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)

Look, I saw your name first for trolling on the Homefront wiki and i'm shock to find you a dedicated editor would troll for Pete sake. I'm the administrator for the Resistance wiki and I'm strict on these sort of things. In which I had outright ban you for a year from the Resistance wiki as written on your user page in RE. So I mind you that you stop blogging on your guerrilla product campaign, got it? I'm a serious editor okay??? If you want to reconcile please do so and please don't do these kind of thing. Every wiki have a advert for other wikis. --Drgyen 05:19, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey how about doing some research about the issue first. It isn't me and frankly about 10 seconds of research will confirm that. So I would next time do some research before coming back and accusing me of something I didn't, nor am doing. Lancer1289 05:24, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Seriously? Another one? Look, one important fact you need to know: LANCER1289 DID NOT DO IT!!! It's a vandal impersonating Lancer1289, which you'd discover if you look into it a bit. Why on God's green earth would anyone post images like that about themselves? Why? Please, do some fact-checking before accusing one of our admins like this. SpartHawg948 05:26, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

My bad, my sincerely apologies. I didn't read the above header. I can be too quick on things.--Drgyen 05:31, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Half of this talk page is dedicated to defending Lancer1289 from people running in here from other wikis and attacking him, to the point of threatening his life and the lives of his family. All we ask is that people do a little bit of research and think things through before jumping on the "Let's attack the victim" bandwagon. SpartHawg948 05:34, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

Did the reading and i obviously can tell what a sucker I am to blatantly accuse Lancer for it, as like the others below this page. I mean this guy, this hacker I would put, sets things off. Is there any leads to anyone who has something against Lancer. This is criminal offense in the making here.--Drgyen 05:39, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have some good ideas, but really nothing more than that. Lancer1289 05:45, May 2, 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)
 * Perhaps we should tell you seeming he's using an abbreviation of your username and all... o.O Moon Beam 05:32, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Of that, we have been well aware of for quite some time. Lancer1289 05:46, May 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * Does wikia even know? --Moon Beam 05:53, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe they do as I, and a number of others as well, have left messages with the staff about this. The VSTF is also very aware of the situation and while they are doing the best they can, there is only so much they can do. Out of curiosity, which wiki are you from? Lancer1289 05:57, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Quick question for Moon Beam... are you my governor? (Note: if you aren't from California, you probably won't get the reference!) If so, get back to work!!! If not, disregard this message! :D SpartHawg948 06:03, May 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * Avatar Wiki (The Legend of Aang). He/She (guessing he) hit there yesterday. I had the fright of my life. There were all these links that were sending me to your userpage. I was really quite confused... --Moon Beam Leave me a message...Please :( 06:04, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that would be the Wiki that covers the TV show Avatar: The Last Airbender? I did catch that from time to time and I found it interesting and I may stop by there to look around. But I can immagine why you were confused as I'm sure you can tell by reading my talk page.
 * Oh and Spart, something else I did need, another joke. I just got over a headache to I'll take all the humor I can get. Lancer1289 06:06, May 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes it is the last airbender. As a matter of fact you remind me alot of the bureacrat there! Hahah. And @Spart... Uhmmmm.... No i am not your govener... o.o Moon Beam 06:20, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest at this point, with no offence meant to him/her or you, I'm not sure if that is a compliment. If it is, then I thank you, I could use one right now. Lancer1289 06:22, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Good. Cuz if you were, I'd be pretty peeved! Tax dollars at work and all that. (For those scratching their heads right now, California's governor is Jerry Brown. During his last tenure as governor, from 1975 to 1983, Brown acquired the nickname "Governor Moonbeam". See here for more) SpartHawg948 06:25, May 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * It would be none other than a compliment! He is a really kind and funny guy. You should be glad :) I can understand how you feel. We all wish this would only get better. Moon Beam 06:26, May 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * EDIT:I hate edit conflicts -.- Nope, not from Cal. From NZ :D Moon Beam 06:27, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah well then I do thank you for the compliment and yet another joke from Spart. Something else I needed and I'm pretty sure we all hate edit conflicts. Especially on long talk pages or an active conversation. Anyway, I wish you a good day Moon Beam as it is about 1:30 am where I am in the US. Lancer1289 06:30, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * I wish you the best too. Send me a message if you want to talk :) Good luck also with this big mess. Moon Beam 06:46, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. We could all probably use all the luck we can get at this point. Lancer1289 06:49, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * At least another of the wikis in which I'm a long time member, Avatar Wiki, is safe for now, thanks to my warnings to that site's B'Crat The 888th Avatar. Hey Moon Beam, didn't think you'd be on this Wiki as well. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 12:03, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

The command and conquer wiki was hit.
 * Which one? I popped over to see if I could help, and have seen some mention of it, but can't find any evidence of actual vandalism. Either way, assuming I went to the right one (and again, there was mention of it), they seem to have things under control now. SpartHawg948 23:06, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * And honestly reporting it here really don't do much good. Go to the admins there instead of coming here. Lancer1289 23:09, May 2, 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)
 * What a tool. I just love homophobic jerks who leap to inane conclusions and then launch unconscionable attacks on other users. Take five seconds and use that thing on your shoulders, buddy. It's not just there to serve as a hat rack. Some people's kids... SpartHawg948 06:01, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Hat rack?! Oh I needed that Spart, I really did. Lancer1289 06:03, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ya. We don't need users like Mendris, who posted homophobic slurs on one of his blogs on his base wiki. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 12:08, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Lancer1289 16:00, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Problem User
It appears that he/she is taking your issues off site - http://forums.xbox.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=36384985

I'm afraid Lancer may become popular all over the web. The next internet meme perhaps? -- Humans Vanish 15:12, May 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * This could be a big problem in the future if everyone knows about the issue. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 15:44, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well add that to the list. Lancer1289 16:00, May 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * He/She's not even using the name Lancer anymore. Some idiot started putting the usual spam message all over the templates on the Uncharted wiki using this username Just out of interest (to the real Lancer), do you have any idea why they're doing this? --Klock101 16:05, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a few ideas, but nothing solid. Lancer1289 16:07, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * It's still a variation of Lancer's name, as that same profile also attacked a few others in the previous days. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 19:23, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * More than likely. Ah the things you miss... Lancer1289 22:34, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Re; Problem User
If any of you have a LIVE account and use xbox.com and see any more of those threads your best bet is to use the report feature. That will alert the forum moderators who can investigate and take the appropriate action.

