23:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Warned. And people, can we please link to the diff comparisons of the actual vandalism, rather than your own edit reverting it? Not picking on you specifically, Nali, I've noticed quite a few people doing the same lately -- boxy ^{talk • i} 23:14 31 December 2007 (BST)

Starman537

Moved the discussion to the talk page without other users votes to do so.--Novascotia 19:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Not vandalism, talk pages are there for discussions. It's a community page, he left a link to where he'd moved the content, and quite frankly it still needs a heap of material moved to the talk page to unclutter the main page and make it readable. There was a bloody huge map in the middle of the voting section for gods sake! -- boxy ^{talk • i} 23:10 31 December 2007 (BST)

Novascotia

Soft warned for "ruling" on an A/VB case, and disregarding the "Do not post here, use the talk page if you have something to say" guideline repeatedly. Remember: Unless you are a sysop you cannot rule on any administrative cases. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 18:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

40poundbaby

Another adorable trenchcoat.--User:Axe27/Sig 03:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Warned - obviously not part of BB2, so don't edit their page -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:24 31 December 2007 (BST)

Suicidal Angel

[1] The ass keeps insisting to post on my user page after telling him kindly not to post on my page. I find the content he puts on my page offensive for many reasons including the fact that everything he says is a from of a quiet flaming.--zinker 19:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Zinker^{T!Z!A!R! F !} zinker ^M! Brainzz

Look man, your sig is a horrid mess. I was giving you advice to accept help from others. How many times have I had to report you on your sig image sizes alone? That should be a hint that something is wrong with your sig. Not to mention that it was breaking formatting on a few pages. I'll accept my warning, if thats what the ruling sysops decide is needed. But you really need to learn the basics of coding before trying to make something even slightly advanced. If I remember correctly though, you can't really report me to this page just for talking on your discussion page. Now, if their was an arbies ruling saying so...Although I could be wrong about all this. And just so you know, my user name isn't actually Selbstmörderischer Engel. It's just a translated version of my actual screen name. lrn2chkfrst.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 20:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Note - Please keep comments to the talk page. Thanks.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 22:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Not Vandalism - Unless you get an arb ruling saying he cant post on your page, he can post on your page as much s he likes. If you dont like it, just delete it. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 22:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Mobius187

Flooding almost every Suburb page with his non-newsworthy group advertisement spam --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 01:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I just finished removing it all. UGH. Precident is against him, FYI. We have warned Codename V for spamming his event, the 5th of November thing (Mobius is spamming his pet project), we punted Mr Krabs for spamming too. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 01:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Krabs case isn't really relevant here. This isn't inane spam. Codename V is much closer. I would like to hear other sysops opinion on this, but I feel that this is a good faith attempt to improve the wiki by getting more people to update the wiki with NecroNet details from their local area. While codename v was simply advertising an in game event via the wiki, this information is wiki related, even if done in an "in character" fashion. It probably wasn't the best way to go about it, however, it would have been better to simply place a link at the bottom of Template:Suburb -- boxy ^{talk • i} 06:08 30 December 2007 (BST)

Yes, and Codename V's was made in an apparently good faith attempt to get human groups together to march into Ridleybank and be eaten. Good faith has not been treated as a factor when dealing with spam because spam is fucking annoying and a pain in the arse to revert if its not caught before someone else edits. Mobius spends most of his time on the suburb pages, and knows that stuff that isnt news shouldnt be on there. The fact he spammed 80+ pages with blatant advertisements for his project, which took me about an hour to undo this afternoon with a little help from Ryiis (Who got three of them) should be more than enough to string him up on this occasion. Burn him! Burn the spammer! --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 07:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I really don't consider my news posts to be spam because they served a real purpose. First it let everyone know about NecroWatch, which is relevant to both the wiki and the game, second it drew their attention to those NT location wikipages which I had updated (as most were simple location placeholders) for which I received positive feedback, and third I only targeted those suburbs that actually had NT facilities. True spam, in my book, would have been a simple cookie-cutter advert that could have been dropped into every suburb in a few seconds each. Instead I took the time to link to each NT facility and also spread that news in a pattern based on suburb threat levels (all green suburbs with NTs one day, all yellow suburbs with NTs another day, and so on). Again, I see nothing wrong with informing the public in the best way that I know of, which from a wiki user's perspective, is the news of the suburb they are located in. On the flip side, if you had chosen to come to me first and asked me to remove these news items because they had breached some sort of wiki policy I would have and then saved you all the apparent trouble. I think you would find that I am extraordinarily agreeable person and am always willing to go that extra mile to undo anything should someone have actually taken offence. Please don't misunderstand though, I would not have undone my work as an admittance of any wrongdoing, since as I stated there was no malicious intent on my part, but rather for the reason that I prefer to see other people happy, especially when their motives are unbiased in their complaint. Of course I think communication is an important part of community. --Mobius187 19:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Not Vandalism The information was relevant to each page he posted on. You could make an argument about if News header was the right place for it but disagreements about an edit should be handled on A/A not here. In anycase this is clearly not vandalism.- Vantar 19:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I feel this ruling represents the truth of the matter. Of course I'm not all talk, even though this ruling was in my favor I have no absolutely no intention of restoring the news items Grim deleted, as apparently Grim took offence to them. As I stated, I do not seek to annoy anyone here on the UD wiki so long as the motive behind their complaint is not suspect. I don't believe Grim's motive in this case is suspect because he was working under the assumption that this was similar to Codename V's propaganda. I will investigate Boxy's suggestion though, to place a link at the bottom of Template:Suburb instead. --Mobius187 19:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I am arguing that such comments are spam, especially when made in such gargantuan quantities. There are far better ways to inform people of your project than by posting on almost every suburb page. We dont let anyone else advertise in such a blatant and spammy manner (see Codename V cases), but it appears you have carte blanche to do whatever the fuck you like. Who cares if we have ruled the other way in the past? I am appalled by this ruling. It is basically saying that we will rule one way for some people, and another way for others, that there is a different set of rules for people who are liked and people who arent. If it had been me doing this, i would have been crucified, i mean, check the bottom of this page for an example of a blatantly unfair case being ruled against me despite no crime being committed. Case in point. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 21:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a black and white issue, Grim. This is in the gray area between the codename v case, and Axe27, who was accused of spamming when placing Template:Welcomenewbie on multiple user talk pages -- boxy ^{talk • i} 00:26 31 December 2007 (BST)

