Administration Services

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

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

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.

March 2009

User:Wolldog

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Vandalism of the Extinction page. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 18:01, 29 March 2009 (BST)

Don't forget those diff links Ross ;). Anyway, he's Warned. Linkthewindow Talk 21:54, 29 March 2009 (BST)

Effort! He's only made 6 edits. Can't be that hard! At least i reverted it for you. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 22:00, 29 March 2009 (BST)

User:Dark Blue Helmet

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warning

Altering another user's signed post. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Warned -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:52 26 March 2009 (BST)

User:WOOT

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	24hr ban

Shitting up admin pages. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 22:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Niggertits.--/~Rakuen~\^Talk

I Still Love Grim 01:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The big arse image was just the icing on the cake. 24hr bans for everyone -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:01 25 March 2009 (BST)

User:Striker19286

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Permaban

more to add to the stuff below. (i dont think he likes me. :P )--Bullgod 01:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Would this qualify as well for edits to the same page? Adding his level 1 char with <100 xp to the page? --Johnny Bass 04:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism - and I'm inclined towards a permban, given his only contribution to the wiki that hasn't been vandalism is this -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:50 24 March 2009 (BST)

As am I Boxy. I've banned him for 24 hours, per his next vandal escalation. Unless anyone says otherwise, I'm fine with his next act of vandalism warranting a permaban. Linkthewindow Talk 10:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Permabanned. -- C h e e s e 10:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Scorproyale

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None required

Impersonation. User has been previously warned about such behaviour and the correct method of signing. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 22:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The guy he "impersonated" doesn't exist. It's probably one of his characters. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 23:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, he created the page himself. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Not vandalism, newbishness -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:45 24 March 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism - As has been pointed out, a newbie mistake. Please speak to the user before bringing any more cases like this to VB, Iscariot. You've already been asked numerous times to do so. -- C h e e s e 10:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Definitely looks like a newb mistake.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 20:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Striker19286

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Pursuant to the below case, this edit. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Second Warning -- Linkthewindow Talk 05:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Striker19286

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

This and this. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Warned Linkthewindow Talk 01:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Crispyjakal

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Wiped RRF page and replaced with inane text -- Rooster Dragon 19:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Warned. Linkthewindow Talk 20:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Keifer Jones

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Blanking a group's page without permission. Owner thinks it's vandalism. Linkthewindow Talk 23:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser doesn't show it as an alt of anyone. Linkthewindow Talk 23:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Persists. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 17:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Warned -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:41 17 March 2009 (BST)

User:Zink

Verdict	{{{1}}}
Action taken	{{{2}}}

Editing another user's user page. This guy has prior escalations on various other accounts for edits like this so it's not like he doesn't know. See this post for more information. -- C h e e s e 23:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm confused Cheese. What does he mean by this on your talk page? Linkthewindow Talk 23:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That was a different user. I saw him also editing pages belonging to Sessa so I checked up on that. The one I link to is for a completely different user. -- C h e e s e 12:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright then, guess it's vandalism. I'll wait for a second opinion on this one since it's a month ban + permaban vote. Linkthewindow Talk 05:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to say not vandalism, given that his comment is directly below one by Mazu (unreported as vandalism). Perhaps the comments should be moved to the talk page to avoid further confusion as to who should be editing that page -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:47 17 March 2009 (BST)

User:Lady Clitoria

Verdict	Withdrawn
Action taken	None needed

Messing with them pages she doesn't own. She caused quite a stink earlier this morning, but she deleted my humble requests and did the above actions instead. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 06:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Scrap that, I've sorted it out with the user. No need to scare her away just yet. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Not Vandalism - Seems like a genuine misunderstanding. That said, if Neurotoxic comes over saying this wasn't requested, this ruling will change in a heartbeat. Linkthewindow Talk 07:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It Was Approved Because i did not know of zolams wiki name i thought that someone outside of the group had been changing the wiki for vandalism purposes. however, zolam contacted me via forums and she's in the clear. it was a mistake on my part Nuerotoxic2213 14:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Good, thanks. Linkthewindow Talk 20:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Imthatguy

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warning

oh no.... D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 23:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Chill i was just messing around with haliman we're actually pretty tight --Imthatguy 02:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well don't!

