User talk:Lancer1289

Welcome to My Talk Page. If you don't find an issue that you have brought up with me in the past, then please check my archives because I have moved a lot of it to there. However I ask you to NOT edit there, just drop me a new message to bring up the discussion again. To leave me a message, please click on the "Leave message" button above, rather than just editing the whole page. That way I know what to look for. Thanks.

Please do leave me a new message unless there is a conversation that is already in progress that you wish to comment on. If you have a question that has no bearing on a conversation that is under a heading, then please don't edit there. Just leave me a new message. For example, if you see a section called Help, but your question doesn't relate to what the conversation was about, then PLEASE don't edit in that section, just leave me a new message. The comments will be moved to the end and I'll create a new section for it.

Re: "Noticed Vandalism"?!?
Yeah, like YOU - or whoever did this - have the right to talk when you violate other Wikis. Need a reminder? Here you go:

http://masseffect.wikia.com

If you've already decided to become a dedicated Mass Effect Wiki editor, we can arrange your application procedures on my talk page:

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Lancer1289

I suggest that before YOU go on talking, you better consider your own attitude!

P.S.: Re: "Noticed Vandalism"?!?
Just noticed that somebody must have been doing this spamming and vandalism spree. If it's not you, sorry for the harsh words - but whoever did this is sure in for some "mass effect" if I could get my hands on him!

Hahahahaha... Had to laugh at the Mass Effect comment.. lol --Humans Vanish 11:31, April 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * On both this section and the one above, it has been YOU (the Wiki contributor) who added both sections, trying to make it look like one user who's bad and this supposed one who is "apparently" good. If you are the sock puppet that this wiki has banned countless of times, I suggest you get off the wiki once and for all. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 11:34, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, probably the mistake the vandal intended many to make, but I have to ask what gave you the idea that you were responsible for arranging applications to become an editor, or that applying to be an editor was even something that even has to be done? Espcially considering you can't even identify the admins of this wiki, or, apparently, sign your own posts. JakePT 11:36, April 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * My sincere apologies, I see now that the sentence I was referring to was actually part of the vandalism that you were describing, sorry about that. JakePT 13:26, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

I think it was an honest mistake guys... :( --Humans Vanish 13:48, April 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm still trying to figure out what happened here but considering I've gotten a lot of messages since last night I'll have some reading to do when I get back from class. As for being an honest mistake, we were initally confused here so I would have to agree with that statment. Lancer1289 13:55, April 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well there is another Lancer impersonator and I just undid an edit of his. Be vigilant about it as well. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 17:55, April 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * He's already been dealt with, but in the future, just revert and don't leave an edit summary. Just revert, ignore, and don't feed the troll. Lancer1289 18:02, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he is not a troll. Suffice it to say, when I frequented this wiki a couple of years back, it was administrated much better and people weren't going around telling everybody how frustrated they were with you guys.


 * Because back then, only the first game was out, and information controls were not completely set into place at the time. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 18:51, April 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think JakePT was right here. It appears to be an honest mistake. The anonymous user, apparently from another wiki, was duped by the vandal and genuinely believed that Lancer1289 was the person vandalizing other wikis. He came here, saw the discussion between myself and Ausir about dealing with vandals, and got mad about the apparent hypocrisy. Upon realizing that the vandal and Lancer are not one and the same, he apologized. It's a harmless mistake that we'll apparently be seeing more of, what with at least three other wikis (that I'm aware of) being vandalized. SpartHawg948 19:34, April 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * Three? I was only aware of two, DA and KotOR, what's the third? Lancer1289 19:37, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

The Uncharted wiki. See User talk:Ausir for details. SpartHawg948 05:58, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah so that was the other one. Thank you, and since I am signing off for the night, I which you all a good night, or good morning, good afternoon, or good evening. Depending on your time zone of course. Lancer1289 06:00, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

the dragon ball z wiki is still affected by a lancer impersonator two pages i noticed were the majin buu and supreme kai ones April 29, 2011
 * I really don't see the point of posting information here that I literally can't do anything except revert about. Contact the proper people and it will get handled as there is very little I can do about another wiki and dealing vandals. The only thing I can do is revert not block. Lancer1289 16:41, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

Jack Harper.
I didn't see that his name was there, but now I do. Thanks. Roger Murtaugh 04:05, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, and considering that would be a massive spoiler for Evolution, putting it there is more appropriate. Lancer1289 04:46, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * And the only single person in the world who seems to consider that a "massive spoiler" is you. Mac Walters (the lead writer for Mass Effect) confirmed that the protagonist of Evolution comic would be the Illusive Man, and did it when it was first announced, in fact, like half a year ahead of the release of the first issue. Yet you personally kept goofing and banning people on the Illusive Man page for four mounths after it! And now, with nowhere to run from the facts, you invoke this "spoiler" nonsense.


 * Come on! Your little power trip cannot cancel the facts. And the facts are that anybody who is remotely interested in this character, or the comic, already knows that Jack Harper and the Illusive Man is one and the same character. Therefore, putting this somewhere to the middle of the article is counter-informative, and will keep confusing people who come to that page and do not see this information in its rightful place at the top of the article. On the other hand, people who are not so well informed are more likely to remain that way. All because you have to "inflate your ego", as you like to say about this vandal.


 * And I have to say he seems to be a witty fellow. Not that I condone him, but I think he is not the problem here. Well, maybe a part of it, but not the source of it. And the source of it is your snobby attitude (to put it mildly), and the continuous abuse of your admin powers, which brings up the question how you gained them in the first place.