The welcomenewbie templates, while detestable (And merely a tool for those who wish to ascend places in the infantile signature race), are at the very least relevant and, on exceedingly rare occasions, possibly even helpful. RP IC nonsense about individuals squatting in NT buildings upgrading machinery is NOT helpful. It is fan fiction, at best. Spamming it on at least 83 pages is excessive in the extreme and crosses the border between sincere attempt to notify people of something and pure spam. The suburb pages have never been used as a place to advertise wiki projects, issues or discussions. They are places for giving information regarding the suburb. In this sense, the IC posts by Mobius187 are in many cases contrary to the intent of the page, as they imply the NT buildings are up and running, and quite possibly safe for new players to hide in (What with his talk of people there upgrading them). A newbie could then wander into, and im using a rather extreme example of one of his posts to demonstrate this, the Blackmore Building in Ridleybank expecting it to be a safehaven and end up lunch. The posts were in many cases misleading, and we dont allow false or misleading reports when we see them. We delete them. Furthermore, it gives the appearance of a game update, until you dig a tiny bit deeper, and lets face it, not many people do that these days. His posting of these messages was done in an advertising capacity. If he really, really wanted to raise awareness of it, he should have gone to the Template:Suburb talk page and posted a request to have it added to the template, with the list of links at the bottom, or possibly even elsewhere as the discussion merited. Such would have been a constructive, and most especially, a non spammy way to do what he wanted. He could have also posted it on the projects page. He could have posted it on the Main page talk page or even the Suburbs talk page. But no. He has to spam the suburb pages with non-newsworthy misleading in character crap instead of taking any number of other viable and, overall, sensible measures instead. No one else has EVER been allowed to use the suburb pages in such a manner, and this case, sadly, sets the nasty precedent that they now can be used in such a way. This is a man advertising his pet project. In this respect he is no different from Rip purr, who advertised his own pet project, the 5th of November, under the alias Codename V. However, we dont like Codename V/Rip purr, but we apparently all love Mobius187. There is no viable difference between this case and that case (The only real one i can think of is that Rip purr created an alt to spam his nonsense under). Yet we have different verdicts. This is not justice, this is instead the clearest evidence we have for administrative double standards on this wiki, and it is just those double standards that are killing this place. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The viable difference is that it was an effort to get people to contribute to improving the information available on the wiki (by updating necronet map screenshots). Codename v did nothing of the sort, simply promoting an in game event (of no benefit to the wiki), despite being warned about it the year before. And I'll thank you not to tell me who I do and do not like. Quite frankly, I've nothing against Codename V/Rip purr. If Mobius does it again, or reverts your removals from the news sections, then yeah, I'd warn him, now that he knows that it is pushing the line. But I feel that the fact that it was done in good faith to improve the wiki, and the fact that Mobius is open to criticism and willing to change his behaviour (and even offered to undo the posts in question if he had known before) when he realises he is annoying other users gives him the right to an assumption of good faith -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:55 31 December 2007 (BST)

Thekooks

Blanking A/VB, boxy was lenient enough to ask him why he did it on this talk page but he merely deleted Boxy's message. Looks like clear cut vandalism to me.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 20:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, on IRC he was surprised he blanked A/VB, we had a nice long discussion about the wiki afterwards. --Karek^maps?! 21:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Strange, what reason does he give for having unknowingly blanked A/VB, reverted and then blanked it again? Sounds rather suspicious to me, particularly after he deleted Boxy's polite request for an explanation on his talk page.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, as you can tell I blanked A/VB by accident, then reverted it to normal and then went to investigate how I blanked it the first time, I must have pressed save by mistake. ~~[sarcasm]feel free to ban me, as you can tell from every other edit of mine I'm obviously a vandal, prone to this kind of behaviour[/sarcasm]~~ mmm, I'm glad to see you assuming good faith The General.--Thekooks 21:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Boxy assumed good faith when he left the polite note on your talk page, you deleted it, I took you to vandal banning because you evidently weren't willing to explain yourself unless we went through official channels. If it really was a good faith edit then that's fine, but I had no way of knowing that beforehand.The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 22:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Not vandalism - but next time, just answer the bloody question instead of wiping it from your talk page -- boxy ^{talk • i} 23:42 29 December 2007 (BST)

I would, but alas I have an irational fear of talkpages, something to do with elephants y'know.--Thekooks 12:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Xdomnxflrj

Looks like an adbot --Druuuuu ^OcTRR 23:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Permabanned --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 00:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Perianwyr

Impersonation of Marty Banks. --Barroom Hero 23:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Warned --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 00:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Lh778

Repeatedly reverting User talk:Finis Valorum once it became obvious he was no longer welcome -- boxy ^{talk • i} 13:00 28 December 2007 (BST)

There are a few relevant cases, but deleting an active conversation is considered poor form. Its happened in the past and the law usually sides with the undeleter. Id just let this go, as a solution appears to have been reached already, with the conflict over. Edit: Besides, edit wars are usually the realm of A/A, not A/VB. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 13:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC) Objection to case withdrawn. They are both being dicks and not attempting to solve the problem despite being pointed to A/A.--The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 14:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Awaiting a ruling -- boxy ^{talk • i} 13:41 29 December 2007 (BST)

Warned It was Finis Valorum talk page so he has every right to remove your comments from it, constantly reverting to get your message back is very clearly bad faith - Vantar 01:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Girlygirl

Permabanned as active vandal. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 00:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Craigdavid

looks like the yourmum vandal is at the emo bounty hunters page again. Another MCR page created here as well. Pretty sure it's the same guy as before.--Seventythree^Talk 00:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Got him --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 00:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Chopper

Virtual graffiti and blanking of the news section before adding his own on the Rhodenbank suburb page. Content has already been reverted. --Sauth 22:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Couple of "news reports" near the end (One a coordination thing, which are wiped as not news, and the other asking the danger level to be changed), after a whole pile of vandalism. Im going to say that these edits are not contributive, and slap the perma. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 22:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hagnat

Humorous suggestion in the suggestions page clearly 'shitting' up the wiki as Grim would say. (Just cuz hes a Mod doesn't mean he should get special treatment.) Omega 21:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't be an arse, Sockem. That "suggestion" is in the humorous section (look at the categories), and it's from 8 months ago when we were setting up the new suggestion system. It was a test run (along with maybe a dozen other humorous suggestions) to iron out any kinks in the system before implementation. Not vandalism -- boxy ^{talk • i} 21:25 26 December 2007 (BST)

Whoops my bad. Omega 21:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

whu? did i miss anything ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 02:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yourmum

Wrecking this page To start with. Many, many edits to the page, all bad faith from the looks of it--Seventythree^Talk 17:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

(P.S, I haven't fixed the page in question as he has edited it more than once. I could copy-paste an old layout of the page using the compare differences tool, but I understand that sysops have a better way of doing this)--Seventythree^Talk 17:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

All reverted, 73. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 17:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.... How did you do that? Copy-pasting? Anyway, yes, vandal here in need of banning.--Seventythree^Talk 17:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

What you do is click on the page's "history" then go to the revivision you want back, (one below the vandal) and click it, then press save and you have that revivision back..--Thekooks 19:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Permabanned. Yes, us sysops have an easier way if reverting vandalism but it would do more harm than good now that someones reverted it so I'll leave it for now.*slumps against the wall* Can't people just stop vandalising for one bloody day?-The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 19:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Azface

Wiping comments from someone else's talk page and adding a template to their user page -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:32 24 December 2007 (BST)

And then he wiped this report. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 15:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Permabanned --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 18:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

RRNMan

This edit says he owns the character, Austeko3rs, which has been previously said to be owned by Ahrimmagicks. So unless he gave the account to RRN d00d, then RRN is an alt of the previous vandal Ahrimmagicks. That, and the fact that Ahrimmagicks/Austin/Whatever-he-wants-to-call-himself-this-time is oddly attracted to snagging my code and using it almost exactly as is.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 04:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to provide a bit more evidence than that. Like Ahrimmagicks claiming to own the character, and even then, it's in his sandbox area, so he may be in the process of editing in his own details -- boxy ^{talk • i} 05:22 23 December 2007 (BST)