Warned - You can see the cases below. Don't play practical jokes on each other, no one can tell if they're malicious or not, and unless the user specifically gives you permission to wipe his talk page, it will be ruled vandalism (at least until they do) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:53 17 March 2009 (BST)

User:Met fan

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	none

This piece of art. More at here. _■^■ 04:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism and ~~warnings for both~~ . On the house. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This is his 3rd VB. It's a ban. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Further investigation had determined this was not a vandal edit.--– Nubis ^NWO 13:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Woah woah woah. Wait. This wasn't a flame war. We did it because it was funny, and you can even ask him. --Haliman - Talk 20:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion moved to talk page

User:Haliman111

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warning

har har. More at here. _■^■ 04:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism. This is a silly flame war. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Alex1guy

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Blanking a user page --_Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 04:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Also making edits to other user's comments on a suggestions page. --_Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 04:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Warned Linkthewindow Talk 06:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Abcvirus

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Permanent Block

repeated impersonation, despite Boxy's reverting and several informative (non admin) warnings on his talk page D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

two more. Argh, it may not be bad enough to get the bandal award, but its soooo annoying to read! D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty clear vandalism (it's likely he's seen all the unofficial warnings on his talk page,) but I'm waiting for clarification by what Boxy meant by "This is your last warning..." (here) - is that now a permaban, or a simple 24 hour ban? Linkthewindow Talk 07:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

My last warning meant that if he didn't start actually contributing in a worthwhile manner, and continued his vandalism, he would be permbanned on the next offense. And I can't seen any helpful contributions being made since my warning. He's just going around Mall danger report pages after they've been sacked by the Mall Tour, and posting "go survivor, ra ra" messages. Unless any other sysops object in the next few hours, I'll permban him (if no one gets in first) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:19 6 March 2009 (BST)

Perma'd, as in agreement with Boxy's view.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 11:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Scar

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Permanently Banned

Spamming. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 16:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Spamming?! After I finish you, you will be spam! --Scar 17:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism and 3 7 counts of Threatening. Banned. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 18:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

That's streching quite a bit of what "threat" means. The only one that could in any sensible way be construed as a threat is the one directed at me, the rest are pretty obviously RP (what with the present tense, brackets and all). --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 19:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a known spammer. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 19:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I know. That makes the "7 counts of Threatening" (with a Capital Tee) all the more ridiculous and pointless. Don't try to twist his words into threats and ban him because of them, just ban him as the ban evading sockpuppet he is. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 21:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Iscariot

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Banned for 29.5 hours

Needlessly insulting people on a personal level based on their religious beliefs, also mentions molestation of minors. More evidence of Iscariot purposely insulting believers in a specific religion..--Super Nweb 05:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, here it is. Vandalism by constant harassment of users. User has a history of being hostile, insulting, and creating nuisance cases here and on A/A. Requesting a ban for a user that has shown a majority of his edits are vandalism rather than actual good faith contributions. --– Nubis ^NWO 07:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to A/VB. Next time try and use specific edit difference when you bring a case. Now, assuming there's no bias in the ruling on the case, this is open and shut Not Vandalism. We have no civility policy on this wiki, also as much as you'd like to suppress the truth, everything I'm saying is true. Of course, Christians have been trying to silence those who have been disagreeing with them for the past two millennia, so this is hardly a surprise. Perhaps you should follow the advice of someone who understands the religion better than you. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflicted - There's the bias, notice the ruling on this case, yet with no ruling on the one below that's still open. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 07:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrong again. Thanks for playing. --– Nubis ^NWO 07:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Since when do you need a reason to insult stupid suggestions? Not vandalism -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 07:49 5 March 2009 (BST)

Ah, yes, boxy takes the simple route and ignores the big picture. You never surprise us. You see, there is a pattern here. When people accuse Iscariot of basic vandalism most often it is NOT vandalism. When people accuse him of harassment it is ALWAYS harassment. It's that black and white. Is he blanking pages? No. Is he threatening and attacking users? Yes. Nice to see that you will let him stay around so that we can deal with more of his petty cases and general bad attitude. --– Nubis ^NWO 14:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Read everything you just said, and think about it for a while... it may help if you think of it in relation to your goon mates when they last invaded the wiki, and how they interacted with Teslita. Then come back and say it again with a straight face. Basically, if you put up a stupid, stupid suggestion, that includes religious content being used as flavour, suck it up when someone decides to ridicule those beliefs -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:12 6 March 2009 (BST)

That Tselita thing isn't really valid Boxy. Tselita had a history of harassing users who voted against her suggestions or pointed out something incorrect in the numbers for them. --Karek^maps?! 17:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, the Tselita "issue" was really confined to Suggestions and follow ups on the talk pages that she bitched and moaned on. The goons did not constantly make petty A/VB, A/M cases, they did not dick around in A/A, and lo and behold after 2 months they stopped. I think we see the glaring difference here.--– Nubis ^NWO 14:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

He has been warned for dicking around on admin pages already, that's got nothing to do with this case, Nubis. This is simply about the edits in suggestions, and if you weren't on a witch hunt, you'd be ruling not vandalism too. There have been plenty of examples of much worse suggestions harassment, you know it, Conndraka knows it. You can't go around gagging people from giving their opinion on stupid suggestions just because they annoy you on a totally different part of the wiki (admin pages) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:39 8 March 2009 (BST)

The report was about the insulting nature of his comments. It wasn't about him signing someone's name to his post, it wasn't about him blanking a page. It is a user complaining about being harassed by another user that has shown a history of harassing users. How in the world can you overlook that? This isn't the first report about this. This isn't a new problem with this user.