 * Actually, I've been lurking a lot here lately, and this is the opinion I've formed for myself. So I registered here just to send an e-mail to an older admin and try to draw some of their attention to what is happening here, which I am going to do tomorrow (or later today, in fact). So, please, don't ban me just yet. Bemused One 08:10, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to point out: going to another admin for advice or their opinion is great. I'd highly recommend it. (I'd also point out that if by "older" you mean "has been an admin for longer", there's only one older than me, and that's User:Bioevil087. Everyone else is a youngster by comparison!) However, you do need to be aware that all admins are equal as far as power/authority/whatever is concerned. The only thing another admin would be able to do is talk to Lancer or make edits themselves, and if the admin in question is who I think it is, that isn't likely, as our two absent admins show no signs of returning anytime soon. If you have concerns with an admin, you need to take it to a Bureaucrat, as Bureaucrats are above admins, and have the power to promote and demote admins and whatnot. The Bureaucrats for this site are myself and the aforementioned Bioevil1087, who has been absent for well over a year now. SpartHawg948 08:34, April 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * Now, as to the vandal - honestly, I don't see how an objective observer could say that he isn't the problem, or is only a part of it. How is Lancer's attitude, and the alleged abuse of powers, in any way justification for this guy to go around vandalizing multiple wikis (four, at last count) with his nonsense? He is the problem because, rather than try and go about things like a civilized being (i.e. discussing the matter and, if needs be, involving people higher on the chain of command), he immediately resorted to petty vandalism on a mass scale of several websites, repeatedly and deliberately targeting Lancer and, to a lesser extent, myself, which I find odd as I was only peripherally involved with that whole thing. He then proceeded to turn his ire towards any and all users who attempted to undo his vandalism, and eventually progressed to targeting other wikis. There is nothing mature there, nor do I find any wit in his infantile humor, which relies on homophobia and gay-bashing to get a cheap laugh. SpartHawg948 09:02, April 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * All right, thank you for so kindly and condescendingly telling me you don't care, but I've sent that e-mail to the old admins regardless, Bioevil087 included. And as too the vandal, I said I do not condone his actions, but happen to think that his profanities actually convey the gist of the situation any new contributor is bound to encounter on this Wiki. And I, as well as a few other folks, judging by some conversations I've read on several talk pages here, consider Lancer1289 to be more of a problem than a random Lancer1289-hating vandal, because, unlike the vandal, Lancer1289 is capable of doing lasting damage through his admin powers abuses. Bemused One 22:29, April 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * First this isn't a power trip and so don’t start saying that it is. Second it is a massive spoiler as that information isn’t learned until the comic, and the last two pages of the last issue. It isn’t mentioned anywhere else before this, and because of that putting it at the top is a massive spoiler for people who haven’t read Evolution. This isn’t counter-productive as you claim, but rather in line with site policy and is the way things are done here. I’m not even remotely doing this to inflate my ego so don’t claim that I am. Lancer1289 13:07, April 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * Whatever. I would not expect you to say anything but “No, I don’t” and “we do not do that here” in response to actual arguments. Still, I’ll point out the fact to you that the Illusive Man’s being the head of Cerberus and all that should be considered “spoilers” under your high “standards”, but the phrase “The Illusive Man's real name and his life before Cerberus are both long forgotten”, which remains unedited even after this Jack Harper epopee came to a close, is outright misleading for both long-time fans and newcomers to the series. So enjoy your power trip, Mr. Site Police. Now you can threaten me with a ban, or you can ban me, either way I can’t help improve this Wiki on your watch. Bemused One 22:33, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no need for petty jabs like that as they are just uncalled for and unnecessary. Yet again it is a massive spoiler for Evolution and you stating that the Illusive Man being the head of Cerberus is how he is introduced to the series, and while one could argue that the entire article is a spoiler, that isn't as much of one because it is again how he is introduced in Ascension. The sentence you also quote is also still very much relevant as even Miranda, arguably the Illusive Man's most loyal agent before she met up with Shepard, didn't know his past. The sentence isn't misleading, but rather quite accurate as anyone who has played ME2 and not read Evolution, would find it accurate. Even after reading Evolution, the Illusive Man buries his past which again, even his most loyal agents don't know it. Finally why exactly would I threaten to ban, or ban you? Lancer1289 22:42, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Conviniently, how you forget about the exiestence of the original Mass Effect with its faceless enigmatic evil Cerberus, while at the same time insinuating that somebody can go in reading Evolution without the prior knowledge of who is its protagonist. Supposedly, you're trying to sell us that it is some kind of "massive" revelation in the end of Evolution that Jack Harper is the Illusive Man, But te fact remains, that it was announced and advertised all the way as the story of the Illusive Man. Anyway, I have no time nor interest nor pleasure in retyping the the arguments others already brought before you more than once (incluning the "Mac Walters said so") and you handwaved as "speculation". Bemused One 23:07, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * And yet again that is still a massive spoiler for Evolution because it isn't until the last issue that it is confirmed that Jack is the Illusive Man. Yes it was advertised as it would cover the Illusive Man's background, but again it wasn't confirmed it was Jack until the very last page basically. You also forget how and when the Illusive Man is introduced, Mass Effect: Ascension. While we actually see him for the first time in ME2, he is introduced and plays a decent role in the second novel. We don't learn much about Cerberus in ME compared to everything that comes later. Lancer1289 23:13, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Bemused One when it comes to the Article. It was announced before and therefore isn't a spoiler. The article as it is, is misleading. And while a slight stretch, you CAN compare the fact that in ME Cerberus is a faceless organization. So it would be a spoiler to anyone who can't afford to play ME2 that the Illusive Man be named the head. The article is flawed. Jack Harper should be on the article. I believe further discussion on this matter is needed in order to make the article as informative and correct as possible. --Humans Vanish 23:14, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * No it isn't misleading as it goes over the information in the appropriate manner and does reveal a big spoiler right in everyone's face. It also stay in line with the information we have from the other sources in that he is called the Illusive Man and has effectively erased his past. The article stays in line with how he is first introduced and covered the appropriate material in the appropriate manner. It mentions that Jack was the Illusive Man under a spoiler tag, where that kind of information belongs and in the section it belongs considering that is his background information which again, very few, if anyone actually knows about. We don't post that Liara is the Shadow Broker at the top of her article because that is a spoiler as well and it is covered under a spoiler tag where that information is appropriate. It was announced that Evolution would deal with the Illusive Man's past, but what wasn't announced was that Jack Harper was the Illusive Man and that isn't confirmed until the last page of the last issue and because of that, it is a spoiler, plain and simple. The information is covered in the appropriate manner and in line with how we deal with that kind of information. Also just to say it again, don't forget how the Illusive Man was introduced to the Universe, as the Illusive Man, not Jack Harper, in the opening pages of Mass Effect: Ascension, and the article should reflect that. Any additional information should be covered under spoiler tags and in the appropriate section, like it's done now. Lancer1289 23:48, April 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * It is misleading, as evidenced by this very section of this talk page. It was created by somebody who was MISLED by the article, and had to have a run in with your persona to learn that the information was there, burried in the middle of the article.


