UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Administration Services

Sysop List | Guidelines | Policies (Discussion) | Promotions (Bureaucrat) | Re-Evaluations

Deletions (Scheduling) | Speedy Deletions | Undeletions | Vandal Banning (Bots) | Vandal Data (De-Escalations)

Protections (Scheduling) | Move Requests | Arbitration | Misconduct | Demotions | Discussion | Sysop Archives

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

Guidelines for Vandalism Reporting

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

  • A link to the pages in question.
Preferably bolded for visibility. If the Vandalism is occurring over a sufficiently large number of pages, instead include a time range of the vandalism attempt, or alternatively, a link to the first vandalised page. This allows us to quickly find the damage so we can quickly assess the situation.
  • The user name of the Vandal.
This allows us to more easily identify the culprit, and to check details.
  • A signed datestamp.
For accountability purposes, we ask that you record in your request your user name and the time you lodged the report.
  • Please report at the top.
There's conflict with where to post and a lot of the reports are missed. If it's placed at the top of the page it's probably going to be seen and dealt with.

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

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

Before Submitting a Report

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

Vandalism Report Space

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



comment manipulation/impersonation. A ZOMBIE ANT 00:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough to bring it here, but I’ll follow Ross’ lead on this one, since I’m increasingly against pursuing cases just for the sake of doing so if the “victim” doesn’t really care at all. Ross seemed to be fine with the edit before, so I’m inclined to let it slide, but if Ross wants to push for a vandalism escalation, I’ll go along with it. Aichon 01:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Your call to make. Imo vandalism is vandalism. And besides, by this point it takes just as little effort to warn him than discuss leniency. A ZOMBIE ANT 10:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Impersonation, but as petty as it gets. If Ross complains about it, I will change my mind, but as for now I agree with Aichon that this can slide. -- Spiderzed 13:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, bless you all! As if I care what Mistergame thinks about me. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 23:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Seconding Aichon, and Ross's non-complaint. Filing this as meh. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 12:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Yall are pusspuss. A ZOMBIE ANT 01:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)



Replaced content on both Bob's userpage and talk page. I assume it's the same guy as below, so chose the "Vandal Alt" reason when blocking since it was only two edits. Wasn't sure whether I should have perma'd? stelar (talk) 10:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Yep, vandal alt/perma was the right call. This guy seems to know only one pun on my name, which is surprising and also makes him easy to spot. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 12:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I noticed he wasn't fully blocked, so I went ahead and blocked all of his abilities (make sure you check off pretty much all of the available boxes when blocking someone). I also ran checkuser and then blocked all of the IPs tied to his account, since there's always the possibility that the last IP he used (which gets auto-blocked when you block the username) wasn't the only one he used. Aichon 14:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks for the tips. Will remember that for next time :) stelar (talk) 03:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)



More of the same with editing in massive amounts of text to commonly-included files. I've already perma'd. By the way, anyone can undo this stuff trivially. Just click the rollback or undo links in page history and whatnot. You only run into issues if you try to view the page with his changes, but there's no need to do so to undo all of his work. Aichon 18:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I've semi protected my sig. Worth considering for others?--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 20:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes. --  AHLGTG 23:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Anyone mind if I or someone else protects (semi or otherwise) more high-profile pages no one is likely to edit? (e.g., Category:Guides). Already did Template:BuildingDangerLevels. --  AHLGTG 23:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Probably easier to have them protected so help avoid having to revert as much. I wonder who pissed this guy off though lol. stelar (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
If it's the same guy as below (using a proxy), then Axe Hack back in the day and myself more recently. Although the sysop team as a whole always ends up the target. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 01:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I endorse protections. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 01:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Banned User:Sirbreaksalot. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 12:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

This reminds me of a vandal spree almost 10 years ago, where someone did this at (relative to now) the peak of the wiki's use. It only happened once and it throttled the wiki so hard it was a nightmare just to load recent changes just to undo the edit. A ZOMBIE ANT 14:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Figured I'd go a trip down memory lane and try and find it. I found these which I don't think were actually the ones I remember but may have had the same effect. Annoying. A ZOMBIE ANT 14:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I think this sort of stuff was more of a problem when lots of people were trying to view those pages, since they were each putting the wiki under incredible strain. These days there are so many inclusions and so few visitors that the changes rarely have a chance to propagate very far. It generally takes under a minute to rollback dozens of these sorts of petty vandal changes. Aichon 15:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Gnome got User:THE BIG BOSS POOPY, and did some more protections. Thanks! Bob Moncrief EBDW! 14:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I banned another account that was linked back via IP and whatnot to the one AHLG got. It hadn't been used yet, but it was clearly created with a similar motivation. Aichon 03:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