If I was on this alleged witch hunt I am pretty sure I would have voted Vandalism on every report against him. But no, maybe if you throw out enough accusations one will stick. Should I start calling you St. boxy? --– Nubis ^NWO 12:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ouch, calling me a Saint. That hurts. He'll get banned soon enough, if he continues on his current path, no need to set ridiculous precedents like this to get him. Basically, some n00b makes suggestions on talk suggestions, and then takes them straight to voting despite the poor response they receive there, and he thinks he's being harassed because someone calls his shit shit. HTFU, or GTFO Suggestions -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:43 8 March 2009 (BST)

Silly me. I expected you to get the connection with the "St." part. What was I thinking? What are you thinking by making such an empty threat as He'll get banned soon enough, if he continues on his current path? The path he has been on for well over the last 8 months at least? Oh no, in 2010 you might consider finally maybe doing something about him! I'll mark my calendar.

You are like those worthless parents that say "I'm going to count to 3" and then do the 1 ...2... 2 and a half... crap. Do you not see what he has done? He gets away with being an asshole constantly to other users, any case brought up against him is either a drama bomb because he is guilty of vandalism (in which case he screams BIAS! and that the sysops are going against the will of the community), or it is a drama bomb because what he is doing is vandalism but most of you don't have the balls to do something about it. Look at this case. Why the fuck has it not been "decided"? There are other cases posted after this one that are decided. It doesn't make sense.--– Nubis ^NWO 23:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It hasn't been decided yet because it is a tied decision. Yet again you don't make any case against the actual edits sited here, only more "but he's an arsehole" rhetoric. He's an arsehole, no question, but that's not the same as being a vandal. Plenty of others have reveled in being arseholes on the suggestions pages, so until he does something that is vandalism in that context, he should be given the same freedom there as anyone else (unless someone arbies his arse). Your parent metaphor is a bit off too... I'm not counting anything, I don't want to ban him, and have never threatened to do so. A/VB is here to try to modify behaviour before it gets to the banning stage, and if you step back a bit, it is actually working, even in this case -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:03 10 March 2009 (BST)

Umm... Boxy, it's two votes Vandalism, to three votes Not Vandalism. Unless I'm missing something here. Linkthewindow Talk 11:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's the other way now because reading through this discussion Nubis actually does have a good point with this:

Nubis said:

The report was about the insulting nature of his comments. It wasn't about him signing someone's name to his post, it wasn't about him blanking a page. It is a user complaining about being harassed by another user that has shown a history of harassing users. How in the world can you overlook that? This isn't the first report about this. This isn't a new problem with this user.

And as such I have to change my comment. The case is about his harassing users in general and the admin edits and arbitration actions show a long and clear history of this behavior. Vandalism --Karek^maps?! 22:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism as Nubis. I would have ruled sooner but for some reason Vandal Banning doesnt show up on my watchlist. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 18:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a new archive, you didn't add it yet. Dork. :P -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 18:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The hell? There is no civility policy on this wiki. That's been shown in several cases across different parts of the Administration. How you can rule Vandalism here beggars belief.-- Adward 20:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

There is on suggestions which is why his vote is struck but it's ~~not vandalism~~. Honestly though if he keeps up harassing users that's not a civility issue that is one of vandalism and users have been escalated for as much in the past.--Karek^maps?! 21:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I ruled vandalism because we now have the Host TOS in play, and IMHO this violates restriction 1. And although the Wiki does not have a civility policy, TOS supersedes Wiki policy. The sysops will be working on exactly how things are going to have to be interpreted initially and then we'll go to the community from there once we have an impact evaluation and discussion. Yes ladies and gentlemen, the Red tape just got even better. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 22:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Still even if he isn't blanking pages it isn't helping, and mostly harming the wiki to make needless insults on people's character and religion. This should be a punishable offense.--Super Nweb 22:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a ToS violation here. His idiotic opinion isn't particularly at the point where I'd call it racist just characteristically uninformed and biased. --Karek^maps?! 22:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

So it would be fine if I called you one of the "delusional fuckwits" who doesn't agree with me. that is completely called for and relevant to a civil discussion on using a piece of wood to hit a zombie? Yeah I don't see the logic there. His statements are irrelevant personal attacks on users.--Super Nweb 23:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that using the ToS page I just created as a backing reason for any ruling is just...dumb. We still have to set it up, find out it's interpretations and how they'd relate to us specifically with our policies and such, and everything else that's required with something like this.