 * Liara wasn't always the Shadow Broker, and with the imminent Reaper invasion and her ME3 squaddie status will probably not always remain. But the Illusive Man ALWAYS was Jack Harper and always will be. It is his BASIC INVARIABLE CHARACTERISITIC.


 * The information is covered in an inapropriate and misleading manner, but in line with how you, personally, have been dealing with it for the last half a year or so, by reverting relevant edits and banning people, with the connivance of Mr. Bureaucrat here.


 * So why don't you just be yourself to the full and say that IT IS NOT REVEALED that the character from the last two pages of the comic is Jack Harper. Or the Illusive Man. That could be anybody. Mac Walters didn't come through to say "that dude on the last page is both Jack Harper and the Illusive Man you see in the game". It's not confirmed. It's a speculation. You've been doing it for 4 months, I'm sure you could get away with it forever. So why the sudden flinch? Bemused One 01:17, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) "Flinch"? Really? I merely stated that it was speculation and until it was confirmed on the last page of the last page of the last issue of Evolution, it would have been. I merely upheld site policy and prevented speculation in the article until we had confirmation on the issue. The information, for the, what fourth or fifth time now, is covered in the appropriate place and in the appropriate manner because it is an absolutely massive spoiler from Evolution, hence why it is covered in the manner it is. To put it at the top of the article would violate site policy on Perspective to begin with. This is why a lot of articles are written the way they are, and why this information is covered in the way it is. Putting it there would not only violate policy, but put a massive spoiler right at the start of an article.
 * Also the Liara connection is valid because it does provide a point, we don't put spoliers above a spoiler tag, which is what you are arguing. I can also point to a number of examples of this, which will be pretty much everywhere.
 * And that entire last paragraph is just completely unnecessary and tthere is again no need for those petty jabs as they don't help, and they only inflame a situation. Lancer1289 01:29, April 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not more confirmed on the last two pages that Jack Harper is the Illusive Man than anywhere else in the comic, starting with the cover art of the first issue. There is no "Illusive Man" written anywhere. If you had no reason to believe that Jack Harper would be the Illusive Man during the first 80+ pages of the comic (coupled with all the advertisement), then you can't gather any more hard proof off the last two pages.


 * As to your policy, either update it in accordance with the necessities of the day to allow putting "Jack Harper" on the top of the "Illusive Man" article, or bring all the articles up to it so that the policy could be consistently lame. For example, the "Shadow Broker" article contains a "massive spoiler" in the first sentence, saying that "the Shadow Broker is an individual", whereas from the "perspective of introduction" and throughout the rest of the series up until the last moment of the "Lair of the Shadow Broker" DLC, a great deal of the mystique surrounding this character rests in the uncertainty whether it is an individual, or a group, or an AI, or maybe something else. Or take "Miranda Lawson": she is introduced in Mass Effect Galaxy, therefore her being a Cerberus Officer is a "massive spoiler", right at the top of her article.


 * Until you sort it all out, justifying removal or complication of relevant information by site policies clearly indicates your double standards and power trip tendencies. It must be quite cool to ban or revert edits of somebody who thinks faster than you. And no, these comments are not "uncalled for" and not petty jabs. I don't know who you are, and I couldn't care less if you were the British Queen or Bin Laden, but your policing here is the real problem. It has been making my browsing of this site uncomfortable, and now I find myself drawn into this stupid futile dispute with you, despite my clear understanding of what you are. Grats. Bemused One 02:42, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) You just won't stop with the petty jabs will you. Parts of your comments are uncalled for and frankly unnecessary as they just inflame a situation. And instead of keeping your comments mature, you just inflame the situation.
 * As to the policy, it does provide an effective standard for this and I should also point out that while it was changed after LotSB, it does still fall in line with the policy. Miranda is a small exception to the rule, reflecting her more active role in ME2.
 * Putting Jack Harper at the top of the Illusive Man article is a violation of that policy as the information is a spoiler from Evolution and should be covered in the Illusive man's background section, given what it covers, and under an Evolution Spoiler tag. The policy is not "lame" as you claim, but very important to how we maintain articles here. The information is covered in teh appropriate way, in the appropriate section, and under the appropriate tags. Putting it at the top would violate site policy and would give up a massive spoiler for Evolution. Lancer1289 02:50, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