Didn't think it'd happen, but I thought I'd give it a try. And if you look, it was Gnome's basic layout, and he edited in his own info while he saved it. He did it all in one step. Oh well.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 15:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Super Six One

Impersonation Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 20:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

And here. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 20:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You seem so intent on dishonesty that he is merely giving the correct information, the pka would hate for you to give the wrong information out after spending so much effort to get it.--Thekooks 20:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I know he's giving out incorrect information. He's trying to lie; the PKA have uploaded image files that say the 23rd, link momentarily. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 21:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Image: Image:Silent night1.3.PNG Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 21:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

And the admin of the PKA forums gave out the date and place to him Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 21:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, building news is for ingame information, not metagame information. Keep it to facts not hearsay otherwise you ruin the page's usefulness and make it a place for random gossip.--Karek^maps?! 21:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It is ingame- there's going to be an ingame assault on fort creedy by the PKA on the 23rd. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 22:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Warned -- boxy ^{talk • i} 23:19 22 December 2007 (BST)

Eathis

Blanked Suburb and replaced WanYao's page with "?". --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 17:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

3 edits all vandalism = permaban - Vantar 19:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Officer Spinner

Vandalized our group page here -->FOD. Check the Officer Spinner area of the History. Also here ---Flowers_of_Disease/Members. Again, see his edits in the history tab.

Thanks. --Hibernaculum 04:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Warned -- boxy ^{talk • i} 05:15 21 December 2007 (BST)

Legend X

20:48, 8 November 2006 Gage (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Legend X (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 year (attempt to circumvent a ban)

He emailed me complaining that he is still banned. Could someone unban him please?--Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 01:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If I remember right, his ban was extended for editing under the name Terrible Man, tho its not under ban logs, hmm--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 01:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe it wasn't extended--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 01:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

As there was no 'unban' button available to actually unban Legend X, i banned him for two hours and then unbanned him. Please provide feedback if this worked to end your year length ban, Legend. And welcome back to the wiki, it was a really long timeout. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 02:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The perma on the alt is still active. Its possible that this might be fucking with him. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, i unbanned User:Octi 1. Legend X, please contact me with your more info (like your IP and other alts you tried to use) to solve this thing. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 12:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to Terrible Man... --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 12:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Boxy's done that. Has it occurred to anyone the Legend X may, simply, not yet be editing or is there proof that he's still blocked?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 09:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

He emailed me complaining that he is still banned. But after that we already unbanned two of his alts, among other things that we done to unban him. He needs to contact us before we can do anything else. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 10:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly my point, we need to know if he's still banned after we unbanned his alts, no sense running around in circles when the problem may be fixed.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 12:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Axe Hack

Soft warned for spamming A/VB with crap. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 23:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Darkmagic and Nalikill

These edits by Darkmagic and Nalikill may possibly be malicious. Can you check them? --User:Axe27/Sig 22:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC

I went onto double redirects. I was just trying to help. I didn't put the redirect there. Dammit, I didn't even go an hour before my name got on this page again. Can I at the least get the record for "Most times having name on A:VB"? Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 22:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hm...Checked A/VD. It appears that Darkmagic is an alt of Cody6, so I guess that the edits may not be malicious. My bad. --User:Axe27/Sig 22:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing malicious, not Vandalism. Do not report on suspicioun. Check your facts and make sure there is a case next time instead of wasting our time. Suicidalangel's comment moved to talk as well. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 23:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Brian Barbera

His edits seem to be random bouts of spam similar to that of that mister Krabs Guy.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 21:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion moved to talk. Zombie slay3r Permad him. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 23:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

XxXD3M0NIKXxX

Edited another user's page. --Z. slay3r • Talk 21:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Warned -- boxy ^{talk • i} 09:28 19 December 2007 (BST)

Sexylegsread

Impersonation--Finis Valorum 17:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Meh, lies on their pages. Who'd a guessed. But anyone can tell it wasn't you who "signed" that, so I'm leaning towards not vandalism -- boxy ^{talk • i} 09:33 19 December 2007 (BST)

Actually boxy, this little mutually antagonistic spat has been going on between these users for months, to the point where pretty much every single interaction between them is made in bad faith. That said, this was done a five weeks ago, and therefore no action will be taken. Report within two weeks or not at all. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if anyone thinks Finis Actually did this...(or if anyone visited the page in the first place hhaha) then ban me....but seriously I wrote it in stupid writing just so that it would be obvious that it was NOT Finis. Mate, we have left you alone for a long time now. Please, stop bringing old stuff up. You know this is intended as a joke. If you want to cry about it, do so on my talk page. Not here, where it wastes everyones time.--MichaelRead 13:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

And then he does it again. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 15:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Sigh. And oh, if you want to get technical, I didn't do it again. Its the same fake sig. --MichaelRead 15:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, im officially sick of this spat between you and Finis. Take it off the wiki Now. Warned for the second offense as a hugely bad faith edit. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 21:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, miscounted your contribs. Thought a warning had been dropped. It hadnt. Banned for a Week --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 21:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Suicidalangel

Illegally striking a vote on a suggestion. He should have left it for the sysops. Its our job there by the rules. If he felt that strongly about it, he should have left one or more of us a note on our talk pages to deal with it legally. Im not happy about this, but rules is rules, and he blatantly and knowingly broke them.

For reference, the rules:

Note is used by System Operators to invalidate trolling-based votes. Only Sysops may remove troll-based votes and they do so with a strikeout in order to preserve the trolling removal for posterity. The voter may contest the strikeout with the Sysop that struck their vote out on the discussion page. Only a System Operator may remove a strikeout.

Incorrectly struck and illegally done. Im not happy to be reporting this, but its my job. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 13:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

As SA pointed out here, it was also a totally unjustified vote, which also makes the vote invalid, and doesn't need to be struck by a sysops (but then I was overruled last time someone tried to enforce that suggestions rule and was brought here, wasn't I). Quite frankly, if you look at the guys vandalism from the rest of the day, the vote should have just been removed as vandalism. I say not vandalism, a good faith attempt at improving the wiki by removing vandalism, using a little used suggestion rule (unjustified votes), although it may have been prudent to ask a sysops to do it via "Note" -- boxy ^{talk • i} 13:16 18 December 2007 (BST)

You know, I could have sworn I left a little message on Grim's page about this incident. I struck it, and went to leave a message to his page about it, to make it more official and legal, and then I guess I closed the tab before it finished saving. Oh well, my bad.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 20:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Scurley7

This vandalism of the Dribbling Beaver's page, this vandalism of Boxy's page, and these two attempts to edit this post. --Amanu Jaku 03:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Warned -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:53 18 December 2007 (BST)