Also, Not Vandalism as I've seen worse things being said. Also, lack of a civility policy FTW. Can someone point out to me how his user page insults those of a particular faith? The only thing I see is a lovely Dune quote (Ya Hya Chouhada! Muad'Dib! Muad'Dib! Muad'Dib!) and a quote I have only heard from the Legacy of Kain series.

All this is not to say that he will forever be excused from punishment should I decide that his treatment of other users goes too far. Iscariot, please tone it down some.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 01:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 01:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not his userpage, it's the comments on the suggestion pages I linked to in the post.--Super Nweb 06:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Who hacked Karek's account? He would never say something as asinine as this: Honestly though if he keeps up harassing users . Keeps up? Like this is the first time or he has shown any behavior other than harassment? Do I need to link the lovely rant you (Karek) typed up responding just to Iscariot's sysop nomination?

And SA, you didn't even know what the case was referring to (thinking it was his user page) not to mention that lovely "should I decide that his treatment of other users goes too far." How many times do we have to show that he has a long habit of being an asshole with no positive contributions?

FFS, people, when you have a stuck up, hostile, mean spirited, and petty tumor you cut it off. It's not going to get better on its' own. --– Nubis ^NWO 15:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, shouldn't his second warning have not been counted towards this escalation as he incurred over 250 edits and a month passed since his 24 hour ban? --Johnny Bass 17:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

He's also at his 48 hr ban, not 1 week. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 17:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

48 hr ban, anyone? --Pestolence^(talk) 20:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Should only be a second warning as he would only have 1 outstanding warning due to deescalation. Next escalation would be a 48 hour ban after that. At least that's what I read here --Johnny Bass 20:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes and No... It should be a 48 hour ban...Clock on 250 edits starts over if you get hit with another Vandalism (As I understand it) so the 9 January warning wouldn't have cycled until 250 constructive edits after the 30 Jan 24 hour ban. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 21:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

From his 24 hour ban until now he's had over a month and 250 edits. The escalation of the 24 hour ban should stay, but the second warning should be cycled out because of the time frame and edit quantity. To promote users to reform and become good contributors to this Wiki, a single vandal escalation can be struck out for every 250 good-faith edits the warned user makes, provided that one month has passed since the user's last infraction, with another month for every subsequent striking after the first in the series, restarting in the event of a vandal escalation. If a user has more than two vandal escalations, the first escalation struck shall be the second warning, followed by the bans in descending order of severity (If any), and finishing in the first warning. Last incident was January 30th, this case was filed on March 5th. The punishment should only be a second warning. If he gets another escalation after this, it should be the 48 hour ban, then week, etc. --Johnny Bass 21:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Jarethshadow

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Editing a userpage without permission from the owner. Page clearly warns against this at the top and provides the link to authorised users. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Warned--– Nubis ^NWO 07:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Rick Astley

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Permanently Banned

Go right ahead and demonstrate bias again. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

DA page too Linkthewindow Talk 00:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You've just been Rickroll'd! =) Rick Astley 00:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

There's this page as well - not as clear cut as the above, but it can hardly be called good faith. Linkthewindow Talk 00:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

sup --Cyberbob 00:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Clearly a pure vandalism account, so b&. --Zs L 00:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Athur birling

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Looks like impersonation. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 12:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Admission of guilt. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 13:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Warned -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:38 2 March 2009 (BST)

User:Abcvirus

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

This and other repeated vandalism to Mall Tour pages. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

So far we've had, repeated vandalism to every Mall Tour page, two suburb pages and impersonation of an admin. I want an IP check on this, I suspect I already know the culprit. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 03:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I truely sorry, I am truely sorry about all the things I done in the webpages, I hope you can forgive me, and I will never do this again. I promise with my good-side of my whole heart.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abcvirus (talk • contribs) 03:46, March 1, 2009.