WoW Wikia
'The Brain of Yogg-Saron' page has now been hit... Whoever's done it, remove it ASAP!


 * This is the second time WoW Wiki has been hit this week. It's definitely not the user you leave a message on, but an impostor. There's nothing he can really do except have you take a complaint to Wiki Support. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 21:27, May 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * I just looked there, and the article in question doesn't appear to have been vandalized, or even edited at all since November 8th of last year. Recent Changes doesn't show any current activity from the vandal either. Unless there are two WoW wikis at Wikia, I don't know what this guy is talking about. -- Commdor (Talk) 21:45, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I get something on my talk page that is completely irrelevant and not even related to this issue. Curious how one could get that confused. Lancer1289 22:35, May 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * Commdor, it is possible to have two similar wikis. Just look at Avatar Wiki. The first one is for Avatar: The Last Airbender, and the second iteration is for James Cameron's Avatar trilogy. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 23:39, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * And yet it seemes that there isn't another WoW wiki that has that page. Lancer1289 23:54, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

RE: Background Update
Hi Lancer. I first uploaded the image (using theme designer) at my personal test wiki, and it worked fine. Then I uploaded it here and it's not displaying (although it shows up fine here) so something is definitely wrong. I'll report the problem to the tech guys so they can figure out what's up and follow up with you. JoePlay http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb33036/wikia/images/e/e9/WikiaStaff.png (talk)  19:28, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

another wiki . ..
The Imposter vandalized the Command & Conquer wiki. I restored the page. Just so you know.
 * And why are you letting me know? Go to the site admins, VSTF, or the staff and deal with the problem there. The vandal is probably watching my talk page, and every post here probably inflates his ego. Just revert, ignore, and move on. Reporting everything that is vandalized just doesn’t do much good in the long run. Lancer1289 23:12, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * I dunno... personally, I think it helps a bit. Lets us keep tabs on the punk, and also may be the only way we know if this vandal stops. Or is stopped, for that matter. SpartHawg948 23:15, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well whatever, but it does get a tad annoying getting a message that says "this wiki is being vandalized" time and time again. I have only three real talk page threads here compared to the 21 about the vandal. Lancer1289 23:31, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

Command and Conquer Wiki
As I can see from the top of your talk page, you're apparently already getting flak for other wikis getting spammed and linking directly to you. Here's one from the C&C wiki.

Yeah...I'd suggest figuring out what's going on ASAP. Even if you're not directly responsible, it doesn't exactly look good for you. --CharNobyl 07:14, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Trust me, we've been trying. This guy is even stymieing Wikia's Counter-Vandalism Task Force. The best we can do right now is try to help targeted wikis clean up the mess. When someone from the C&C Wiki popped in earlier to report he'd hit that wiki, the first thing I did was head to that site to try and help undo the vandalism, but when I was there, it all looked pretty much taken care of. So yeah, we're trying. Us, the admins of about a dozen other wikis, and Wikia themselves. I do want to thank you though for not immediately blaming Lancer or attacking him, as some people from other wikis have done. SpartHawg948 07:28, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * We are indeed well aware of the situation and right now there is much we can do except revert and ignore, with particular emphasis on the second part. Although I do have to say that I'm thankful that a nice message was left, rather than getting blasted about this. I just which other people would do some research first as two people got banned because they didn't. Take a guess which ones. Lancer1289 13:04, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

Legion's runtimes
Why did you undo it? It's a valuable bit of information. 184.154.49.106 15:54, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Because unlike the previous trivia, that was stretching it as it was just a number, with very little other connection. The previous trivia item already mentioning the bug is valid because of the connection, but the second stretches it beyond what could be trivia. Lancer1289 16:03, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

It isn't far fetched at all, as the theme of the FDIV bug is present in Legion's writing. I, for one, find it very interesting and pertinent to the article. At least, I learn something new from it. However, if it is considered unsuitable, why had speculation been put in this paragraph before? All it shows is that whoever wrote it didn't understand what a "consensus" is, even though Legion specifically states that the geth decision making doesn't work like some kind of democracy (as the paragraph seems to imply). I think, that newly added trivia is the most valuable in the paragraph, and suggest it be put back in place. 184.154.49.106 16:25, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * So you are arguing from a biased position and frankly you are outright demanding that it be readded. Right now it is a stretch and there really isn't much to connect it, unlike the other trivia which has much more support than yours did. Just because you find the information valuable and informative, doesn’t mean that it should get added. If it doesn't meet the guidelines then it will be removed, and currently two people disagree that it should be added. It is a stretch, nothing more or less. Lancer1289 16:29, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

I am biased??? Now, that is a stretch indeed. And yes, I do demand that it be readded, because it's an observation made by another contributor, that I find very interesting and pertinent to the article. This is something new I've learned, and I want other people to learn it too. But you, and that other person who initially removed it, prevent this from happening. So who is biased here? Honestly, I was going to remove the speculation about the "lower processes not participating" or being "on the fence", which both are real brain farts IMO, but then I noticed this new stuff and that it has been was removed. So well, let that earlier speculation stay, but add this new one to it!
 * So despite the fact it was removed by two separate individuals, and two admins at that, say nothing then? You find it interesting, but yet again two others did not. Therefore, that looks like a clear 2-1 to me and which side of that generally wins that argument.
 * Also yes you are arguing from a biased position. You are arguing for something you want, you find interesting, you find pertinent, and that you want to see in the article. If you don't call that a biased position, then I'm not sure what you call it.
 * As to removing information, you call it a brain fart, I call that valid information and would oppose it's removal as it does tie into what we do know about the geth and how they operate. Lancer1289 17:15, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that other one is an admin too? And you're pulling this why? To tell me to deal with it? The brain farts will not be removed because they are valid information, despite being nothing but speculation. And the really valid information will not be added, despite being consistent with a proven reference. M'kay, I see the rumors were right, you are kind of dense fanon boys here. Bye, been nice knowing ya... 184.154.49.106 17:33, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Fanboys? Really? Wow, I really don't know what to say. Why does it always come to insults and unnecessary comments in a calm and civil discussion with everyone who doens't get what they want instantly? I pointed out that we were admins because, generally, who knows more about site policy and what is and isn't allowed than them?
 * I stated why the other trivia is already valid, because it works into how we know the geth work. Your trivia was removed by two different people who had issues with it. There was less connecting the two than the previous trivia, or even the rest of that trivia item. So it will be removed. A stretch isn't trivia. Lancer1289 17:50, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