This too. --Amanu Jaku 03:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Continual editing of A/VB. Two reverts thus far, one by me, one by boxy. --Druuuuu ^OcTRR 03:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Now four. --Amanu Jaku 03:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Two more.--Druuuuu ^OcTRR 03:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Numerous edits to this vandalism report since receiving, and replying to his warning. I've banned him for a couple of hours to stop it for now, ~~but I'll let another sysop decide if further action is needed~~ -- boxy ^{talk • i} 04:03 18 December 2007 (BST)

Strike that, I'll give him his second warning, and leave the 2hr ban in place. Impersonation -- boxy ^{talk • i} 04:08 18 December 2007 (BST)

Treviabot92

He deleted my comments on my talk page, proof is here. [2]--'BP^Tmz 00:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism and a 24hr ban. Go away, calm down a bit, and get on with more productive things than worrying about whether someone doesn't like "shut up" on their talk page -- boxy ^{talk • i} 00:43 18 December 2007 (BST)

Treviabot92

Not following the rules on my talk page. i warned him twice not to as seen here User talk:Treviabot92 and yet he continues. he is also under the misguided idea that i cannot change titles on my own talk page.--'BP^Tmz 03:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Technically Not vandalism, Treviabot92 is wrong on a few points but this page is for breaches of official policy not interpersonal complaints. You are allowed to do what you want on your talk page and can post rules to govern your talk page but those rules are not official policy. You can go to A/A and get him banned from commenting further on your talk but until that is done you can't call vandalism on his comments. On a side note shut up is not a swear and you can change whatever you want on his comments on your talk page as long as you don't then go use his edited comments as evidence in further cases (i.e changing "shut up" to "I will f---ing kill you" then making a new vandelisim case is not allowed but just changing comment is technically allowable, just rather poor faith)- Vantar 04:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC) I was wrong about that last part so i am striking it to prevent any further confusion about the issue - Vantar 05:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that there is no vandalism here (or by BP), saying that BP "can change whatever you want on his comments on your talk page" just isn't right. Delete whatever you want, but don't change a signed comment to mean something else. It will still be considered impersonation, even on your own pages -- boxy ^{talk • i} 06:45 17 December 2007 (BST)

oh i agree with you there. all i've ever changed was the title, which im sure does not count as impersonation.--'BP^Tmz 07:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't go pushing the limits of that too far, but changing it to "complaining" from "shut up" on your own talk page is fine by me -- boxy ^{talk • i} 07:07 17 December 2007 (BST)

other way around. but thanks.--'BP^Tmz 07:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

EDIT so then this [3] is vandalism?--'BP^Tmz 07:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes it is -- boxy ^{talk • i} 07:07 17 December 2007 (BST)

I would say no but I believe boxy would say yes so it could be be but I had said it was allowed in my last ruling so it stands to reason that he would believe it to be allowed so if was edited after my ruling then the mistake is more on my part then his.- Vantar 07:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with boxy and Vantar. To clarify: Agreed with Vantar on changing titles on pages. Thats perfectly ok unless the person is tying it into his comment, like You know that time you thought you would get me banned...? as a title and a comment following on from there. This was not such a comment. I am agreed with boxy however on the impersonation. I believe this breaks any percieved deadlock. The warning shall be delivered shortly, if it has not already been done. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 07:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I would let him off on this one though, Grim, given he was following advice from a sysops at the time. As long as he hasn't done it again since I set him right on his talk page. BTW, here's an example of impersonation on a group page, which has similar ownership rights to user pages. There are limits, even on your own pages. Delete unwanted comments, don't edit them to say something different -- boxy ^{talk • i} 07:26 17 December 2007 (BST)

I dont believe in going soft on impersonation, especially since he has been warned for impersonation before. He knows its wrong to edit other peoples comments. He did it anyway. Being stupid isnt an excuse for poor behaviour. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 07:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

yeah but I quite clearly said that it was not impersonation so you are pretty much punishing him for my actions - Vantar 07:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, no. in this case there has been a prior bad experience regarding impersonation in this users history. He should have realised you were in error. You making a mistake doesnt absolve him of the guilt of his actions. Just refrain from giving bad advice in future, and if it will make you feel better, you can report to the Violators in Room 32 downstairs for punishment regarding it. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 07:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't feel too bad about it, Vantar, he was doing his best to be a pain in the arse, and jumped at the chance to up the drama level. I would have let him have that one, but I'm just as happy to let him keep the warning he just got. Bad faith from start to finish -- boxy ^{talk • i} 07:57 17 December 2007 (BST)

Here is the guideline on impersonation on user talk pages, "An exception to this broad authority [user talk page ownership] is the impersonation of others. Impersonation of others can still be reported as a vandalism attempt, even if you are the one that did it on your User page." -- boxy ^{talk • i} 07:57 17 December 2007 (BST)

Nubis

This edit in accordance with this policy. --Banana reads Scoundrell for all of Yesterday's News, Today! 04:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup. From exceptions: In the case of custom page titles, page titles that serve a constructive purpose, so long as the custom titles are clearly in good faith and do not violate other policies. Examples would be extremely long titles being shortened, or users choosing to display names different than their user names (disallowing impersonation, or titles significantly unrelated to their user names, unless the unrelated titles are established as being synonymous with said users). His page is in clear violation of this. Warned. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 05:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Was it intentional though (as required to be vandalism via that policy). I think it may have just came with the cut'n'paste of the code from DHPD -- boxy ^{talk • i} 05:35 15 December 2007 (BST)

Maybe, but when you post a page it loads up, so he would have seen the title and decided to do nothing about it (Which would be a violation, as its a concious decision that violates policy). Besides, id propose that we can warn anyway because no one would copy the group page of his groups enemy to their userpage in good faith. Yes, Nubis is part of the new SA horde camping Dunell Hills. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 06:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, fair enough -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:23 15 December 2007 (BST)

Timmy Toot-Toot

Vandal spree. Permad. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Combine

Repeatedly adding a blatantly POV "NPOV" section to the Red Rum/Martial Law page. It was removed by a member the first time and myself the second time. A suitably NPOV NPOV comment has been added and the page has been protected to prevent any recurrance of the problems. Hopefully this will be the end of that drama. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This case needs a ruling. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 08:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Warned - while I don't see it as blatantly POV (it does explain the reality of what the page is), it was placed (for a second time) back into the body of the page, rather than the NPOV section. If you're going to attempt something like this, know what you're doing, and also keep it entirely NPOV -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:05 17 December 2007 (BST)

Sgt-Jenkins

What a cute little vandal. --User:Axe27/Sig 02:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Warned --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

3 Contribs rule I'm guessing? His only contribution is vandalism. --User:Axe27/Sig 02:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Minimum required for a perma is three. As i said on the talk page last time someone did something like this, this rule probably needs to be amended. Im not about to break this one though, not with everyone watching me like a hawk. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I have only just this second been informed about the vandalism done using my name, and this SGT Jenkins is an imposter , I did NOT vandalise anybodies wiki's and am sincerely sorry for the inconvenience of any trouble this other me created. Please perminantly ban the account incase I get framed for anything like this again. Sgt Jenkins 15:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

its true, the SGT-Jenkins guy was an account made to frame SGT Jenkins who is a BMC member The man 15:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Rules is rules. Cant do it. If its used again, it will be dealt with. Its not like its hard to not spot that - in there. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 23:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Grimch, we have reason to believe that SGT-Jenkins may be a vandal alt of nuke texas. can you check and see if this is the case? The man 13:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no indication of that. This guy has been warned. That's all we can do for now -- boxy ^{talk • i} 14:34 17 December 2007 (BST)