Warned - and very close to an instant perm-ban, but the edits to the suburb page can be seen as trying to be constructive, perhaps. If the vandalism continues, it will be upgraded. Doesn't show up as an IP match for anyone here lately -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:49 1 March 2009 (BST)

A warning? Are you serious Boxy? Those edits in Shackleville were in no way constructive, nor were they in any way an improvement to the wiki. I don't think we should give him a perma-ban now that you've already pulled this shit, but Boxy, the fact that it happens to be something Iscariot is heavily involved with makes me wonder that for once, his cries of bias may be true.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 14:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No, wait, strike that, he added an and into a place where it was needed. How could I EVER doubt that that was constructive?--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 14:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between someone with a known problem and someone without one. Permabaning is a last resort and should only be used on a three edit in the most extreme cases where it is blatantly obvious that they will never attempt to contribute. If he keeps it up he gets permabanned, right now he's essentially a new user that broke some rules and Iscariot is gonna whine about and probably threaten instead of behaving like a grown up. Don't indulge him, Vandal Banning isn't here to ban users, it's here to let them know when they start crossing the line and provide them with the chance to alter their behavior. --Karek^maps?! 18:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, come on now, Karek. You have to realize that in order to show how not biased they are against Iscariot they have to go to the other extreme and support Iscariot. It doesn't matter that banning was never meant as a punishment of a bad user, but as a last ditch effort to stop vandalism. You are either with Iscariot or against him in this world. --– Nubis ^NWO 15:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Before another round of complaints roll in, I noticed that he's started submitting danger reports without signing them (like this). So it looks like he's impersonating other users. However, considering he didn't sign his comment on this topic either, I'm inclined to think he does not know how. So I posted a WelcomeNewbie to his talk page, along with an offer to answer questions. I think he's trying to help, but he's on a dangerous course if he does not start to learn. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 04:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The danger reports thing is the single most problematic part of that template. Has been for years which is why I started working on a auto-signer in ProjDev. It's not much to go by for making an impersonation case really.--Karek^maps?! 06:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

He is continuing to do so: [1] [2] [3] [4]. Now, these comments might be trying to be helpful, but they're really not. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 03:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

User:Sam 103

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warning

For this edit. --Pestolence^(talk) 17:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Warned. -- C h e e s e 18:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Superiority

Verdict	Alt account of banned vandal
Action taken	Permban

Admission of being an alt of a perma banned user. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Permbanned alt of Izumi -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:28 17 February 2009 (BST)

User:Iscariot

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None Required

This edit. His suggestion was already past two weeks of voting, it should've gone to the ~~Rejected~~ Undecided bin. The reason for the removal makes it look like a bad faith attempt to game the system (ie. withdraw it to make it unusable as a dupe). --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 10:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Not vandalism, although it could be if it was repeated -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:32 16 February 2009 (BST)

User:Steyr

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Replacing a user page and a [5] with 'different' content. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Warned -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:53 16 February 2009 (BST)

User:Iscariot

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None Required

Removed his entire nomination for sysops section and labeled it as a minor edit. While it was his own nomination I do believe that Iscariot should have refused the normal way and I am also pretty sure that unaccepted nominations are archived instead of just deleted.--Thadeous Oakley 16:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ignore this, Iscariot archived it himself. Though he could have posted a reply or make it clear in the remove edit summary :/.--Thadeous Oakley 16:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

UDWiki:Administration/Promotions/Iscariot_(2). --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 16:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Not Vandalism. Everyone please do not nominate Iscariot, he has stated the people he would consider accepting a nomination from. Until he states otherwise, just don't do it. It really just shits up the admin pages as it's pretty obvious he won't accept it, and coming from me that's saying something. Don't do it.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 16:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Which is funny cause that means he does in fact qualify for rule 4 but is just trying to get an actual chance at duping the people that haven't seem his garbage.--Karek^maps?! 17:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't help but wonder if someone is going to use the argument "but look at all the times he was nominated for sysop!" as a reason he should get it. It's rather devious.--– Nubis ^NWO 19:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

PS Iscariot was on VB for a case and the MOD CONSPIRACY failed to get him his next escalation (which would be a week ban)! What is the world coming to? --– Nubis ^NWO 19:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Eternal Chimera

Verdict	Sockpuppet
Action taken	Permaban

Permbanned alt of the ones below -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:12 13 February 2009 (BST)

User:Serenas

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Permaban

Confirmed alt of the guy below. -- C h e e s e 23:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Who happens to be Izumi. -- C h e e s e 23:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No reason to revert the edit unless it's vandalism, it just gives more of a reason to create another account. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 23:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You know, if we just ignore whatever new sock Izumi has (as long as it isn't doing anything bad), we won't have to deal with this stuff any more. Considering the ban that started all of this mess was mostly because Grim refused to see anything as anything else from straight vandalism or not. If he hadn't been such a hard-line prig, we probably wouldn't have had 63 alts of hers to deal with.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 00:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

"As long as it isn't doing anything bad". What, such as not making vandal alts like those below. Izumi has always been a "real" vandal, editing [[group pages, other people's posts, even after plenty of warnings, and then comes back after the ban and does the exact same thing again, and when she gets done for it, as she had to, she starts spamming the forum with dozens of alt accounts. She's not someone who we want back, given that the first bloody thing she did was vandalise the wiki again with throw away accounts. Don't encourage her, FFS -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:12 13 February 2009 (BST)

User:King Leonidas of SPARTA!