Wait... when did I say I didn't care? I explicitly told you that going to other admins wouldn't be a viable solution to any issues with Lancer, and instead directed you to a Bureaucrat, either myself or Bioevil. At no point did I condescend, or claim not to care. I'll gladly hear any concerns about any admins, and do my very best to weigh the issues fairly and impartially. But hey, you (BemusedOne) seem more than prepared to assume the worst in people. Good for you. SpartHawg948 03:58, April 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * Just like you fairly and impartially banned user Shadowhawk27 over something as trivial as forgetting to log in before editing. The real reason being, of course, that he had fallen out with your precious Lancer over some other trifle, and even the fact that he had helped with reverting vandalism didn't save him. You know, this sycophancy and hypocrisy you cultivate here is sickenning to observe. The fact that you convert the simple "F.O." message (which pretty much everyone gets as soon as they dare to question the management of this Wiki) into grandiloquent tirades doesn't make you any less of a douche. It makes you more of a douche. Bemused One 16:31, April 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually he did that several times. He didn't forget to sign in. If you look at Shadowhawk27's talk page, you'll clearly see that he intentionally used an unregistered profile to "defend" his own actions. Do research on that before putting the blame on Spart. By this, your accusation is flawed and invalid. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 16:42, April 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * And that "someone" runs to ShadowHaw's defense, which can be found on his talk page, and that was the same user who's signature ShadowHawk replaces on multiple occasions. Then he proved sock puppetry beyond a reasonable doubt with his first, and only comment, in the Sock Puppet section, which lead to the ban. He was not banned unjustly, or because he "had fall[en] out" with me, he was banned for violating site policy. Plan and simple. Next time before you throw false and completely baseless accusation, make sure to do your research, and in this case is easily accessible and tells the whole tale, so you don't get contradicted by the overwhelming evidence.
 * And need I say it that calling someone douche is an insult and insulting other users is against site policy. Lancer1289 17:20, April 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, Shadowhawk is a pretty good example, though not for the reasons Bemused One seems to assume. It seems our new friend here doesn't like to be bothered with simple things like fact checking and getting a grasp of the situation before throwing around accusations. Here's what happened with Shadowhawk: compelling evidence was presented that Shadowhawk was engaged in sock puppetry. I left him a message asking him to explain this. He responded and openly admitted to having engaged in sock puppetry in direct violation of site policy. Then and only then was a ban enacted. It wasn't because "he had fallen out with your precious Lancer over some other trifle". It was because he openly admitted to violating site policy by abusing multiple accounts. Abusing multiple accounts (as the vandal we've been dealing with has been doing) is a serious issue here, and it was his admission of guilt that got him banned. SpartHawg948 19:38, April 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * I bothered enough with fact checking. The facts that you spin around all the time. I can see now Lancer1289 learned from the best... The only instance of Shadowhawk27 using an "alternate" account that remaines on his talk page was the one that you hold for a proof if "sock puppetry". All other IP signatures were replaced with Shadowhawk27's own signature, which proves that he did not have any malicious intentions you falsely accused him of having. He did not use multiple accounts, he used one single account, only was not always logged to it. This could happen for many reasons. Maybe his cookies got cleared, maybe he was automaticlly or accidentally logged out, maybe he was on his iPhone at the time... And he corrected that by logging in and replacing it with his signature. This even happend to me the other day on this very page... And I've been figuring you to be a bit smarter than most of your acolytes. Alright, I guess I'm even more bemused now... The guy tried to be nothing but nice to the very end without cringing on you. And the admission of guilt should be usually considered an attenuating factor and sometimes even grounds for a pardon. Of course, there are crimes that must not go unpunished, no matter what, but it is pathetic to act some crazy Grand Inquisitor here on the Wikia, which has a universal policy of assuming "good faith", which you so shamelessly trampled on when passing your swift justice on this "case". Shadowhawk didn't murder somebody or rape somebody or burn something. But, ironically, immediately after you banned him, he did use an alternate account: Shadowhawk28, which he hadn't been using for over a year. And it is somewhat lulsy, how Lancer1289 and this other minion took it at face value... Bemused One 07:20, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Oh, look, it's just happened to me again! Now I'm forfeit. Bemused One 07:20, April 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * No, you're good to go. After all, what you just did isn't sock puppetry. What Shadowhawk27 did is. If you had actually bothered to check the facts, sans the blinders of preconceptions and petty hatred, you'd note that Shadowhawk27 was banned for using an IP account to give the impression that he was another user. He did this to give the false impression that other users were on his side in an ongoing discussion. That most certainly is sock puppetry, and is what he was banned for. People making edits without logging in happens all the time. It's no big deal. What is a big deal is people deliberately doing so in an attempt to make it look like multiple people are supportive of their claims when this is not the case. The two scenarios are vastly different, however much you may wish they weren't. SpartHawg948 07:27, April 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * I checked it and I honestly didn't see how it undeniably proved he had wanted it look like "others on his side", if a tiniest bit of "good faith" had to be assumed. Even if he did that intentionally in his "Leave Shadowhawk27 alone" post, which is plausible, I'll give you that, he did it out of desperation - with Lancer1289 hounding him around with another unwarranted accusation. Judging by the tone of the post itself, it is also quite plausible. He didn't even try to be subtle and deceitful about it, when he showed detailed knowledge about his contributions from many months before, which is hihgly and obviously implausible for some random unregistered user. And, in any case, given it was his first offence of the kind and the admission of guilt, you could have warned him or used a short term ban. Instead, you put him on the same line with the vandal he had tried helping deal with. Bemused One 08:27, April 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yup. He was treated the same as any other confirmed sock puppet. Sock puppetry is considered one of the more serious offenses, and is treated as such. And yes, taken into consideration along with the next message left by Shadowhawk on the IP account, it does constitute sufficient proof (along with the first message, in which he begins "Come on guys, leave shadowhawk27 alone", refers to himself in the third person continuously, and closes with "it's sad to see one of the more coherent and rational posters receive this kind of treatment and i find it disgusting and Very unfair.") of sock puppetry. As you point out, the encyclopedic knowledge of Shadowhawk27's past issues is one indicator, along with the use of third person every time Shadowhawk27 is referenced, combined with the use of first person to close "i find it disgusting and Very unfair", combined with the odd (and unique) capitalization issues, pretty well sealed the deal. It was either Shadowhawk pretending to be someone else, or a gifted impersonator pretending to be Shadowhawk pretending to be someone else.


 * As for Shadowhawk28, which I forgot to mention in my last post, we were well aware of the likelihood of this being another sock puppet. (We as in multiple users, not as in me going off the deep end and referring to myself in third person.) One of our editors emailed me after Shadowhawk28 posted to inform me of his suspicions. I can tell you it wasn't Lancer, though I'm loath to name names without the consent of the person in question, as it was a private correspondence. So yeah, given that Shadowhawk27 was a confirmed sock puppet, I decided to impose the standard ban for confirmed sock puppets. Again, he had every chance to defend himself, and he could have lied if he'd wanted to and escaped a ban. All he'd have had to tell me was that it was a roommate of his or some such, as I'd be willing to let that slide (at least once... if it happened again, I'd begin to doubt the roommate story), as I have in the past. SpartHawg948 08:58, April 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Forgetting to log in is something that does happen quite often, and usually nothing is done about it. However, what ShadowHawk did was illegal and frankly was confirmed evidence of sock puppetry, which is probably the most bannable offense here. There was no excuse for what he did to try and get rid of us, and it wasn't because he "fell out of favor with [us]", it was because he broke the rules, nothing else. It doesn't matter how many times we've hounded him, that doesn’t matter in a decision like this. Only the violation of the rule is. We didn't have a grudge against him, we only wanted to deal with the violation, and then he provided the ultimate evidence against him by basically confessing. Lancer1289 13:58, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

@ SpartHawg948. I've posted a new section to your talk page because this section appeared to be absent from this page. Bemused One 16:41, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

Warcraft Page issues
Hi I was trying to access information on roleplaying in wowwiki and it said that you deleted all of the information on that page (with a rather useless and slightly disturbing picture). When you have the time would you be so kind as to remove the picture and replace it with the correct information.