Diablo

This little edit to AHLG's sig which I can't see it being in good faith. I cannot revert the edit as an internal server error keeps popping up. --Ryiis 22:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Noticed that myself. I had the smae problem with the Internal server, so I copy-pasted from the last AHLG edit. Hope I haven't cocked anything up, it seemed the only way to sort it.--Seventythree^Talk 22:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

He just did it to 73's sig as well. I banned him for 24hrs, because it seems designed to break multiple pages on the wiki, and probably an attempt to overload the system... it's stopped him for the minute, but I'd like to see it go to a permaban, however via the guidelines we should probably just unban him, and give him a warning -- boxy ^{talk • i} 01:50 14 December 2007 (BST)

I havn't got time to deal with it now... next sysops to come across this can rule and undo what I've done if they feel it needs a different ruling (otherwise I'll look in later) -- boxy ^{talk • i} 01:53 14 December 2007 (BST)

OK, unblocked and Warned -- boxy ^{talk • i} 04:46 14 December 2007 (BST)

I move to perma. Two vandalism, no contributive edits. Even his votes are just "As above" --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 14:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

After I reverted his first peice of vandalism I warned him about his actions, and asked him to explain himself at 22:46 here, then at 1:45 he editied my sig in a similar way. While I could sort of understand the first one, maybe being a total cock-up the second one very definately appears to be an attack. --Seventythree^Talk 16:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The Surgeon General

impersonation. Not exactly bad-faith, but impersonation nonetheless.--Jorm 20:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

How can it be vandalism if it was in good faith? All that I did was make the statement less POV and correct the signature. --Banana reads Scoundrell for all of Yesterday's News, Today! 00:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the signature here just to make it clearer that Iggles has been paraphrased. --Toejam 00:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure it's up to you to make a decision about this.--Jorm 00:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait. I am entirely sure it's not your decision to make.--Jorm 00:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that should clear it up; the comment wasn't exactly NPOV in the first place. Would you rather he had deleted it? Torec _{T-CC/CS/CS/CS} 00:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Not vandalism - this time at least, but please, don't change people's words, TSG. I hate the suburb news sections... Cutting out POV stuff on suburb pages is acceptable, but paraphrasing people, and then signing it for them is really pushing the limit -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:27 14 December 2007 (BST)

My apologies. From henceforth I shall simply replace inane comments. --Banana reads Scoundrell for all of Yesterday's News, Today! 19:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Tomer

Assorted vandalism to the DHPD/HR and Recruitment Office. --Banana reads Scoundrell for all of Yesterday's News, Today! 03:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Warned -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:59 13 December 2007 (BST)

Anton Chigurh

Run of the mill idiocy. --Banana reads Scoundrell for all of Yesterday's News, Today! 02:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Permbanned, along with the proxy (please be sure to spell the name right in reports) -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:11 13 December 2007 (BST)

Scorproyale

Cleared LUE. Looking through the contribs, he looks sort of newbish. Some impersonation on suburb and mall reports. I have no idea why he cleared LUE...-- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 04:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Warned, and referred to Project Mentor -- boxy ^{talk • i} 07:15 12 December 2007 (BST)

Zinker

Still refuses to change his sig image sizes. He obviously knows about the limit, but seeing this edit, it really seems as if he just doesn't care to change it.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 17:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed it for him... if he changes the sizes back up, or puts in another large image, bring it back here. Not vandalism, for now -- boxy ^{talk • i} 01:13 12 December 2007 (BST)

NeoHuman1980

Only contributions so far are 3 edits, wiping out red rum's martial law page (discussed below) -- boxy ^{talk • i} 01:50 11 December 2007 (BST)

Permbanned - insists on continuing to vandalise the page -- boxy ^{talk • i} 02:05 11 December 2007 (BST)

Vandr

For creating a group sub page in another groups namespace to redirect to his own page providing misinformation about that group while having it look like it is an actual DK13 page. Link here DK13/Martial Law. A form of impersonation? These two also, although they arn't in another groups space -- boxy ^{talk • i} 05:44 10 December 2007 (BST)

If it is vandalism to put a redirect on an uncreated page of another group, I apologize. I try to keep my actions within the rules of the wiki, generally, but this seemed a gray area to me. I await the mods' decision on this matter. --Vandr 15:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a bit of a grey area, but I feel that there is implied ownership of Group and User subpages. It's quite clear, from a couple of the cases below, that DK13 don't want anything to do with this page, putting a redirect to it from within their sub page area is just too misleading, IMO... but we'll see what others decide -- boxy ^{talk • i} 23:29 10 December 2007 (BST)

Well, while naughty, i dont actually see any bad faith here. Just put the redirects up for speedy and that'll be the end of it. Im not ruling, im just tossing in my "professional" two cents. Ever since the miscontributate grim bandwagon started rolling through ive been more and more reluctant to rule on stuff like this. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 23:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

After a deep and inspiring vision quest brought on by a rather nasty cold and reading teh entire sluggy freelance archives in one sitting where i learned the true meaning of christmas and goodwill towards all mankind, i have come to the conclusion that despite not being made in bad faith, its still pretty damned wrong, and a groups owns all pages in its namespace, extant or not. Thus im gonna have to rule vandalism. Warned. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 10:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Glenstone

Wiped a group subpage. --Banana reads Scoundrell for all of Yesterday's News, Today! 03:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Warned -- boxy ^{talk • i} 05:44 10 December 2007 (BST)

MK

Wiped a group subpage. --Banana reads Scoundrell for all of Yesterday's News, Today! 17:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Warned - Vantar 21:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Imsorryicant

Same story. Same comment. One contribution. One revert.-- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 23:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

And banned like below -- boxy ^{talk • i} 23:22 8 December 2007 (BST)

Zinker

He doesn't seem to get that his sig images are too big.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 10:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Let him know by telling him?--Karek^maps?! 12:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

He knows the score as regards illegal sigs. He's even came up with a pettition (sic) against the image height limit. --Pavluk ^{A! E!} 13:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Its 18 pixels tall, policy states 14. He has been warned before. Banned for 48 hours. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 20:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Bryanisakike

Sock puppet of the guy below. Banned.--Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 06:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Johnkiddisafaggot

Deleted Bob Fortune comment. Multiple accounts? -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 03:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

They're all from different IP's, with only a single edit each... they're still getting permabanned as vandal alt accounts though -- boxy ^{talk • i} 05:37 7 December 2007 (BST)

DCC

Strikes again. --Sir Bob Fortune ^{RR - FEZ - ATO} 23:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

2nd warning -- boxy ^{talk • i} 05:30 7 December 2007 (BST)

Nope

Exactly the same action as Agiantjew, deleted my comment from Talk:Fort_Creedy. Looks like a sockpuppet of Agiantjew, which could well be a sock account as well. --Sir Bob Fortune ^{RR - FEZ - ATO} 22:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

#Johnkiddisafaggot See above -- boxy ^{talk • i} 05:41 7 December 2007 (BST)