Lol! I've read your page, and, heh, I'm reporting you and that other admin for vandalism. "Removal of information". And you also insulted me first, calling me biased, when I wasn't biased. Although this I could live with. And no, geth do not operate how you think they operate. They don't vote. They build consensus. Which means that 100% of Legion's runtimes must reach the same conclusion before any course of action is authorized. There is also such thing as "statistical margin of error", and 39 happens to be just above it for the sample size of 1183. May have somehing to do with Legion's strange behavior, "no data availble" on Shep's N7 armor piece, "Infiltra_i_tor" nickname and other stuff. Whatever the meaning his writer put there, it certainly has something to do with the faulty math. But hey, you can't even count yourself. The original contributor certainly thought this 39 S-Specs was pertinent and that's makes it two of us!184.154.49.106 18:23, May 3, 2011 (UTC) Nah, your lucky, it says I need to register to report you, so to heck with it. Would be ironic though. 184.154.49.106 18:37, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) So how we be "vandalizing", as you put it, for removing information that isn't in line with site policy? That isn't called vandalism, that is called upholding site policy. Also if you would do about 10 seconds of research, you would realize that it isn't me vandalizing, it is a vandal and apparently that concept is very hard to grasp by everyone.
 * I really don't see how I could insult you by stated that you are biased towards the information because it is something that you want in the article, and that in of itself makes you biased towards one side of the argument. Not to mention the way you have been arguing, with insulting me and throwing names around, doesn’t do much to dissuade it.
 * Legion states that his higher-order run times can't reach consensus, but there were several that were missing, and we know the geth have lower-order run times, and since Legion specifically stated "higher-order", the trivia is valid because of how the geth operate.
 * Add just to point this out, 2-2 equals what's known as a tie, and in that case nothing is done with the information. Also if it is 2-2 and an admin voiced their opinion on one side of it, then it goes with that side. SO since it is 2-2, nothing is done, and since two admins said no, that still means that nothing is done. Oh and here's a question, why can't I count myself? If I can't count myself, then you can't count yourself either. Lancer1289 18:39, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * And I will ask again, what would, or rather could, you report me on? Vandalizing is the deliberate removal of valid information that is in line with the site's policy. Your bit of trivia was not and therefore removing it is in line with site policy. Reporting me will literally get you nowhere with this issue as it will be kicked back to the site administration, or be ignored because it isn't vandalism, but removing information not in line with site policy. The way people act when they don't get want they want instantly never surprises me anymore. Lancer1289 18:41, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

Mitgefühl
Ich möchte mein Mitgefühl aussprechen, dass anscheinend jemand Rufmord an dir begeht. Unser Wiki wurde mit Spam angegriffen. Es ist nichts schlimmes, aber ich würde mir überlegen, wer dahinter steckt.-- Der Pete Besprechung 09:04, May 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * Lancer, I used Tradukka translation software to translate the above statement from German. It reads: "I would like to express my compassion, that apparently someone is committing character assassination on you. Our wiki was attacked with spam. There is nothing bad, but I would think about who is behind it". The system may be a bit flawed, but this is largely accurate I'd say. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 11:07, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah I got the same thing from Google and I do have to say thanks that someone is at least understanding to the situation. Unlike someone else who vandalized earlier. Lancer1289 13:25, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism - Need for Speed Wiki
I know this isn't you but it should be noted if your trying to track this person down. They vandalised a series of base page templates under the name "Lancer sucks" with the following images -, and.

The Metadata for these images says that they where created around 2pm on May 1st 2011. Image 2 seems to list a series of comments you've made for a page edit.
 * Here are as few that should stand out to you and could help track the IPs that caused those edits;
 * This is a real stretch
 * The current version is fine
 * We have a policy for this
 * *Sigh* didn't we - long time ago
 * This has been dismissed many times before
 * This is not how we do this

Their edits have been reverted and has made a fundamental mistake - They pissed me off annoyed me to my core and I want to help track them down. LeMansRacer 14:16, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * First, thanks for not leaving a hateful message but at the same time, I also have to ask you to please watch your language. We have no need for language like that here.
 * If you want the images deleted, then I would contact an admin there as there is nothing I can do about it. And I didn't need a list of the comment as we have seen them before.
 * Finally, if you want to track him down, then everyone stop doing it on my talk page. Create a blog or forum page for that. I'm not looking to track him down on my talk page, and I would prefer that done on a blog or forum post, or even better, not at all as this just feeds him as this is beyond any doubt exactly what he wants. People to keep leaving me messages about something I’m not doing until I'm fed up with it and leave. Lancer1289 14:24, May 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well archive this talk page, set it so that only admins and sysops can edit the new page and place a banner across it saying - "We know about the vandalism by a user with a Lancer-esqe name pretending to be me. Just revert their edits and get on with your life." LeMansRacer 14:31, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * That would also feed him as putting a statement like that at the top would just prove a point. He's winning. Lancer1289 14:33, May 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * How would they win? You've stopped a series of messages from people commenting on edits supposedly being you which could contain negative feedback. Blocking the page stops the trolling comments of their trolling edits of the other wikias and intern turns the "meh troll" into an "Unsuccessful troll."
 * This could also work as a form of you trolling them. Post an image underneath of a meme like "Unsuccessful Troll is Unsuccessful." It may go against your Manual of Style but it could turn it so your on top of the situation. LeMansRacer 14:41, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it would show that it's getting to me, plain and simple. He sees something like that message on the top of my talk page, and it could incite him to do more damage and ultimately more people to leave me messages about it because people don't do the research and don't read anything to begin with. Blocking the page would also accomplish the same thing. I'm saying that it's getting to me and I can't take the messages. This is the first we've heard about this in a few days and the longest discussion on the matter. This guy just feeds off attention and giving him more, especially from the person he's trying to get rid of, his more than likely goal, is counter to how vandalism should be dealt with. Revert and ignore. Lancer1289 14:52, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

faker
hi it has been of my notice that there is a Faker caliming to be you and is vandalizing other wikis, i just thought that you needed to know --Ediskrad327 15:48, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes we know of the problem, and you would have found that out if you had read this page. And we, or really I should say I, honestly don't need to know. Just revert and ignore. Lancer1289 15:51, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