Thank you for your consideration CMP.
 * Except that wasn't me and doing some quick research will confirm that. If you want more information, then just read further up the page. Lancer1289 13:02, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism by a user copying your name
I'm just editing many many vandalism posts in the Wowwiki section by user "L a n c e r 1 2 8 9" posting harrasement and pictures about you.

As example http://www.wowwiki.com/File:MEWa.jpg

In source it cites: http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/User:Lancer1289 and there are references to your user name Lancer1289 all over the place.

I'm on the proccess of reverting all those changes and even thought about uploading 1px blank images to replace the existing ones but I thought I rather tell you so you can take apropiate action.

Hope you have a good day, and I'm sorry this happened.

Will try to revert all those posts in the morning.

Edit: Reported this on http://www.wowwiki.com/WoWWiki:Violations#April_2011
 * (edit conflict) Except there really isn't anything I can do apart from revert the edits. You need to get an admin involved at the WowWiki in order to do something about it. That would be the first place I'd start. I actually don't even know if I can edit there, but I'll see what I can do, but no promises as again an admin needs to get involved. Lancer1289 13:11, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

I am reverting those edits and trying to get an admin on it. Don't think you need to put up your effort on reverting what you haven't done, just wanted to inform of those vandalism acts. I think WowWiki is 90% clean at that time and will look forward to revert them all.
 * A monumental task considering WoW Wiki has more than 45x the amount of pages that this wiki contains. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 13:38, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * I managed to do some cleaning myself, but it looks like everything was undone. Lancer1289 13:44, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

L a n c e r 1 2 8 9
A guy named L a n c e r 1 2 8 9 has just vandalised 73 pages of my wiki, the L.A. Noire Wiki, please look at his edits and you will see why i contacted you, if you have any idea who it is could you please tell me, thanks. Tom Talk 13:03, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I'm already aware why, and if you want more information, just start from the top of my talk page, look for sections that deal with a vandal, and just keep reading. Lancer1289 13:12, April 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * It is quite likely the same guy who's also vandalized the Dragon Age Wiki, the Star Wars: The Old Republic Wiki as well as the Uncharted Wiki. Apparently also the WoW wiki. He attacked this wiki several times for a period of two weeks back at the end of March/early-April. This guy's got a bone to pick with Lancer and because the guy can't continue to edit here (we banned a lot of his profiles, though he could still come back) he takes his vandalizing talents elsewhere, and spams this page by placing an "alleged" pic of Lancer and SpartHawg948. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 13:14, April 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, i'm going to request a global block, has he used any other accounts? Tom Talk 13:17, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, except that I think they have already been globaly blocked as of yesterday, but if you need a list, I can give them. Lancer1289 13:20, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well the global block hasn't worked as he vandalised the L.A. Noire wiki less than an hour a go, he won't cause any more problems on my wiki's so i'll let you decide what to do. Tom Talk 13:24, April 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * It is pretty much impossible to initiate a global ban on the blasted sock puppet because he always has been able to manipulate wiki spelling codes to use very similar letters without detection. He's used Cryllic letters that look virtually identical to English letters but the wiki detection tools are incapable of detecting those very subtle variations. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 13:30, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * It is also impossible to do a global ban on an alias he hasn't created yet. Lancer1289 13:46, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't there some sort of a wiki tool (I doubt it) that can track all available permutations and combinations of letters and similar symbols against those already deleted and can allow an admin to execute a global ban (minus ones an admin such as your self would not select, like your own name)? Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 20:19, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

A Favor.
Lancer, I would be happy if you deleted this blog. Its my blog and its got way out of hand.--Legionwrex 19:46, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Somehow I don't think you will get much argument from anyone about it. I'll be more than happy to delete it as that is probably the most tangent I've seen a blog go. Anyway one deletion coming up per the request of the author/publisher of the blog. Lancer1289 19:48, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.--Legionwrex 19:52, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * No Problem. Although I've clogged up the RC, I would agree that blog was so off topic and out of hand that it was beyond ridiculous. Lancer1289 19:53, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * No doubt; so many different tangents and digressions away from the main idea. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 19:57, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I'm surprised the above comment from Havoc made it in before I hit the edti button to archive my talk page. Again. Lancer1289 20:03, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess it was just unlucky timing... it would've been malicious if I was capable of incessant forethought as to when users do certain things, but thankfully I'm not. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 20:20, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I think you misinterpreted. You didn't cause an edit conflict and I was expressing surprise that your comment was in the edit window when I started. I wasn't expecting a comment so it was a relief that it did. Lancer1289 20:25, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

WTF is wrong with you?
Don't spam my wiki with bullshit like you did today. I swear to God if you do that again, I'll get the staff involved. Yuri ( Leave a message! ) 18:39, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's a solution, first listen to our langauge policy. Second do some research first. That wasn't me and if want the story, then come back with a better attitude. Lancer1289 18:43, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Not you, eh? Please, enlighten me, because as far as I can see, you went to the Homefront wiki about seven hours ago and replaced the content of about 30 pages. Under this exact name. As long as I've been on wikia I've never known any loophole whereby one person can use the exact username of another. Yuri ( Leave a message! ) 18:54, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Take a look at the URLs
 * The Vandal: http://homefront.wikia.com/wiki/User:%C4%BF%D0%B0n%D1%81%D0%B5r1289
 * My URL (Here on the ME wiki): http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/User:Lancer1289
 * My unused account at the Homefront wiki: http://homefront.wikia.com/wiki/User:Lancer1289
 * If you would notice, the URLs aren't the same and if you would look up my user name on the homefront Wiki, you would have found that I've never been there. Nor do I plan to go there anytime soon because of this. I would suggest that next time you some research, or just ask a calm question about what happened.
 * What the vandal is doing is using Cyrillic characters, which confuses Wikia's markup for user names, and spoofs my user name. If you would also notice, the L on your vandal has a different L than mine. "Ŀ" doesn't look like "L", and is one of the few characters that the makeup recognizes. Because of this, I feel that I'm well within my rights to ask for an apology for your actions because if you had taken a minute to do some research, you would have found the discrepancy. Lancer1289 19:05, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