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Permaban

Given the name and his edit (a reversion to a vandalised version of Zombie), without doubt an alt of User:King Leonidas, who is perma'ed for vandalism. -- Rooster Dragon 23:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Permaban. --– Nubis ^NWO 23:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Zink

This is purely to provide information that this user is an alt of User:Novascotia/User:Zinker. This account was created round about the time of this case but it had not made any edits within the checkuser timeframe, so it could not be confirmed to be the same guy. Now that it has edited in the very recent past, I've compared the IP address to ones used by Nova and his socks and found them to be very, very similar making it very likely that this is the same person who controlled those other accounts.

Since the month ban has long since passed, its not ban evasion anymore. However, any further edits of a vandalistic (that sounds like a rather cool word) nature will receive a month ban and perma-vote since no warnings have been struck from the account. As I mentioned, this is not a vandal report, but rather providing information that may be needed later. -- C h e e s e 00:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, according to Boxy, the account hadn't even been created then. Huh. Could he be wrong? :P --BFFs +SA+N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N 4 EVA!!! 00:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

History purge. =) The account was created on or before 13 August 2007 according to his talk page. -- C h e e s e 00:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

(cur) (last) 22:33, 13 August 2007 The Surgeon General (Talk | contribs | SupaBlock) (New page: ==Welcome to our Wiki== {{Welcomenewbie}} Also, I see that you have created a new group, which I've taken the liberty of cleaning up a bit. If you would like any he...) -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 00:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That's the one. =) -- C h e e s e 00:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

And just in case you fancy some more yummy proof, the link to his Kevan zombie brain eating thingy is to a character called: z1nk666. Which funnily enough is the name of one of the accounts that was blocked in the aforementioned case.

Aren't I just awesome. =) -- C h e e s e 00:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That's how I found out it was the same guy when I first started commenting to him. Never changes, makes it real easy to find his alts. But now I'm wondering about that Sessa account. Zink is known to use a myriad of socks. :/ --BFFs +SA+N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N 4 EVA!!! 00:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Just looking at his contributions, its the same guy. Compare the following: User:Sessa/sig to User:Zink/sig and Dementia to Zombieslayerguild (the latter is the Zink socks old group). -- C h e e s e 00:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that he's blaming his original ban on Sessa. God, this is so confusing... :/ --BFFs +SA+N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N 4 EVA!!! 00:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Nah. It's not too bad. =p The last one was confusing because of the bizarre interwoveness of the alts and how they all talked to each other. -- C h e e s e 00:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Spartan King Leonidas

Verdict	Sock Puppet
Action taken	Permaban

Thank God for copy paste. Permbanned as a vandal alt. -- C h e e s e 00:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC) Fixed -- C h e e s e 00:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

User:King Leonidas

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Permaban

Hugely humorous vandalism. If you lived in 2006. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 23:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

ha! Liberty 23:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd ban him but I'm kind of on the drunk side right now so I don't think it would be ethical for me to do so. =p Vandaslism on any case. -- C h e e s e 00:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC) Fixed -- C h e e s e 00:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

He technically need 3 edits, none contributive to be perma'd like that, so I'm going to wait one hour. If he does anything else, it's the hammer,if not, standard warning and we move on. Cool?--BFFs +SA+N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N 4 EVA!!! 00:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Got him. =) -- C h e e s e 00:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC) Fixed -- C h e e s e 00:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Persian cowards.Spartan King Leonidas 00:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Delta Nitroxs LP

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Warned for below vandalism through sockpuppet. -- C h e e s e 17:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Newwarship

Verdict	Sock Puppet
Action taken	Permaban

Warned for this edit to a group page. -- C h e e s e 17:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I really should run checkuser before I warn these one edit guys. Permabanned as a sock of User:Delta Nitroxs LP and main has been warned. -- C h e e s e 17:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Iscariot