Agiantjew

Decided they'd remove my comment on the Fort Creedy talkpage. --Sir Bob Fortune ^{RR - FEZ - ATO} 22:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

#Johnkiddisafaggot See above -- boxy ^{talk • i} 05:42 7 December 2007 (BST)

DCC

Unsolicited edits to D.A.R.I.S. group page. Some can't handle the truth. Another infamous Katthew worshipper no doubt.--Headless gunner ^W! 20:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Warned --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 23:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Tomer

An adorable vandalism. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. --Banana reads Scoundrell for all of Yesterday's News, Today! 23:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Warned -- boxy • talk • 23:20 4 December 2007 (BST)

Yadidigofukurself

for blanking the Vandal Page and replacing it with a vulgar image--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 06:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

twice, in fact. but someone else edit conflicted me trying to revert it. --WanYao 06:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Already banned by currently-banned Grim_S. --Karlsbad 06:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Please delete the image. ASAP. I will go put it up for speedydelete right now. --WanYao 06:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Grim s

For shitting up the administrational pages by making the report below (link). He has already been unofficially warned to cease while being "too passional" in his defense here, and now making a report totally unrelated to this page purpose in order to avoid A/A and A/PD, where said report may be considered in-genre, could be considered bad faith (your call). The A/A ruling was harsh, ok, but using this page in order to force policy change, not mentioning the constant request for more and more rulings in order to get a favorable result, is starting to get sickening. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 05:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yay, more drama. Unofficial warnings are stated as such, put in their own subsections, and posted onto the offenders talk page. Furthermore, i wasnt shitting up the page. I genuinely believe the arb ruling was made in bad faith. I genuinely believe it was an abuse of his power as an arbitrator. Both of which can and should be brought here until such time as there is a place to go about it for its own. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 06:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how did you get that this page was the right place for your demands. In the most liberal interpretation of A/VB rules, the first two request you make could be achieved as vandalism revertion (and I'm saying extremely liberal, so don't argue from now on that's a valid ruling), yet the third is extremely uncalled, unprecedented for in this page, and any Sysop ruling that would be overstepping his attributes by a mile. But you didn't request a A/VB case to begin with, but some odd "appeal" this page isn't designed, nor it's real purpose is, to deal with... --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 06:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism is defined as an edit not made in good faith to improve the wiki. The arb ruling is arguably bad faith, for being knowingly both ludicrously exessive and deliberatly upsetting, and it certainly hasnt improved the wiki, what with dropping the drama equivelant of a nuclear bomb on it. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 06:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Stupid, in my opinion. But not vandalism. Dismissed. Lets all let this go. --Zaruthustra^Mod 08:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Conndraka

For blatantly going oustdie the case he was asked to arbitrate by Max Grivas and myself. He was tasked to arbitrate on the matter of Akule's persistent troll lawyering on admionistration pages, specificially A/D and A/VB. Instead, he decided to rule outside of the case he was asked to arbitrate by the instigating parties. While Akule did bring up personality conflicts, by doing so he did not expand the case. Such information should have been treated as either background information or irrelevant details. Given the nature of the case, it would be the latter, as personality conflicts rarely have anything to do with rules lawyering.

Not only did Conndraka go outside the case, he went so far over the top in the scale of his ruling, especially given the slow and decidedly tame and drama free nature of the case, that it simply beggars belief. Permenant no contacts put on myself and Max, that prevent us from participating in any adminsitartive discussion started by Akule (Precident set by bloody stupid ruling below that is being appealed), including preventing any participation on any possible policy discussion designed to get rid of us. Three months banned from A/D, A/SD and A/U for Akule. The ruling was, to be blunt, insane. I ask that the following be done:

The ruling be struck
All punishments regarding such ruling be struck
Conndraka be removed from the list of arbitrators permenantly

This is the only court of appeal i could think of. Oh, and since Karlsbad has demonstarted spectacular bias on this subject both below and on the Arbitration talk page, i ask that recuse himself from these proceedings in an official manner. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 04:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Not vandalism - GTFO. Policy Discussion is that'a'way ===> -- boxy • talk • 05:06 2 December 2007 (BST)

He abused arbitration, and you say its ok. GTFO yourself. This is the only court of appeals on the entire wiki that exists. Others are handling policy discussions to fix arbitration, but as none exist YET, this is the only place it could come. Besides, if i made anything, it would die, simply because it is me saying it. Its happened before, and it will happen again. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 05:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If you don't like the way arbitration is set up, do something about it via policy change. It was a crap arby case right from the start, but you jumped right in there with Max and got burnt. I'd hate to be in your position right now... but then I wouldn't have gone down that path to start with. Tough cheddar -- boxy • talk • 05:19 2 December 2007 (BST)

Until policy exists, this page sets the benchmarks. As such, you have just set the benchmark that no matter how ridiculously insane a ruling is, there is nothing anyone can do about it. I ask for more people to rule on this case. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 05:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I ruled at all. All I ruled was that Conndraka's actions in this case were not vandalism... that's what this page is for, vandal reporting, not for digging you out of the hole you got yourself in. But sure, rule away others -- boxy • talk • 05:32 2 December 2007 (BST)

He abused arbitration, going outside the case. Abuse of pages has been considered vandalism in the past, and their changes have been struck. Anyway, i gotchoor bad faith right here:

Conndraka said:

if I upset everyone equally in (hopefully) permantly resolving the issue thenm I did my job.

He could have easily done it withoutb upsetting everyone. I proposed one such methon on the arb talk page right after the decision. It was a fucking stupid decision, and by letting it stand you are shitting on this wiki. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 05:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Settled via the last ruling. This is dismissed, and I'd be happy if we could bury it. --Zaruthustra^Mod 08:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Grim s

For deliberately and unashamedly breaking the spirit of an arbitration ruling. I'm tempted to also report Bisfan for taking part in this scheme, but I'd rather see how this one goes first. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 02:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

He said i couldnt comment directly. So im not. Its a wonderfully clever loophole. If he meant i couldnt comment at all, he would have said so. He did it regarding the things about Akule himself, but not this. Also, if im hit for this, you set a nasty precident regarding people posting by proxy. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and as i have maintained: The ruling by conndraka was ludicrously heavy handed and foolishly worded for such a miniscule dispute, and with regards to myself it also went well beyond the scope of the case he was asked to arbitrate, and should be struck in its entirety. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and another comment: Akule didnt bring this case, despite my having an exchange with him using this loophole. He has read and commented on the Arb ruling. Read into that what you will. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Not vandalism - have my own unbiased reasons, but i can't write them down right now. Next sysop please ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 02:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Exploiting a loophole is the very definition of breaking the spirit, Grim. Also, if you aren't hit for this it sets a dangerous precedent - making decisions involving banning people from pages will become a pointless exercise. Might I add that you don't get to argue with the arbitrator. You picked him - you damn well live with his decision. I believe this has already been covered on Talk:A/A? --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 02:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. All that needs to be done is say they cant comment on something at all. it was only because of the unique wording of this i was able to do this at all. He said directly, so im doing it indirectly. If you have a problem with this, feel free to take it up with my secretary, Mr Hand. While im pretty sure he didnt have this in mind when he wrote it, im sure this still meshes with the intention behind specifying "direct". Also, as per usual, keep your nose out of things that dont involve you. As the other involved party, Akule is welcome to try and push for this. He hasnt, despite it being used twice with him online, and both times when talking to him. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not getting drawn into such a petty discussion here. Feel free to bring it up somewhere else, however. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 02:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