They aren't the same name. The real Lancer has a real L. The vandal has a Ŀ see the dot? --Humans Vanish 18:56, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition Yuri, the Homefront wiki is not the only wiki that this Lancer impersonator has vandalized; he also hit this one with several similar usernames as well as at least 5 others. I can vouch for that, as I've personally deleted about 100 edits that the impostor had instigated. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 19:02, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * World of Warcraft, Dragon Age, Uncharted, Star Wars: The Old Republic, and I can't remember the fifth one, but now it looks like six. Lancer1289 19:09, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * The fifth one was L.A. Noire. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 19:20, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Addendum: It wasn't Knights of the Old Republic, but rather Star Wars: The Old Republic wiki that was hit. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 19:21, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Slight Correct then. Lancer1289 19:23, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind... The Old Republic wiki is a name change and continuance of the KOTOR wiki. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 19:26, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well whatever then. But the majority of the site's content reflects the upcoming MMO. Lancer1289 19:36, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I apologize for jumping the gun. This isn't the first time I've seen something like this; on CNN there was somebody else who did the same thing to me and several others...

I maintain, however, that I didn't realize that there was an odd L with a dot next to it; my computer screen is really dirty. Yuri ( Leave a message! ) 22:58, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * That is ok and do accept your apology. It is confusing at first but just checking the URL is an easy way to spot it. Also what is this CNN story, now you have me curious? Lancer1289 23:32, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * On CNN.com there was this guy using odd characters to masquerade as other users. I'm pretty sure he got blocked from the site after a while, but it was a LOOOONG while. Yuri ( Leave a message! ) 23:35, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes that kind of story does sound very familiar as that is exactly what has been happening here. Lancer1289 23:37, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

stop with the thing you do on peoples wikia like on the cosmic silver back and the V-R11 page's you noob!!!!!!!!
 * If you would take even a second just to read the discussion above about what is really going on, you would have probably avoided calling others "noob" and not look like one yourself. — Teugene (Talk) 11:36, April 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Next time, do about ten seconds of research and you would find that we aren't the same person. Lancer1289 13:48, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

vandal
You can find this guy here he just vandalized the equipment page.--Legionwrex 20:46, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Already blocked for "Removing content from pages: And insterting [sic] gibberish". At least it wasn't another message about that one person. And I'd really like to leave it at that if you don't mind. I've already heard enough about that person today. Lancer1289 20:48, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

wiki issues?
Is something wrong with the wiki? I keep getting all this weird code, then I get two versions of the same page, one in extra small text. I've heard of an overall, I wanted to make sure it had something to do with that, because I just upgraded to IE9, and I heard that some sites look funny on it (plus I haven't really got a handle on IE9's controls yet. --Darth Something 14:19, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

No I see it too. I think we are getting slammed by a hacker. --Humans Vanish 14:23, April 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. Go ask the staff at Community Central. Lancer1289 14:29, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

indoctrination page
You can't prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the person making a positive claim, ie the people supporting a theory. I could write on the Asari page that they have 3 lungs based on absolutely nothing and then you'd have to prove me wrong to remove it? No. You can't even prove me wrong, just like I can't prove what the exact reasons were that Sovereign's shields went down. But by that logic anyone can just put any nonsense on any page.

It's a stupid theory that makes no sense for the reasons that I put in the edits. If you care about the integrity of the wiki then ask the person making the claim for a source quote and book name and page. Delete it until you have verified that it is true.S0meguy 22:21, April 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * sigh, you could respond on your talk page like I ask at the top of mine? I don't like cross page conversations which is why I ask that.
 * As to the issue, the burden of proof is on you, and for you to discuss it in an appropriate forum and manner. Removing content from pages is not the way to do it. If you want to discuss it, then take it to the appropriate forum but I know you will find objectors as the theory has support from the game. Your example, apart from improper race name caps, has multiple flaws as that doesn't have one bit of support. Since you want something removed, you have to present a case for it as this theory has support, while yours of it can't take the damage, doesn't. In fact it has opposite. Lancer1289 22:26, April 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * S0meguy, I have a similar field of knowledge regarding fallacies and rules of argumentation; check out my blog on this topic. As for your assumption,the burden of proof may be on the person making a positive claim, yet also on a person countering a claim such as yourself. Lancer established his reasons for initially inserting and maintaining the information on the Indoctrination page, yet your evidence supporting its removal is insufficient and unnecessary. By this you violate the burden of proof principle as well as the truth-seeking principle, since the evidence provided by Lancer is properly documented. I've read that article many times over, and I assure you that no argumentative violations have been committed except by you, who failed to provide appropriate reasons to delete the information and subsequently failed to take the discussion to the appropriate forum. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 22:34, April 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to argue with that logic. Lancer1289 22:37, April 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * No doubt. Thanks for the support. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 22:46, April 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. Just... wow. That may be the single best comment I've ever seen in the history of this wiki. (Referring to H-Man Havoc's first post.) H-Man Havoc, you are officially my new hero! :) SpartHawg948 22:50, April 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol. No problem Spart. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 22:58, April 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Lancer1289 23:11, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

Codwiki vandalism
Is there any way you/anyone else here can explain this? I highly doubt this was you, so I'm not going to accuse you of anything. But there seems to be an issue with you being impersonated and mocked on other wikis. Posting this so you know about this and maybe try fix this problem.