I hate you, idiot.
 * Language and do some research. Lancer1289 15:56, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

sucker hacker
WHY DID YOU DO TAHT???
 * Do some research or better yet, just read this page more thoroughly. Lancer1289 16:15, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

Another vandalism
Hi,

I just wanted to notice, that someone (from reading of your discussion page I figured that it was not you) tried to mess up with polish edition of Wowwiki. I hope you don't mind that I banned your account of editing on this wiki, I just want to preserve it from further mess.Morpheius (talk) 17:44, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * So great I get banned for something I don't even do. I guess that's justice for you. Guilty even though there is so much evidence that says you are innocent. Lancer1289 17:49, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

Innocent. Guilty. It's all a matter of perspective. -- Humans Vanish 17:59, May 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * You do realize that some of the letters are in the Cryliic alphabet? Why ban the real Lancer? It doesn't accomplish much when you understand what this guy does. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 18:01, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

Cause and effect, I say. Anyway, it's a shame that this is what this Wiki has become. Before, a great source of information. Now, the recent activity is FILLED with Lancer's talk page everyday. Lancerpedia now. I guess that is what he always wanted though... Hehe. -- Humans Vanish 18:06, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Enough with this. Until the original poster comments, I don't want this conversation to continue. Lancer1289 18:09, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. Seriously? I guess I misjudged you, Humans Vanish. I'd figured you for one of the more rational ones, able to see past personal opinions to the crux of the matter. Instead, I find more of the same Lancer hatred, just gussied up with faux philosophy. I'll tell you what the real shame is here: how jaded some ME Wiki editors have become, that they're willing to jump on the "blame the victim" bandwagon.


 * And Morpheius, I would seriously reconsider the ban on Lancer1289. Banning him is like me banning you because of the actions of an imposter names M0rpheius. SpartHawg948 18:59, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I just see the source of the issue here. I have read all archives on you and Lancer over the past few days and you can tell me all you want that you get the same hate and blah blah blah. Which may, in part, be true. But the condescending behavior on Lancer's side is truly in a league of its own. It appears as if, to him, the majority of people who come here and edit as contributors are stupid, or at least lesser than him (in brainpower?) according to his actions. Cause and effect, my friend.

The username 'Lancer' and any variations of it will forever have negative connotations associated with it, all over the web. Therefore, the only solution is for him to change his username. But in all reality, every time I come here the only thing discussed is the vandalism (ok and a few policy changes that don't get enough light). I'm just really over it at this point. Time to take responsibility, man. You admittedly run things differently here than other Wiki's, and that is why you get this type of behavior from people. I would LOVE to comment on other topics around the Wiki, but they are all drowned out by Lancer's talk page.

However, I will say this, this place has improved since Lancer has taken a back seat and settled down a bit at the request of RandomTime. You can call my character into question but the reason is still the same. I want to see things improve here. Aren't YOU tired of all this? According to an email I received from the supposed vandal, there are several people (4 as I heard it, including an admin here that was left unnamed) who are involved with this. It was expressed that this will not stop until Lancer is dealt with appropriatly. Tell me what I can do to solve this issue. I want to help but I don't know what else to do at this point.-- Humans Vanish 19:24, May 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * The source of the issue here is one disgruntled individual who was banned for vandalism, and has since gone on a vandalism spree across Wikia. Your opinion of Lancer seems to be based on a gross misreading of his actions and behaviors, and there really isn't anything I can do to change that. But blaming him for the actions of this immature vandal is ludicrous.


 * I am indeed tired of this, but realize that it won't stop until the vandal does. And, as we've seen, even when the vandal was vindicated, the vandalism continued. As such, I hold no hope that anything we can do will satisfy the vandal to the point that the attacks cease. This seems to be a simple case of rampant immaturity. As for the purported email, I can assure you that none of the admins here would be involved in any such thing. I've been in contact with all the admins, active and inactive, in the past few weeks, and can safely say that the claim that any of them is involved is just wishful thinking on the part of the vandal, as well as misinformation intended to sow fear. I've also seen some of the demands for how to deal with Lancer, and to some of these people, dealing with him appropriately amounts to public shaming and expulsion from the Wiki. If this is what the vandals wish for, they can wish in one hand and crap in the other, and see which hand fills up first. If you want to help, then help. Don't just go around griping and making asinine statements like "Innocent. Guilty. It's all a matter of perspective." It isn't a matter of perspective. SpartHawg948 19:35, May 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * Addendum - I'd also be inclined to doubt the veracity of this email from the supposed vandal. If it was actually the vandal, one would think they'd wish their specific demands to be made known to someone in a position to do something about it, i.e. an admin or bureaucrat. Sending it to someone in no position to do anything suggests that either they aren't the vandal, or that they have no desire to stop, and as such, have no need to make their demands known. This is another reason I fail to believe there is admin involvement, as an admin would have come forward saying "I heard from the vandal that they'll stop if ___" or "Maybe if we try ___". None of the admins for this site is the type to sit back and allow this infantile and homophobic vandalism to continue. SpartHawg948 19:44, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

Can you sit here and tell me that you condone and agree with Lancer's condescending behavior? Please don't tell me you don't know what I am talking about. I for one am seriously beginning to believe that this situation has been bred out of frustration. I think people feel pushed around and hushed.

In response to your second post, the vandal seemed pretty legit to me. Typed up whole pages of sources and concerns. All very intelligible and sound. He or she attempted to get me to assist in the matter. Ofcourse, I refused to help. I expressed that I would only attack issues that were legitimate. My way is not the way of brash pictures and lewd comments. If I feel there is an issue (and I do) I will bring it up in the proper venues (here).