Again, only two edits, different IP (maybe proxies being used?) but these two were severely wiki-breaking, so I perma'd. If you guys vote to un-perma and warn, we can do so, and feel free to misconbitrate me. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 05:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The 3EV rule doesn't apply here. The account was CLEARLY created for the sole purpose of vandalizing (they knew exactly which pages to target and pasted in exactly the right amount of text to break the wiki), and we have a longstanding history of immediately permabanning those accounts as vandal alts. Moreover, A/M is there to deal with abuses of sysop power. If someone wants to argue that you abused your power by upholding the spirit of the guidelines (which are there to ensure the wiki remains operational for everyone), they're welcome to try, but it'd be such a monumental waste of everyone's time that I'd be half-tempted to take them to A/VB for spamming admin pages. Aichon 21:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Even when it was legitimate misconduct, you all didn't rule properly on an inappropriate perma case before, so I doubt anyone will start now. A ZOMBIE ANT 06:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
If the sole purpose of the account is to vandalize for its own sake, definitely permaban them. (That would include User:I AM A SPAMMER below.) I don't see policy being that relevant, practically speaking. --  AHLGTG 23:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm convinced, and have blocked the below account as well. My suspicion based on the latest attack is that the KERMIT vandal (assuming this is he) is also the AXE HACK IS AN AXE WHO HACKS one from a while ago — the caps lock, the targeting of a specific user, and return of anti-Axe-ation with the latest edits. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 23:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


Only two edits, so no 3eV, and IP doesn't match KERMIT & alts from a few weeks ago. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 23:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Perma'd, see next item. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 23:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)



I reverted this user's first edit, which doesn't follow the pattern of the Kermit vandal, and they have different IP regions (although proxying is possible). Only one edit so far. Warning? Bob Moncrief EBDW! 05:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Warning. Until they make three edits, 3EV doesn't apply, so we'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Aichon 09:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Warning seems to be right. If it's an honest newb mistake, we will hear back, and if it is a throwaway it won't return anyway. -- Spiderzed 12:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Since he did it again, I went ahead and warned. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 11:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I added a slightly more blunt warning, given that he's driving at full speed into 3EV territory, and I'd like to give him every opportunity to avoid it. Aichon 14:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

"Kermit" & Alts

Just wanted to post that I've been perma'ing various accounts in the last few days that are clearly the same vandal: User:KERMIT THE FROG, User:I AM KERMIT THE DICTATOR, User:KERMIT THE EMPEROR, and User:REMOVE MONGRIEF. First as 3eV, now as vandal alts. No idea why this dude thinks I'm a problem; I assume it's because I banned his original vandal alt. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 20:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Idiot should be using misconduct. (I always ban IP's separately.) --Rosslessness ; the shambling custodian of UD's past... 20:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Was User:Remove Moncrief already taken? Anyway, obvious 3ev is obvious. -- Spiderzed 08:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Continuing to block this guy. Based on IP User:BITCH is probably the same person. 3eV on its own anyway. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 20:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


We've got a live spambit. --Cheese 11:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks like Stelar got it. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 11:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)



oh, girl i wanna be with you -- Adward  15:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Is there a specific edit you're self-reporting on? You submitted this report not having made an edit in ~3 years. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 16:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Soft warning - shitting up overused administration pages, for shame -- boxy 10:06, 17 March 2017 (BST)

I was leaning towards a permaban, but I guess I'll settle for a soft warning, so long as I don't have to be the one to deliver it. Aichon 15:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Turgid Warning --Rosslessness ; the shambling custodian of UD's past... 19:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Since there's been no reply, I guess a soft, velvety warning is in order. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 20:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Enough of that soft warning bullshit, time to bring down the iron fist on all those common users who dare to act up against the wiki nobility. Death by Snu-Snu -- Spiderzed 20:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I like how all of you are too lazy to post the soft warning on his page. How is he supposed to know? That's so unfair. Tongue :P --  AHLGTG 00:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, I stipulated that I wasn't to be the one to do it. At least I was up front about it. ;) Aichon 06:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
That's the beauty of it... if he comes back here to do it again, anytime soon, he'll see it. Checkmate, Atheists! -- boxy 13:22, 23 March 2017 (BST)
i'm so efficient -- Adward  17:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


Vandal Banning Archive

2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Q3 Q4
2013 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Years 2014 2015 2016
Personal tools