Thanks. --Callofduty4 12:51, April 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * Best thing you could probably do is keep this low-profile and contact Wikia. Best of luck. --Callofduty4 12:54, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

All this vandalism doesn't seem worth it. It would be one thing if it was a small incident, but it is effecting Wikia as a whole. You guys are like the 8th wiki. --Humans Vanish 12:59, April 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * It has been a vandal who has a bone to pick with Lancer for almost a month now, so he goes impersonating Lancer, especially with Cyrillic characters to make the user name indistinguishable. The best you could do is just to get your wiki's admin to continue monitoring the situation and ban the vandal as he appears, perhaps to get a staff to do a global block too so he won't be a troublemaker on other wikis. — Teugene (Talk) 13:00, April 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Great another one. I do play Call of Duty, and I've visited the CoD wiki a few times, but I still find it annoying that he's gone elsewhere. I also thank you for not throwing accusations at me, unlike what someone else did just two days ago and taking the time to do your research. Granted though, it was much easier this time around. Lancer1289 13:45, April 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * These actions collectively lead to the conclusion that all possible wikis are at risk from the impostor. A global ban doesn't work, and semi-protecting all the wikis is also a bad idea. So what to do? Not much I'm afraid. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 13:54, April 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I guess we'll just have to roll with the punches on this one I'm afraid. There really isn't much more we can do except deal with it as it comes along. Lancer1289 14:03, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

What the? you posted dumb stuff of this site on dragon ball wikia take it off!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 * Here's a suggestion, do some reading, and get your fact's stright. It wasn't me and doing a bit of research will confirm that. Lancer1289 14:03, April 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * It's so obviously not this guy that it hurts...come on people, go read the vandalism, who would say that about themselves? Tokeupdude 14:18, April 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * I can vouch for Lancer, as both a member here, and on the CoDwiki. The guy hitting us on the CoDwiki, is an trolling imposter vandal. --Razgriez 03:27, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * I would call both comments accurate. Just doing a bit of research can avoid a lot of problems. Lancer1289 03:29, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Wiki
Note: http://dragonball.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

Has also been targeted by the vandal.
 * And what exactly do you want me to do about it apart from undo the damage. Currently I'm running very late for class right now so I would suggest contacting the local admins for the VSTF and have them deal with the issue. Lancer1289 14:06, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

I dont expect you to do anything. I was only provding an update.
 * And to be honest, I've already heard enough about this guy so an update isn't needed. Either reprt the vandalism and undo the damage, or do nothing. Lancer1289 14:10, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

You must have royally pissed someone off
Cuz you're name is on like 10 different wikis. lol ;) Tokeupdude 14:17, April 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * Rather numerous fake names. That vandal also attacked here with no less than 5 different variations of Lancer's name. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 14:36, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

GO FUCK YOURSELF MOTHERFUCKER GO DIE IN HELL LIKE UR MOM DAD AND ALL UR FAMILY, DEVIL'S COCKSUCKER!!! JERK IDIOT!!!!!


 * You are such a twit. You are all those above. HOW DARE YOU CALL LANCER ALL THOSE WHEN HE DIDN'T DO IT! I advise you to get off the wiki. An imposter masqueraded as him using a slightly different name to do the vandalism. By the way, I bet all your family is in hell already! Good day. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 15:22, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

This guy seems to be impersonating you



-Darknoon5

Chill out Havoc... You did what was required, no need to get personal over it. These people clearly have no idea that it isn't the real Lancer. Understand that and give them the benefit of the doubt. --Humans Vanish 16:17, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the insult. I'm really sorry. I thought you are the impersonator, without another proof. Can you forgive me?

I apologize HV, no need to bring it to my talk page, but I'm alright. I take offense when other users are as violently and abrasively threatened as Lancer was above. As for you Lancer, I don't apologize for defending your honour, but I'm apologetic for being overzealous in your defense. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 16:54, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Addressing Each Comment:
 * Tokeupdude, please just watch the language first, we don't need "pissed" in a title. Although I have to say it is probably accurate. I honestly don't know what I did, but I have a few good guesses.
 * Darknoon5: I'll contact BioWare about it and see if they can do anything, if it hasn't been done already.
 * Mendris: There was no need for that comment, and frankly was uncalled for on so many levels. Forgiveness is going to be a hard sell on that one.
 * H-Man: I'm surprised that I have say this to you, but you have to watch the language policy yourself. And while I do appropriate you defending me, there were a lot better ways of going about it. Overzealous would be a good term that I would have used as well.
 * Humans: That would be quite accurate and I really don't know what else to say about it.

Basically I'm well aware of the situation and leaving me messages about it doesn't really accomplish much. Just revert, ignore, contact the proper people, and keep the level of inappropriate comments to null please. A simple message about another wiki might be enough, but I don't need 500 comments about "this wiki is being vandalized". Especially if it is the same wiki. Lancer1289 17:02, April 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * Lancer, I asked Mendris to apologize after he realized his mistake over at the Dragonball wiki. You can see my comment after yours at his talk page. — Teugene (Talk) 17:22, April 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * I just did. Lancer1289 17:30, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

AC Wiki
WHAT THE FUCK YOU DID TO US? GET OF FROM THE AC WIKIA NOW!!!!!!!!!
 * Do some research and you would notice that it isn't me. Don't throw baseless accusations around unless you can back them up. Lancer1289 19:38, April 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * It never ceases to amaze me how people will actually believe someone would go around posting that image of themselves. You'd figure people would have common sense and figure, "there must be some logical explanation." Sadly, this is not the case, and people blindly buy into the vandal's nonsense. I'd have hoped that at the very least, someone named 'Skywalker' would have been able to see through such a laughably transparent ruse. SpartHawg948 19:46, April 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * I just paid a visit to the Assassin's Creed Wiki, and I fixed all of their templates. Lancer1289 19:47, April 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Lancer, there is still some hacked templates, http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Warren_Vidic, can you fix that? User:Zac skywalker

Lol Spart, you are so right... It's kinda making me laugh at this point, or that might be because I just toked. -- Humans Vanish 19:50, April 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) As I did a while back for the SWTOR Wiki. But then, the folks at that wiki were kind enough to give you the benefit of the doubt, instead of accosting you on your own talk page. I used to like the AC Wiki, but if this is what the community there has become, I'm not sure I want to go back. SpartHawg948 19:51, April 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, for HV - :D SpartHawg948 19:51, April 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed that was very nice of them, unlike a few others recently.
 * This is what the third time I've gotten blasted on this issue? Fourth? Fifth? I can't remember and I don't want to check my archives. However this is now the second time I've done that. I helped out on the WoW wiki, and now this one. Considering it wasn't even the same user name this time, you would have though it should have been easy to make the distinction. Sadly, alas not.
 * I should also note that some of them didn't even come here. I can say they probably came here, look one good look around, then made up their minds that it was a vandal and not me. I just which everyone could make that distinction. Also Spart check your email. Lancer1289 19:58, April 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm really sorry for this, it wasn't my intention to do all this, I don't known where was my mind, I didn't notice the things you said, I promisse that it's not going to happen again, sorry. User:Zac skywalker