Choosing to remain stubborn only will keep this issue going, from what I have ascertained from the vandal. This is beginning to sound like Libya, dude. The people will continue to rebel as long as nothing is done. Time for 'Ghadafi' to change some things or move out. -- Humans Vanish 19:55, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah that email is suspect and frankly I just think it's boosting and completely fake. Second I haven't taken a back seat and no one has asked me too so don't assume things when they are incorrect. Randomtime never, nor did anyone else, ask me to step back. You want things to improve, then stop commenting about this issue and do something about it. Every time you seem to edit, it's a complaint about someone, usually me, and frankly I'm sick of it. You continue to insult me, belittle me, and do just about anything to bring me down a few pegs for whatever reason. You are entitled ot your option, but your negative opinion of someone you barely know is getting annoying to keep reading. You don't know how I think so leaving statements that says "[t]ime to take responsibility, man", "[i]t appears as if, to him, the majority of people who come here and edit as contributors are stupid, or at least lesser than him (in brainpower?) according to his actions", and "Cause and effect, my friend" are just inflammatory and serve no purpose except to further belittle me, and further inflame the situation, for whatever reason. You don't know how I think, so don't even remotely assume that you do as you insult me by putting words in my mouth, which is also completely rude top begin with.
 * You do realize that every wiki is run differently as each is free to set their policies, and do things their way. Each wiki is different, and you can't possibly know that it's run different as you haven't edited anywhere else. All I've seen you do mostly is exactly what Spart said, gripe about every little thing that you don't agree with. You do know that you don't have to come here, and you don't have to edit, it's that simple. If you don't like something, walk away, and yet you can't seem to be able to do that, so instead you just continue to gripe and belittle me at every turn. Just about every time you come here, you somehow manage to belittle me in some way, even if you don't name names.
 * If the vandal has an issue with me, then here's a question, why doesn't he just contact me directly? Maybe he should consider that option, yet he chooses to just vandalize and whatnot, so probably he doesn't care what is done, he just needs to inflate his ego.
 * Are we sick of this, yes, but you aren't doing anything to help the situation with your comments. And especially with comments like "[t]ime for 'Ghadafi' to change some things or move out."? Seriously was that even called for or do you just like to belittle me as that's the impression I keep getting. Either learn to speak like a civilized person, that means no insulting, no belittling, or just stop. You aren't helping the situation and you just continue to make it worse with comments like that.
 * And just to point this out, since you keep complaining about my talk page, the only way it takes up space, is if people comment on it. Your first comment was completely uncalled for and it started this. So this is cause and effect, you started a problem that you keep complaining about, and you have no one to blame this time except yourself. Lancer1289 20:03, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

I can't help but 'lol' at the irony in this wall of text. Good job Lance. -- Humans Vanish 20:07, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * How about instead of laughing and belittling me about it, now my impression of you is outright confirmed, instead, read it as there are several good points in there. So I can add yet another insult from you, which you just about leave in every comment about me. Again you don't have to edit here, just pointing that out again. Lancer1289