Verdict	Disruptive behaviour
Action taken	Soft warned

For continuing to troll admin pages with petty cases and his continued refusal to follow the process for submitting a report. -- C h e e s e 17:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Others have ignored process before, and haven't had anything happen to them. And if he gets V/B'd for petty cases, I expect Bob to get an escalation as well. That said, its not like we're too overloaded with work to simply just say NV and be done with it on the petty cases that have no basis. Anyway, Iscariot, please don't put something like that up. If you looked through previous promotion bid archives, you'd see a few other Sysops have put themselves up for a review on it. Precedent doesn't always have to be followed, but sometimes its a good idea.--BFFs +SA+N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N 4 EVA!!! 22:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure Bob has been warned for this before himself. Him and J3D had a thing going here once, maybe you heard of it. He's filing a case he knows has no merit, thus why this got reported. Not to mention he's been talked to about such petty cases in the past too. --Karek^maps?! 08:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I read through it all. I kinda face palmed. I figured this would serve as a last chance to both of them about this, without screwing other sysops over by giving an actual ruling.--BFFs +SA+N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N 4 EVA!!! 13:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, soft warn him then -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:23 8 February 2009 (BST)

I'm not going to soft warn him because I didn't soft warn Cyberbob for submitting a petty case either. It was more of a last chance (and being that it was said from my point of view, it would mean it was a last chance for both Iscariot and Cyberbob in my eyes. Someone else can feel the deserve another chance here or there, but I'm not giving any more slack with these petty cases), as I said. I wasn't ruling because I had just let Bob go unpunished for a petty case, and it'd look like I was showing bias. I am not. I simply stated my opinion, and showed what my further actions will be with cases like this from these users, while leaving other sysops to weigh in how they want, using my opinion how they want to.--BFFs +SA+N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N 4 EVA!!! 06:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

So... he's been soft warned... without being soft warned. Well done -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:58 11 February 2009 (BST)

My point was that in any jump of the imagination he has been given far more chances than he should have, he's been soft warned for this in the past, he's been actually escalated for this type of thing in the past, he knows exactly why he shouldn't be doing it and what will happen if he does. Do we really need to give the guy who threatened to harass a newbie off the wiki if he didn't get his way in an arbitration case more leeway than we already have? --Karek^maps?! 02:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This is one of two things.

A user ignoring the process and posting a case without talking to the person or
Another example in an obvious pattern of harassment.

The case is being presented as 1 which probably won't get a vandalism ruling. I would be very curious what results an actual case based on 2 would yield. However, it seems no one either has the desire to start the drama or has reached the point where they think he needs a permaban for the protection of the wiki. Until such time it seems like he will be nickeled and dimed down the VB road.--– Nubis ^NWO 21:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism - izzy knows very well that the page has been used by sysops to request evaluation of their positions and allow the community to vouch their trust to them after long periods in the cool guys club. Its a petty case which only serves to start drama. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [mod]} 21:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Karek

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None Required

For this action.

Karek puts himself up for 're-promotion'. This is quite simply impossible. If we examine the words he uses, 'promotion' - "An advancing in rank or position" and 're' - " meaning back or again". Just so we are clear, it is impossible for Karek to be promoted again as he has never been demoted. He clearly knows and understands this from his opening statement, yet still puts up a completely pointless case. What purpose does the case serve given that Karek cannot be promoted?

If anyone else had placed a case on an admin page that served no purpose due to the result already being in effect they would be escalated for spamming up the admin pages with a pointless case. This is no different than bringing Amazing here to A/VB over an edit, putting a deleted page up for deletion or J3D going to A/DM and requesting demotion.

The only thing this serves is to take up space on an admin page, as the result will be meaningless. Karek should be escalated for this and the case immediately removed. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Not Vandalism, as he probably means reassessment instead of "re-promotion". Should he come here and say that what he was expecting was a promotion to a higher level other than 'crat, or is wanting to be demoted and re-promoted, I will change my ruling.--BFFs +SA+N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N 4 EVA!!! 02:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that the title of the page he put the case on was Administration/Reassessment. Also, that sig serious causes a page break when viewing the differences, please to be templating or adding some spaces kthxbi. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 02:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

And yet we've done it at least three times in the past. Petty is as petty does and reporting for A/VB for this is pretty petty and appropriately ill-informed for a complaint from you. --Karek^maps?! 02:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

We've also had Wikigate and a coup attempt, should we have them as well? That page is for promotions bids, you cannot be promoted, therefore it has to be a pointless case to spam up the page. Basic logic might not enter in your hypocrisy. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 02:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope you realize that you've managed to ignore all 4 of the 'before submitting a report' bullets... -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 03:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Not Vandalism -- C h e e s e 17:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

J3D

Verdict	Not Vandalismsmsms
Action taken	None Required

Shitting up an admin page with his trolling. I'm happy to move non-trolling comments by uninvolved users, but not this crap. --Cyberbob 05:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Not Vandalism, as there are less relevant comments on this page that I don't think require any administrative action.