~~Vandalism~~ (I am striking my own vote of vandalism on this case because after much further consideration I am lead to believe that Grim was acting with good faith in mind. I personally believe his actions in this edit to be a misguided, and in accordance with precedents set in the other cases of users being mistaken about the legality of an action I would recommend a soft warning from grim instead. - Vantar 08:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)) As I read A/G#General Conduct rule 2, spirit of rule beats wording of the rule and this is against the spirit of the rule - Vantar 02:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It isnt a rule. Its an arbitration ruling (Judgement/Verdict), and thus the wording is important. Its also a fucking insane ruling that went light years outside the boundaries of the case, and the whole fucking ruling should be disposed of. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's the thing, Grim. You don't get to dispute the ruling because you were instrumental in picking the guy who made it. The wording is not all-important, and I know that you know it. You've been here more than long enough to have seen cases like this result in punishment. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 03:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You edit conflicted me. I was trying to add the following to my previous comment: In any case, the ruling used both forms of no allowed thingymajig. It said not at all with regards to stuff about Akule, and not directly with regards to this kind of thing. Im not doing it directly. Admittedly i may have stretched that a tiny bit, but as didnt post it myself, i should be fine. Also, as i said on the talk page, i wasnt sure that this fell under the scope of the ruling, and only did this as a means of hedging my bets. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

On top of this, in response to you, i say that being selected as an arbitrator does not give you permission to go outside the boundaries of the case with regards to your verdict. Conndraka did this, and his ruling is null and void as a result. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

In Conn's opinion, he did not. Funnily enough, his is the only one that matters. Yours, whether you like it or not, doesn't. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 03:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Haha! Oh man. If that logic holds up here, you should shit yourself if i ever get to arbitrate a case... --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on talk page. It is asked that all sysops read that before making their decision, as a lot of relevant discussion has taken place
Not Vandalism - The ruling states that Grim is not able to directly comment (by comment, I assume post) on the entry involving Akule. He indirectly posted through Bisfan, who was not coerced or intimidated to do so by Grim or anyone else, therefore not breaking the arby's ruling. Also, no one had - or was asked - to transfer Grim's comments from his user subpage onto the discussion talk page, another indication of the absence of vandalism.
--Z. slay3r • Talk 04:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Direct question for the ruling. Does that mean that anyone who has an arbitration who is forbidden from posting directly can have someone else do what Grim did? --Akule ^{School's in session.} 04:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably, but there are 0 other arbitration rulings that meet that criteria. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 04:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, as long as the user doesn't coerce or threaten someone to make the posts, and that the indirect posts are constructive to the discussion, I don't see it as vandalism. Time to go to sleep, so I won't be able to answer any other questions (if there are any) for quite a few hours. --Z. slay3r • Talk 04:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Drama God, maybe I should just vote keep on that policy and then go inactive. I'm actually ashamed to tell folks I'm a UDwiki sysop, and shit like this is the reason. Swiers 04:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism as per a DIRECT READING of the arbitration ruling, which states such: "Max and Grim are to recuse themselves from any issue where Akule is considered a principle." The creation and of a page in which posting to Akule's talk-page being an issue that Akule is considered a principle of is an example of Grim not recuse-ing himself. --Karlsbad 05:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism - The spirit of conndraka's arby ruling is that grim and akule should not directly comment wherever one is a strong participant. Grim found a loophole on said ruling, which was clever and funny, but a sign of bad faith. Loopholes are nothing but breaches on the law that allow people to circumvent it, thus acting in illegality. Grim knew that he shouldnt be part of the discussion, but found someone to help him be part of it *indirectly*. I am not saying that i agree with Conn's ruling in here, which i find to be nonsense since it had nothing to do with the arby case itself, but while said ruling is still valid, i have no other choice but to rule Vandalism on grim's part for this matter. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 15:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to change my previous ruling in this case. Not Vandalism. Conndraka ruling was beyond what a normal arby decision is allowed to reach. Preventing a user from voicing his opinions in pages he is a frequent contributor is the same as forbidding someone who likes movies to actually see them, it's just plain mean. I would like to see this arbitration case ruled as null and void. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 21:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Im writing a final statement. Please allow me this before any final decision is made. It may take a few minutes. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 18:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Here it is.

I wish i could say i was suprised, but im not. Ive known from the start that this was a kangaroo court, so let this stand as my final statement, my summary of all that ive said. It is perhaps best if i start at the absolute beginning, by which i do mean the arbitration case in question. I shall then detail how the UDwiki namespace is not subject to that ruling, and move onto how the arbitration ruling has been arbitrarily interpreted in the harshest possible way without a care to its content, then move onto how the creation of my page was in good faith, then to the adherance to the arb ruling by having bisfan post the comments for me, skirting onwards to how this was all made in good faith, then onto the larger issue of good faith in general with regards to this case, and finally winding up with a few comments on the case, and a conclusion.

Conndraka was asked to arbitrate an issue between three users. That issue was the case of Akule, and of his alleged troll lawyering on administrational pages. At no point was the case widened to include the deeper drama between us. Akule may have brought such stuff up in his argument, but if he did, such would exist solely as background material to his case, or be of complete irrelevance to the case itself. In a court of law, a jury is allowed only to rule on the charges brought before them, they cannot go off and make up new charges mid way through the proceedings. When Conndraka ruled, he ruled to "hopefully put an end to the [Personality] issues". These were not part of the case. They never came up in anything but Akules argument, and they were outside the scope of the case when he did so. By ruling a verdict down on these perceiced problems, Conndraka ruled outside the case. If i were to rule on a case between say, The Gnome and Seventythree regarding perhaps the use of the cookie template on each others page, and then forbod all contact between them instead solving the problem of the cookie template, i would be just as out of line. I hereby ask that the administrators willfully dismiss that arb ruling and strike it from the record as illegal on the grounds presented here.

Onwards now, to the start of this case. The UDwiki namespace (And its talk namespace) is public domain. It belongs to no one. Thus even if Akule posts something in that namespace, i am permitted to respond, as the Arbitration ruling does not apply where there is not page ownership. It is a public and administrational namespace, and as a user of this wiki it is my indelible right to post in this namespace, as it is integral to the running of this wiki. Nothing can take that right away. By saying i cannot post in it you are not only hamstringing me as a sysop, but as a user. You are taking away my voice on matters of change. In short, no matter what i post there, so long as it is within th guidelines of this wiki, i should not be warned and/or banned.

There are two ways to say that people cant write on something. Actually, there are more, but they boil down to these two. You can say they cant comment on something at all, and you can say they cant comment on something directly. Conndraka did both in his ruling, and as a result you have to assume he meant both.

Conndraka said:

Max and Grim are to recuse themselves from any issue where Akule is considered a principle.

Not at all.