I read it the first time, thank you. I'll go ahead and concede and remove myself from this conversation. The same thing is happening again. You take all the points and problems people have, bring up each one and say it only inflames the issue blah blah blah. You could definatly use a read of Havoc's fallacy blog. Anyway, see you around. Humans Vanish 20:12, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yet all you do is inflame the situation with your comments. I actually took some time to address your issues, and so did Spart, and yet you just chose to throw more accusatory and belittling comments at me. The fact I actually respond says something, as I'm perfectly within my rights to just remove your comments on my talk page as soon as you leave them, and you couldn't do anything about it as it is my talk page. You keep saying the same thing keeps happening, yet you always bring up the same thing so what else is there to say about it? Unless you bring something new, then there literally is nothing else to say. So instead of constantly complaining about the situation, perhaps maybe do something about it as all you have done up to this point is complain about it. Lancer1289 20:18, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * All morality and pride aside, you're the one who refuses to cancel your account and create a new one to stem the confusion. All this "don't feed the troll" stuff you're sticking to is pretty much digging you into an even deeper hole. 76.171.187.230 20:31, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * And what would that accomplish exactly? Honestly what would that accomplish apart from him having to change all of his stuff to my new user name. The confusion would only continue with the new account. So the preverbal hole is not one I'm digging, but rather by people who don't take ten seconds, and do their research first. Lancer1289 20:35, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could cancel your account and make a new one after taking a break from the public eye for a little while, long enough to make the vandal go away. I guess you could argue that the vandal would just wait until you resurfaced under a new name, as it would be obvious, and resume his antics. I'd then counter that by saying "it's worth a shot" since it has the possibility of a successful outcome, contrary to your "complain that people don't take the time to do their research" policy. SlayerEGO1342 20:39, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what the vandal wants, and if Lancer gives him that, then the vandal effectively wins. This standoff between the impersonator and the real Lancer is basically a Sitzkrieg (Phony War), and by the way if you don't know what it means, it played a key role in the early part of WWII. Lancer has to keep standing his ground and at some point the vandal will tire and the attacks will subside. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 20:48, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) The problem is that Wikia doesn't cancel accounts, and I highly doubt he would stop. He would just go an another vandalism spree about how he's finally won and how I'm gone, which will just led to more comments here and people having to deal with it in some way. He would beyond a doubt come back once I did come back, if I chose to take a break, and just modify all of his stuff and continue to vandalize. Right now "it's worth a shot" isn't enough. And honestly if people did do their research, then a lot of this wouldn't be happening as people would see that it is a vandal and not me, which would stop the messages and probably stop the vandal. Since his work is no longer published on my talk page, he doesn’t get recognized for his work.
 * Oh and H-Man, I love the WWII reference, but I think a more appropriate reference would be the Cold War. Two people standing on either side and there are smaller conflicts happening elsewhere which can be tied back to each other. Lancer1289 20:53, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * What I'm proposing, Mr. Latin, is that he doesn't follow that strategy. Who cares who "wins"? It was my understanding that Lancer wanted nothing to do with the vandal's games, so why should he consider course of action on the basis of whom the victor would be? SlayerEGO1342 20:55, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * The vandal doesn't want to be recognized for his work. He wants YOU to be recognized for his work. And, I'm repeating, the policy of sitting back and complaining that no one does their research DOES NOT work, as evidenced by your persistent blame. SlayerEGO1342 20:57, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) And what you are proposing is that I just quit because someone has a grudge, and considering it is online, it makes him anonymous, which is what he wants, and he's found a way to make a very convincing cover for his actions. Not to mention that he doesn't care, but is someone who just has a lot of time to waste because he doesn’t have a life. If you quit anything because someone has a grudge against you, then you wouldn't be part of anything. You would be an isolationist and have no friends, family, or anything else. You will find people who have grudges everywhere and if you just ran away it says two things. One: You can't take the pressure and you are weak. Two: Anytime you come up to a barrier, you will just walk away and not try and do something about it. Running away never solves a problem, it usually just makes it worse. And your are just making it worse by continuing this conversation by arguing that I leave, which is again exactly what he wants. Lancer1289 21:04, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to make anything worse, nor do I really care that this conversation is lengthy. I'm not suggesting you run away. I'm suggesting you take a voluntary leave of absence in an effort to do something. You're an admin, and I humbly think the professional thing to do is step out for a little. Nobody on this wiki would think any less of you, and the only one who would actually consider it to be "what [the vandal] wants" is the vandal itself. Given that, what is there to lose? SlayerEGO1342 21:12, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Doing something is just what we keep telling people. Revert, ignore, and move on. Eventually he will tire of not getting attention, which is more than likely his main drive, and stop. He only cares as long as it keeps annoying me and even if I do leave, which will prove his point that if you annoy someone enough, they will do what you want, then he won't stop. He will just continue and people will still think it's me, even though I'm not editing. That won't accomplish anything and will only make the situation worse because if I leave, then he will go on another spree, saying he won and will then find someone else to target. The only way to get him to stop is to stand your ground as running away from your problems is unprofessional no matter what you call it, falling on your sword is another good term that comes to mind, ignore him and don’t keep conversations about him going, and just keep it up. If he stops getting attention, then once he recognizes that he isn't accomplishing anything, he will quit. Taking a “leave of absence” is not the appropriate action here as it will only fuel his vandalism spree. Lancer1289 21:25, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Rather than write the vandal off as some lifeless scumbag of lesser intelligence, perhaps you could, if you'll bear with me on this, consider the notion that this vandal is a serious threat. Clearly, it targeted you, and judging from your talk page I can see that it isn't the only person to have had problems with you. That establishes a semblance of a motive. Next, look at its actions; no one goes on a vandalizing spree of this magnitude and intricacy without a serious ideological fervor. This vandal is going out of its way to make you look like a villain. I loathe blowing things on this wiki out of proportion, as I often see others doing, but liken the vandal to a terrorist; terrorists don't terrorize for "the hell of it", and they don't stop terrorizing when nobody pays attention to them - they aren't children, and they do what they do because they believe in their actions. I don't think this vandal is a child, and I don't think you should continue to think of it as such. SlayerEGO1342 21:35, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * What’s the phrase you use with terrorists? IIRC it was “[w]e don’t negotiate with terrorists”. And the fact you used that example is a bit of a concern. If you would look at Spart’s talk page, and several other pages here, I’m sure you can find the same thing, and probably more so. People will always have problems with people who are in some position of authority, which are what admins and b’crats are. So of course there are going to be complains to us and about us. If you were/are and admin somewhere, someone will have a problem with you and with the way you do things. Things like that come with the territory and they won’t go away. You can’t make everyone happy and trying to do so won’t accomplish anything. If he was serious about what he was doing, then maybe he would spell out what he wants, yet he doesn’t and he won’t because all he does is vandalize. That says something, he doesn’t have a goal or agenda, he just has time on his hands and needs some way to inflate his ego. Lancer1289 21:42, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * I never said anything about negotiating with it. I think you're overlooking one big thing, though: if all it wants to do is vandalize, what's the point of framing you? SlayerEGO1342 21:46, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Because I honestly don't know, but I have a few ideas. Everyone vandalizes for different reasons, and the fact he's made it personal means that he is getting a rise at my expense. This is what he wants. He needs to disenfranchise someone to make himself feel better. I'm not ignoring the fact, but rather looking at it logically and the fact he keeps targeting me says something about him. He needs someone to target to get a rise, or try to get a rise out of someone. If it wasn't me, I'm sure it would be someone else. Lancer1289 21:52, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Or you could consider that it's targeting you because it doesn't like you. You can deflect the heat all you want and just think of yourself as the unfortunate victim of a random sociopath's imitation, OR you could put pride aside and open yourself up to the idea that you caused this. That sounds damning, I know, but I don't mean that as a personal attack on your person. Rather, I bring it up because I don't believe you even consider it. SlayerEGO1342 21:57, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * So I don't consider it, then why would I make this statement. "If the vandal has an issue with me, then here's a question, why doesn't he just contact me directly". If he does have a problem and he wants to discuss it like a civilized person, then I will be more than happy to do so, but yet he doesn’t so anything like that and just vandalizes for whatever reason. Next time please make sure to read all of the conversations before you make a statement that can be disproven. Do I know he doesn’t like me, that is obvious and doesn’t need to be stated, yet what I haven't heard to this day is why he doesn’t, why he keeps vandalizing, and what is his problem. I, nor has anyone else heard anything on that, and I doubt he will contact us because that wouldn’t be him. He will just continue to make baseless attacks because he doesn't have a reason why which tells me he doesn’t care about the issues and that he's just going to continue his attacks because he wants to and he gets a rise out of seeing me deal with it. Now I am getting tired of this conversation as it is going nowhere. Lancer1289 22:09, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right. I was wrong to even suggest such a thing as removing one's self from the equation. It's so silly and naive of me to consider that a vandal doesn't play by "civilized" rules. Am I also wrong to believe that even when no demands are given and no contact is made, the vandal does in fact actually have a reason to besmirch one's name? Of course! SlayerEGO1342 22:25, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously, the attitude was unnecessary. If someone is unwilling to resolve an issue by civilized discussion, then what does that say about them? Nothing positive that's for sure. If he has a problem, then he should be the civilized person and talk it out rather than just continually prove how immature he is. Lancer1289 22:41, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what you think the vandal should do. I started this conversation between the two of us to offer my suggestion, and hopefully convince you to adopt thereof, of what I believe would be best for this community AND your very name. This entire time I've been trying to lift the veil of your stubbornness from your eyes to show you that you aren't dealing with someone who behaves according to YOUR ideals. Please, for the wiki and yourself, stop taking solace in the fact that you're of higher morality and "maturity" than this vandal. You are actually being attacked by someone who doesn't WANT to talk it out. So what if you think people should take the time to glean that you aren't actually vandalizing their wikis? So what if the vandal is seen as a pest and is generally hated? IT'S WORKING. SlayerEGO1342 22:53, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * The only thing I continually see you doing is saying that I should leave and yet there are many reasons I shouldn't. I'm not being stubborn, yet you are saying that it is in the best interests of everyone and yet you can offer no proof of that. You just want me to do what you want without looking at the entire issue. Me leaving won't change the fact that he will still vandalize, and yet as soon as I come back, he will no doubt come back. So what does that accomplish, the answer to that is nothing. The only thing you have accomplished here is prolong a discussion that I wanted over with as I know what I'm dealing with and what I continually see is an attitude from you, and you starting by offing a suggestion, then stitch to trying to basically outright demand that I do what you want me to do. Now I will say this again. I grow tired of this conversation as this i going nowhere as I'm not going anywhere and while I appreciate the suggestion, it isn't something I'm going to consider. Lancer1289 23:09, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * So Lancer, I guess a better way to call this rather than Sitzkrieg or the Cold War in general is MAD (Mutually-Assured Destruction). The vandal and yourself aren't backing down, and you clearly can survive attacks by this blasted user to launch a secondary strike, which you have done on many occasions, yet the guy holds the balance of power a bit here. This is because he still manages to bounce back. Back and forth proxy battle. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 21:17, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And the fact that he keeps using proxies says something about him. Lancer1289 21:25, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, by and large, I agree with what SlayerEGO1342 is saying. And this should say something, as he and I haven't had the most cordial of relationships. But when he's right, he's right. I do disagree about a couple of things, but I think the terrorism analogy is spot on. This vandal is, by and large, acting as a terrorist would. And, much akin to a terrorist, he certainly seems to have some sort of motive. That said, I in no way intend to give in to this motive, as I honestly don't see the vandal stopping. For example, this all started over the Jack Harper thing. Well, guess what? The article now says that TIM's name is indeed (or was indeed) Jack Harper! The vandal won! But does he stop? Nope. Now it's gone beyond rational motive and on to petty hatred.