But a friendly reminder to everyone, while it is only a guideline, the rest (not me or Nubis) of the Sysops team kindly asks you to place your less-than-urgent comments under a relevant header on the talk page. It does make it easier to sort through everything after all.--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 00:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

the rest (not me) of the Sysops team You don't speak for me. Please amend that statement to say the rest (except Nubis) of the Sysops team. Thank you in advance.-

--– Nubis ^NWO 13:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, my apologies in assuming your views. :) --Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 14:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You're new. It's ok. Clearly it will take some time for you to learn the ropes and my opinions on adding worthless stupid comments to a conversation that should have ended four posts ago. :)-

--– Nubis ^NWO 14:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Eh, to be frank, when I wrote that, I wasn't thinking of you. I was thinking of when Grim would move everything. Dead thread FTW.--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 14:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

WOOT

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Posting random shit on EVERYONE'S talk pages. Check his contribs, he has to be breaking some policy.--SirArgo ^Talk 02:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

here, here, here, here, and here. Thats just a few. I do know that whilst its spam it isnt vandalism, the first one on Karek's page is something that I thought could only constitute spam and hence why I think WOOT should be tried here on VB. Liberty 03:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

VB Spammage Linkthewindow Talk 03:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

A little more VB Spam--SirArgo ^Talk 03:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Last one isn't spamage you douche! I was defending myself! --/~Rakuen~\^Talk

I Still Love Grim 03:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Neither are the first two! I'm spreading the love of the Uranium ((enter)) :BOMBS --/~Rakuen~\^Talk

I Still Love Grim 03:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Desu is relevant to my interests.--Karek^maps?! 04:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I wish I had gotten desu instead of bombs...:'( --Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 04:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll SAGE bomb you next time... mkay?--/~Rakuen~\^Talk

I Still Love Grim 04:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone appreciates spammage, so it is vandalism. Unfortunately for you, you were only a few posts away from getting your last warning struck too -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:34 2 February 2009 (BST)

Boo-fucking-hoo--/~Rakuen~\^Talk

I Still Love Grim 23:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Blackboard

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None Required

Vandalizing the user page of the vandal below. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 15:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I plead no contest. Guy below me there wanted people to look at his page to see his weird spam message, so I thought I'd get rid of it; as above, don't wait for a sysop to get involved etc. and just go back to reverting pages - which I did for some others of his, though someone beat me to the punch in a few of the cases. In retrospect, I probably should have just reverted his page to being blank - or course, I'm assuming creating the page was an act of vandalism to begin with. It just didn't occur to me at the time; my priority was getting rid of his vandalism. The fact that it's back there now on "his" page is just plain irritating. Just trying to cut through some red tape and keep the wiki clean-ish. --Blackboard 19:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Purely because it was an active vandal, and only because it was an active vandal I'm going to rule not Vandalism. However, please do not do it again otherwise it will result in an escalation. -- C h e e s e 22:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Since the page was deleted, meaning Midianian's diff link won't work I've copy pasted the page changes due to the ability to see deleted pages so we have a full record on this page. -- C h e e s e 22:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

PsychophillKILLER said:

I am Sorry for the Vandalism But we now have no choice... Psychophill Must be stopped. He has discovered a way to give himself infinite time on the server and infinite AP. He plans on killing everyone in the city once and for all and destroying this game. We must stop him. I encourage everyone to tune their radios to 27.77 To hear a city wide announcement on Wednesday at 7:00 PM Eastern Standard time. Thank you for you time.

P.S. I do not encourage vandalism but I was left with no choice. Monitors if you wish you may delete this account just make sure this message reaches as many people as possible. Thank you again --PsychophillKILLER 15:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

changed to

Blackboard said:

CRAP. --Blackboard 15:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Slap me on the wrist for this, I don't give a shit.

-- C h e e s e 22:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Getting rid of the spam (that was repeated on many other pages) would count as reverting vandalism, even on the vandals user page (when it's an obvious permban candidate like this), however replacing it with your own message, especially the abuse ("CRAP") was not a wise move, and can indeed be seen as vandalism, as you seem to understand -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:44 2 February 2009 (BST)

PsychophillKILLER

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Permaban

Vandal spree. Oh, and the FAQ really should be cut into smaller pieces, I had trouble reverting it. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 15:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Mass vandalage. Perma. Also, more then three edits, no contribution in any way, shape, or form that betters the wiki. just that same spammy warning.--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 16:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

e

Vandal Banning Archive

2006	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2007	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2008	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2009	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2010	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2011	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2012	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Q3			Q4
2013	Q1			Q2			Q3			Q4
Years	2014		2015		2016		2017		2018		2019
	2020

UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive1

Guidelines for Vandalism Reporting

Before Submitting a Report

Vandalism Report Space

User:WOOT

User:Scar

User:Iscariot

Eternal Chimera

WOOT

Blackboard

PsychophillKILLER

Navigation menu

Search