Maybe more than that, Lancer. But the best thing to remember is you went and tried to help even though you didn't have to. You can walk away from that and feel good about yourself. Just keep your head up, I'm sure it will eventually chill out. -- Humans Vanish 20:09, April 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take any good karma I can get right now. Lancer1289 20:20, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

Get fucked, you sad cunt.
 * And how about you watch the language policy and do some research. Lancer1289 20:59, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

Lancer do you have an IM? -- Humans Vanish 21:02, April 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * A what exaclty? Lancer1289 21:03, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

lol, an instant messenger. -- Humans Vanish 21:05, April 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry brain fart. That would be a no. Lancer1289 21:06, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

Now the Motorstorm wiki...
if i was you i'd close your account to stop people linking it here...--killercrusher232 09:21, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

No cause the guy will think he won and that will only inflated is already over-sized ego. --Oc ca m's Ra  zor  09:45, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the template and your wiki should be fine now. This guy [] is the culprit. I reported him to VSTF but so far no reply. --Oc ca m's Ra  zor  10:28, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * This guy has vandalised various templates on The Sims Wiki too (contributions). I've blocked him permanently there. GG (talk) 10:43, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * In response to the above comment, I am too from the sims wiki. The user above, GeorgieGibbons, has reported this to the VSTF. In the meantime, I suggest you change your password. --Wogan Hemlock  (Talk to meeee!!) 10:48, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed that this is an imposter. I'm sure that VSTF will deal with them all. GG (talk) 10:49, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Lancer doesn't need to. The imposter just uses those strange letters with random dots and stuff to make it look like him.

This is his unused page: http://sims.wikia.com/wiki/User:Lancer1289 Imposter: http://sims.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:%C4%B9%D0%B0ncer1289 Notice on the imposter's page the L with the weird punctuation above. --Oc ca m's Ra  zor  10:56, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * I've left a note on the admin portal here in case anyone wants to look. I'll make sure that the real Lancer won't get blocked if he ever decides to come to TSW. GG (talk) 11:00, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I thank you for that. Although to be perfectly honest, I might not however never go to the Sims Wiki because I'm a big fan of the series, as I only have the first game. Maybe I'll stop by to see what it's like but what I would like to say it is nice to see a calm message rather than a few I've received over the course of the last few days. Lancer1289 17:31, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

Gearspedia too!
Us at Gearspedia have been hit by this wanker. But no worries, but how many account hes has and how long does he stay on a wikia?--JacktheBlack 12:26, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

Good thing Legionwrex warned that site. This is now the 11th wiki he's hit after initially vandalizing this wiki, which he's done again moments ago btw. Motorstorm Wiki was hit also not long ago. As for your query, he's used countless variations of the real Lancer1289's username and has been banned countless times, but he knows the weaknesses of the entire system, such as resetting IPs and thus still a thorn to all wiki's sides, since the beginning of April. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 12:32, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

If he doesn't stop there really is only one thing to do. The question is, are we willing to take responsibility and do it for the greater good? -- Humans Vanish 12:34, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

I warned the half-life wiki and the admin went and warned the Left 4 dead wiki, Team Fortress, and Counter Strike wiki. --Oc ca m's Ra  zor  12:38, April 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * Like I stated on this blog, I also warned Avatar Wiki as well, and am currently in discussion with one of the site admins, The 888th Avatar. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 12:41, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

Before when he temporary stopped here, he went to Dragon Age wiki but only made like 2 edits before a admin stopped him. --Oc ca m's Ra  zor  12:43, April 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * Because he's attempting to see if the admins there slacked off. Anyways, I'm off for the time being and will be back later. Continue to watch the wiki. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 12:47, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

haha I logged out and was going to get breakfast and as soon as the page was done loading the guy starting vandalizing with this account [] so I had to undo everything as user 99.44.98.218 --Oc ca m's Ra  zor  13:10, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears that the information is getting around rather quickly about this vandal. Hopefully soon he will soon just be stopped before it gets serious. I'm also a bit saddened that he hit the Gears of War wiki as I do visit there quite often to look at articles or find things. As to how many accounts he has Jack, I would have to say probably in the range of at least 30 by now. Lancer1289 17:42, April 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * Now the vandal takes note of my undoing of his edits, and if you've seen the edit log, he's said some pretty nasty things about me and Occam's Razor because we were the only ones at the time undoing his edits. I don't pay much attention to what he has to say though. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 19:44, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * And that is the way to go about it. Ignore, revert, and keep going until someone comes along. Lancer1289 19:54, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

12 wikis now
Borderland wiki has been hit, howevere thank to a warning froms me they got him rather quickly.--Legionwrex 20:24, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I already know that and I've heard enough about the wikis he's vandalized on my talk page. Do it in a blog somewhere as I can read it there as well but I don't need every detail. Lancer1289 20:30, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

Vandalizing [redacted]
Hey, fuck you! You're little asshole wikibuttbuddies have been spamming on every god damn wiki! Fucking delete all of it ON EVERY WIKI YOU SPAMMED ON before the wiki moderation closes this pathetic wikia down.


 * This particular Lancer1289 is the genuine article and a good guy, not the vandal who has been imitating him and vandalizing other wikis. Take a look at other discussions on this page, you're not the first to mistake this Lancer for the vandal. -- Commdor (Talk) 01:54, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

And wach your language, we have a policy.--Legionwrex 02:18, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * And yet a second person who can't bother to do some quick research, throws false, accusatory, and completely uncalled for statements around, and ends up getting himself banned because of it. The completely uncalled for comments was the first violation, which would have resulted in just a warning, but when someone breaks so many policies at once, an immediate ban is required. Lancer1289 04:28, May 1, 2011 (UTC)