Now, that having been said, I think the whole "Holiday for Lancer" thing is not the way to go. Rather, I think that, as H-Man Havoc has suggested, Lancer needs to hold firm. If Lancer goes away for a bit, the vandal will keep on vandalizing, and Lancer will keep getting attacked, but will be unable to respond, if following the strategy SlayerEGO suggests. Wikia is aware of the problem, and any solution will likely come from them. We just need to give them time. There is one area where I do adamantly disagree: The assertion that Lancer caused this is ludicrous. The individual in question reacted immaturely to one of Lancer's comments, vandalized the wiki, and was banned. Then and only then did the mass vandalism start. Lancer didn't cause this. The immaturity of the vandal did. Blaming Lancer by suggesting that maybe his actions inflamed the vandal is akin to blaming the victims of terrorism for having provoked the attack with their actions. SpartHawg948 23:07, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * I still firmly believe that Lancer incited this, and continues to do so. Whatever the tipping point may have been for the individual who became the vandal, its crusade to defame Lancer can in no way be fueled solely by that one comment. How long has it been? I think I saw on Mr. Latin's talk page that the vandal has been around for two months. Nobody can hold a grudge from being banned for this long. Rather than being "petty" hatred, I believe it's operating with "personal" hatred; many contributors have been angered by Lancer's undoing of their contributions and seemingly (to them) arbitrary canonization of facts. From my perspective and history on this wiki, though much of my ire has been earned by SpartHawg948, I can very clearly see a motive for the vandal. I'm not trying to blame Lancer for anything, as that's just who he is and how he operates, but I'm suggesting that the vandal is just the extremist of those who feel wronged by Lancer.
 * I think what it comes down to is Lancer's "arrogance". The vandal hates Lancer for being arrogant, and sees Lancer's refusal to change anything or step down as just more arrogance, prompting him to further his campaign. Were Lancer to disappear, the vandal would either cease his vandalism or continue regardless. If the former, and no vandalism continues upon Lancer's return, the problem is solved. If the former, and the vandalism starts right back up when Lancer returns, then you can call it a failed mission, but at least that mission was attempted. If the latter, then Lancer can come back as if nothing happened and my plan can be scrapped. No matter which outcome, there is no negative. Either there's a net-gain of nothing, or a victory for Lancer. SlayerEGO1342 23:31, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yet you keep, almost outright demand, that I leave, despite the fact that it is only what you want. You want me to do what you want and not what i think is best, and the best thing in the opinions of several other people who beyond a doubt know more about these types of things than you do.
 * Second, the fact you are implying that it is "my arrogance", shows how out of touch you are with the issue. This entire thing started because I enforced site policy, and he took issue with that and even though it was resolved the way he wanted it, he still persists in the vandalism. I even outright admitted several times that he was probably right, but yet we couldn't say for certain because of site policy until we had confirmation. Next time, become more familiar with the underlying issue before you make accusations about what you think is the problem. Lancer1289 23:47, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that Randomtime, a member of the Wikia Vandalism and Spam task force (aka a genuine expert on vandalism of wikis) sums it up best:
 * "Consider it this way, if Lancer leaves the wiki because of this, whoever is doing the vandalism has "won" - they know that their tricks have worked, and have caused a major enough upheaval in the wiki for Lancer to step down. On the other hand, no damage has been done to the wiki, because it can be quickly reverted with the click of a button every time."
 * Sounds about right. I think we should go with the expert opinion here. SpartHawg948 23:53, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sticking to what I believe because that's the point of having a well-considered personal opinion, Lancer. It is not what I want; I sincerely DO NOT CARE what happens to you or the wiki - if anything, I think that lends credibility to my idea since I'm not blinded by the "stand up to your bully, friend!" mentality. I want you to implement my tactic because I think it is the best course of action. I argue my points because I actually think I have something going here. Don't talk to me as if I don't know my place.
 * Can it honestly be said that men in leadership positions are 100% of the time in touch with the issues and feelings of their subjects? I may be ignorant as to the specifics of the situation that set the vandal off, but I don't need to know them; I have said repeatedly that that ONE situation was negligible. I humbly request that you respect my views a little bit more, given that I feel absolutely no love for you. In a dramatic sense, I'm the closest thing you have to an "inside man". SlayerEGO1342 00:00, May 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think it's getting a bit heated here. Let's just agree to disagree and whatnot. Things were said (on both sides) that didn't need to be said, but that doesn't mean that we can't just step back and take a few breaths and then go about this like civilized human beings. Different people have different opinions, and that's cool. And nobody here needs to "know their place" or whatnot. We're all just editors. We all have pretty much the same place. This is a heated issue, and as such, tempers can run pretty hot, but right now, the best course of action is to just deescalate. Whatever the ultimate motives of the vandal, having us at each other's throats only suits his purposes. SpartHawg948 00:09, May 6, 2011 (UTC)::
 * For the record, Lancer, when I brought up your "arrogance", the quotation marks were supposed to indicate that it isn't my personal opinion, rather a view of the vandal's. SlayerEGO1342 00:12, May 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * That comment, IMO, was a pretty good gesture. That's one of the items of the discussion I'd been most concerned with, and the clarification certainly helps. Thanks, SlayerEGO. I know you may not be too fond of the admins (one in particular, namely me), but you've been pretty cooperative and understanding and whatnot in this discussion, and that is certainly appreciated. SpartHawg948 00:15, May 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, Lancer, when I brought up your "arrogance", the quotation marks were supposed to indicate that it isn't my personal opinion, rather a view of the vandal's. SlayerEGO1342 00:12, May 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yet the way it was mentioned was a bit suspect. Spart's right in that this infighting is what the vandal is looking to accomplish. This by vandalizing numerous pages under a fake Lancer pseudonym that then causes other wiki members to commit the hasty generalization fallacy and attack the real Lancer just by assuming an association with the impostor's activities due to the very similar names. For more information, you can read my blog on the subject of logical fallacies. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 00:21, May 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I think I said it earlier in here, or on my talk page, but I'm actually trying to help here, regardless of my person feelings. And thank you, Mr. Latin, but I've actually been following this whole thing sporadically (and laughing my a.o.), so I knew the gist of it. Smiley face. SlayerEGO1342 00:26, May 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll say this for my last comment on this subject hopefully. I know Slayer that you were trying to help, and frankly I didn't acknowledge that as I should have. I know everyone is trying to help, but this whole situation has left me a bit short temper red of late, and probably some of my comments have come off as more snappy than I would have liked and I have to apologize for that. As for the arrogance comment, I would appreciate the clarification as I know I'm a big person who hates when someone misinterprets things, and this is what I have clearly done in this instance. I hope we can all move on from this with hopefully no further hard feelings. Lancer1289 00:38, May 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * None at all. SlayerEGO1342 00:41, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I checked the situation once again and I must say, that I didn't ban you as Lancer 1289, but someone with "Ĺ" as the first letter. So you are free of guilt and of ban, because I banned account "Ĺancer1289", not "Lancer1289". I'm sorry for giving wrong information to you. Morpheius (talk) 11:02, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