Conndraka said:

Additionally, Max and Grim are not to directly comment on any Group Page or Entry where Akule is the principle author.

Direct.

As he used both, it is only reasonable to assume, in the absence of anything to the contrary, that he meant both. If you are going to assume one, why must you assume the more harsh? Is not the latter equally as valid? By assuming the former you have doomed me unfairly. Hence why i have called this a kangaroo court from the outset. I am not alloweed to interpret, but you apparently are more than welcome to interpret until you can wrap me in guilt. I will not stand for this.

I created the page, User:Grim s/Sandbox/Commentplates as a place to gripe about this arbitration ruling, and to use its specific wording (And apparently intent, as detailed above). There is nothing on that page saying Akule is a cocksucker or anything else so direct about it. It does show my contempt for the arb ruling, but nothing that i hadnt already shown upon the arbitration talk page. As such, the page in and of itself, just by existing, does not violate the arbitration ruling. You cannot penalise me for it existing, by doing so you crucify anyone who complains about an arbitration ruling in future. The creation of that page, even if it is ruled to be something to get around the arbuitration ruling (Your arbitrary interpretation of it, as detailed above), is nothing unless i actually do something about it. We do not warn p[eople who say they will vandalise this wiki. We warn people for actually making good on that threat. Without a crime, you cannot punish. "Threatening" a crime is not a crime on this wiki, especially since it is so hard to make sure it was not made in jest. Its what seperates the sysops of this wiki from the tyrants so many of the foolish already believe we are. We only act on crimes, rather than the perception of a crime in potentia.

The wording of the arbitration ruling, which i only have to assume was intentional, based on what i said in the fourth paragraph of this response, allows for indirect commenting. Indirect commenting is, almost always, commenting about things on another page. I obeyed this, commenting about the things in my userspace. I not once edited the conversation in question. My comments were elsewhere, and were templated in by a friend. Admittedly this stretches indirect a tiny bit, but certainly not to breaking. I didnt threaten bisfan to do it, and i didnt bribe him. I asked him as a friend to employ the creative use of the wiki software i had devised to let my voice be heard. Indeed, i was commenting about the page in the main namespace, not the talk page. As such, that in and of itself should provide sufficient justification for the term indirect to come into play. What i did was no different in meaning to if i had written something in IRC and asked him to post it for me, and we have never, ever penalised someone for doing that before, not even if they were under a ban and wanted a misconduct case posted for them by a friend. In any case, this only applies if my third paragraph is dismissed. In the UDwiki namespace is beyond the reach of that arbitration ruling, then no matter how i commented, i did so legally, and this entire case is a sham.

People have commented on how i did this as justification for assuming bad faith. It was not. When i started, i was unsure of the events. Uncertain. I wanted to comment, yet didnt know for sure whether it was permitted or not. As a result i creates the commentplates subpage of my userpage and, in accordance with my reasoning in paragraph four, i played it safe. Adhering to the ruling yet still posting my comment, in a roundabout way. Many of you have maintained that assumption of bad faith erroneously, mainly because i am, as some people put it, not well liked. The presence of a reasonable explaination, such as this one, should be grounds enough for restoring that assumption of good faith. With anyone else, it would be. With me, not so much. So i shall go further. You will note that nothing i posted through this method was antagonistic or belligerent. It was, in fact, constructive and largly on topic, escept for dealing with a side issue with my third one. You can examine themselves through the link i provided earlier. Do those posts look like the work of a person who was posting in bad faith, or do they look liike the posts of a user who is trying to be constructive and helpful? I will leave you to answer that yourselves. I am curious to know your answers though, so feel free to post them on this page (Redlink, yes, its a talk page of my subpage).

This leads into my next point. It is clear that at no point in these proceedings have i been given the assumption of good faith, due to any user on this wiki. I have had to fight, tooth and nail throughout the proceedings, to stave off the accusations and asertions of those who wish me ill. Accusation is not normally proof, but in this case it is and has been used as such. I understand that i am not popular, i understand that some very vocal individuals hate me. I am equally certain that they are the minority. Please do not go into this with the intention of plaseing this group of individuals. Instead, please treat me as you would any other user, ignore the hoots and jeers from the crowd, and judge this case on it merits, dubious as they are, rather than as to how you want to be percieved by that crowd. All i ask is for what has thus far been denied me here: A fair go.

Which leads to my next point. Karlsbad. He has accepted that the UDwiki namespace is not touched by the ruling in this case, but he assumes bad faith with regards to the creation of the commentplates subpage. That is his entire reason for his vote of vandalism, at least, the only thing he had left after our prolonged argument yesterday. This assumption of bad faith goes against the entire spirit of the wiki, and is an egregious violation of the UDwiki:Vandalism policy, which states that everyone is to assume good faith unless there are extenuating circumstances.

I present to you here that no one has been able to demonstrate even an iota of bad faith in my contributions on this issue. I have obeyed the rules and guidelines of this wiki, and i have obeyed the intent on the arbitration ruling, though i believe it to be outright crimininal. I present all that i have said before in this post. That what i did was legal, it was done in good faith, and it was not a breach of the arbitration ruling by conndraka. I ask that the warning that was delivered be struck, and i am either banned in accordance with the arbitration page guidelines, or exonerated, as the innocent person i am. I ask for a full sysop vote on this issue. Either way, i wash my hands of this mess. Good day. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 19:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism. Oh wait, we don't vote on the vandal banning page. That would be insane. Before I do rule, allow me a bit of exposition. First I would like to say that I'm disappointed in nearly everybody involved with this case. Its truly an instance of a conflict with no victors, no lessons, and no heroes. If I could I would petition god love each of you less for making me wade through the novella of material associated with this ruling. I'd like to point out that this is exactly what you get when you turn the arbitration page into a playground. It has been warped so unrecognizably beyond its original purpose that nothing short of a policy change, Kevan's intervention, or heaps of fire can fix it. A/A is a place for users to mutually settle edit conflicts through a neutral third party. It is not a place for you to argue about each other. It is not a place to settle grudges. And it is not a court of questionable jurisdiction and infinite powers where you can go to try and lynch each other. Arbitration is only supposed to work when both parties agree to an arbitrator. So what are we teaching people here? Don't agree to conflict resolution. Ever. Dig in your heels and snipe at each other until one of you gets vandal banned by a sysop driven over the brink of good sense. On to the ruling. I am grudgingly banning Grim for 24 hours, as per the arbitration pages policy. He violated the arbitration ruling that he was foolish enough to accept, and no amount of rhetorical back flips will change that. I will not allow good faith to become a get out of jail free card for those with a silver tongue and questionable moral fiber. I would have preferred to negate Conndraka's ruling and send everybody on their way in this instance but the rules and precedents are clear. I take no pleasure in this, and I urge everybody to try to work together to find a more sane and reasonable way to deal with these conflicts. --Zaruthustra^Mod 08:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I know i'm not exactly supposed to post here unless it's relevent, but you did ask. Karek's set up a discussion area for a few ideas along the lines of finding a more reasonable way to deal with these conflicts. I'ts here.--Seventythree^Talk 13:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2007 12

Darkmagic and Nalikill

Navigation menu

Search