Squad Weapon Damage Penalties (Take Two)
If you remember, a while back I asked if I could add squad weapon damage penalties to other weapon pages based on Coalesced.ini data. You said no, as it would be interpretation of that data. However, I have just been looking at PC Tweaks (Mass Effect 2) and it mentions in the 2nd table under weapon properties about "DamageHench" being the damage multiplier for squadmates. The "DamageHench" section of the Coalesced files was my intended source for adding squad weapon damage penalties to other weapon pages and this wiki page suggests it can be trusted. Does this change your mind? Tali&#39;s no.1 fan 20:46, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * That = modding, and modding also isn't a valid source. To be honest I don't follow those articles, and honestly anything that you want to interpret from the .ini file would be classified as speculation. After all that is the source we used for the damages for the various weapons came from that and it was removed because it was classified as speculation. My answer on this subject hasn't changed and this would again require devconfirmation to get it in. Lancer1289 20:57, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

RE:False Accusations
Hi there, I'm from the Call of Duty Wiki and noticed the issue here. I've also noticed that many people are flaming and trolling you regarding that unnecessarilly. I recommend that you advise people through some medium (Message at the top of the talk page) that you're not responsible for said attacks. Also, you should have them note that flaming you is against the Wikia Terms of Use, regardless of what you've alledgely done. Anyways, i'm just giving advice here so good luck regarding the cross-wiki trolling. Best regards, --Rambo362 22:51, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll take all the luck I can get right now. I'm still against the message, but if it continues then I might have little choice. Lancer1289 22:54, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * You've brought the issue up with the staff, right? I'm assuming yes because an issue of this size can't be handled locally and you seem smarter than to handle this by yourself. 22:57, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Trust me, the staff is well aware of the problem. Lancer1289 23:10, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Did they say when they can have the problem sorted out by? Rambo362 23:13, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * The few things I did see stated they are doing as much as they can as they honestly can only ban the accounts when they come up. People have been getting the word around, and I've been checking a number of major wikis and there is at least some type of notice there about him. Also people have been good about notifying Wikia about the accounts and global bans are put up. That said, I'm sure they are going more they aren't telling me, but are a few more things that I'd rather not talk about publically and I ask that you please respect that. Lancer1289 23:30, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested to know...
ralok sends his best. He's an admin at the [http://barsoom.wikia.com/wiki/The_Edgar_Rice_Burroughs_universe_wiki,_John_Carter_of_Mars,_Carson_of_Venus,_Tarzan,_and_Pellucidar_series. Barsoom/Edgar Rice Burroughs Wiki], which unfortunately was targeted by the vandal. He left me a message on my talk page there, and says that if you need anyone to back you up, just let him know. SpartHawg948 07:19, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism at pl.fallout
Hello, a hater of yours, User:Lanсeгl289 (his contribs on pl.fallout wiki), has putten this, into all my template pages. I guess you should know that something like this happens, one of the links in this sick vandalism lead me to your user page.

Oh, I just read some previous section of your talk page, and there are some mentions of vandalism, so I guess you know it, but since I already written the message, I'll post it. Anoon6 (talk | forum społeczności | Wikia Polska News) 09:36, May 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * There are so many false accusations that Lancer has to deal with on nearly a daily basis that it's tiresome to address. I get sick of these impostor crimes as well. All I'll say is that this vandal will stop at nothing until wiki's very integrity is compromised as a whole. The evidence clearly supports Lancer's case in the matter, and almost everyone who's posted about the vandalism here commit the fallacy of hasty generalization because they don't bother to do just 30 seconds of research that confirms the real Lancer's claim. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 11:56, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hey idiot What is your problem? Stop with the vandalism _|_