Difference between revisions of "UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning"

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Line 67: Line 67:
::Definitely '''vandalism''', although I'd say just one warning since there was only one message (that I can find, from JISOR) asking Remember to stop, and even that wasn't that clear that it was vandalism that was the concern. Any future edits like it and I'm down to warn again. {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 22:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
::Definitely '''vandalism''', although I'd say just one warning since there was only one message (that I can find, from JISOR) asking Remember to stop, and even that wasn't that clear that it was vandalism that was the concern. Any future edits like it and I'm down to warn again. {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 22:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
::I’m not a sysop and I know I do this a lot but I want to quickly signal that I don’t recall any precedent that two warnings has been done before (at least in a circumstance like this). Surely the fact no one reported Remember for the first edit would have been to him/her an implicit, though incorrect, indication that these kind of edits aren’t vandalism, hence enabling them to think that doing this a second time is ok. Wouldnt two warnings be a bit draconian? {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/a}} 01:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
::I’m not a sysop and I know I do this a lot but I want to quickly signal that I don’t recall any precedent that two warnings has been done before (at least in a circumstance like this). Surely the fact no one reported Remember for the first edit would have been to him/her an implicit, though incorrect, indication that these kind of edits aren’t vandalism, hence enabling them to think that doing this a second time is ok. Wouldnt two warnings be a bit draconian? {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/a}} 01:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
:::Yeah, I agree with the '''one''' warning. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 01:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:48, 4 July 2018

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. To lodge a request for de-escalation, please visit A/DE. 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, they might not be punished for their actions.



He's been deleting user comments from my talk page, restoring comments I removed from my talk page, and undoing my edits on ENVY, which is a group page that I own. Take a look at what this guy is doing on ENVY and my talk page". --Murderess (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism - Murderess contacted me via Discord to ask about this case and what to say, so she already hit the high points about why these are fairly open-and-shut cases (note my use of the plural). We give people some leeway to delete comments on their own talk pages, but deleting a page owner's comments on their own talk page is nearly always vandalism, and certainly is in this case. And Remember made it abundantly clear it wasn't an accident when they continued deleting/restoring content on the talk page, contrary to the specific efforts of that page's owner. Likewise, using the Undo button to undo edits made by a group's owner on their own group page is not something I can think of any valid excuse for, and given that it comes just a week after the activity on the talk page, it clearly wasn't a mere coincidence.
Though this was reported as a single case of vandalism, I'm actually inclined to treat these as separate incidents of vandalism and thus issue two warnings, because the actions were on two separate pages and were over a week apart from each other. Thoughts from other 'sops? Aichon 22:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Definitely vandalism, although I'd say just one warning since there was only one message (that I can find, from JISOR) asking Remember to stop, and even that wasn't that clear that it was vandalism that was the concern. Any future edits like it and I'm down to warn again. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 22:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I’m not a sysop and I know I do this a lot but I want to quickly signal that I don’t recall any precedent that two warnings has been done before (at least in a circumstance like this). Surely the fact no one reported Remember for the first edit would have been to him/her an implicit, though incorrect, indication that these kind of edits aren’t vandalism, hence enabling them to think that doing this a second time is ok. Wouldnt two warnings be a bit draconian? A ZOMBIE ANT 01:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with the one warning. --  AHLGTG 01:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)



As requested - Please perm-ban and protect the following. User:Audioattack, user:217, user:Sister Mary, User:LlIIllIllIIIIllIIllIllIIIIllIl They are all mine, and I would prefer if they were wiped clean before protecting them if possible. -- Jack's Inflamed Sense Of Rejection (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I've perma'd the accounts, deleted the talk pages, and protected the (now-nonexistent) user and talk pages. Sorry for the delay! Bob Moncrief EBDW! 15:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Dragonshardz (3)

Edited my userpage User:Jack's_Inflamed_Sense_Of_Rejection without permission. From what was learned below, this would feel as the correct way to go about this. I will not engage further as I reverted the edited part, but I still believe it was done in negative faith which is why Im posting here. -- Jack's Inflamed Sense Of Rejection (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Pal, all I did was fix your redlinks so they went to the relevant suburbs instead of a page that doesn't exist. Unfucking someone's formatting is by definition an edit in good faith. Chill out. --    We're going to destroy everything, and you can't stop usYou rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 21:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I also note that on wikis, it's generally considered polite to leave a message on someone's talk page about an edit which you don't like and determine if the edit was actually made in bad faith before you go screaming to the sysops. The edit I made was pretty clearly not made in bad faith, so you're doing the same thing that "fact checker" did last month - make a spurious vandalism case based on a single edit you didn't like. --dragonshardz | The Dead | You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 22:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
No amount of good faith makes it okay to edit my userpage - my first warning was based on editing another userpage in good faith. On another note, I have a hard time trusting that anything you do towards me is in good faith - im quite sure you only meant to provoke - which is why im posting in the first place. -- Jack's Inflamed Sense Of Rejection (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
A note here: The redlinks was work in progress, as you can see now. Having me revert my own work could never be considered good faith - You have no idea what im doing, which makes you unqualified to edit anything I work on. You also edited a grouppage of a person I made a gesture towards, lets not hope the Rolt Heights Caliphate takes this as vandalizing too. -- Jack's Inflamed Sense Of Rejection (talk) 05:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Actually, the wiki's policies address this point specifically:
We make the following notes on what isn't vandalism:
*An unwanted edit to any page.
*An edit that adds information arising from a misunderstanding.
*An edit that improves the page from a user you don't like.

When we claim that a group has "ownership" of a page, this does not automatically mean that any edit made that they don't like is considered vandalism.
Which is to say, no, someone else actually can edit your page in good faith (though we generally frown upon it). Mind you, that doesn't necessarily mean that Dragonshardz was doing so, but the fact that they edited your talk page is not de facto evidence that they made edits in bad faith, which is what you seem to be claiming. Aichon 17:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I would also like to request the 2 warnings received on previous accounts User:Sister Mary and user:Audioattack to be added to this account as this will be my main -- Jack's Inflamed Sense Of Rejection (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't that request go to A/DE instead of here? --dragonshardz | The Dead | You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 22:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
The request was made here to prevent endless beuracracy, and having to look different places. The other cases are very near this one so my request was made solelely to easen up the work to be done by a sysop. If this is a problem, i will make a case to get my warnings + vandal template added. -- Jack's Inflamed Sense Of Rejection (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
This new account has now been added to Audioattack's Vandal Data. (Vandal Data is listed by the original account.) Also, you've only received one warning, not two. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 12:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
The first was perhaps just a verbal warning to prevent me from breaking rules - im not quite sure - So if anyone feels like it should be looked into I believe Stelar made it based on a userpage I was trying to edit for Vyol -- Jack's Inflamed Sense Of Rejection (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I didn't turn up any form of official warning for you. Though she is a sysop, Steler may have simply been giving you a friendly suggestion/piece of advice as a fellow user. When we issue formal warnings, they're always on your talk page and always related back to cases here on A/VB. Aichon 17:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

At the worst, it may be more difficult than you’d expect to argue good faith when the edit was somewhere you’re not supposed to be, something you’re not expected to do, with someone you’re not believed to get along with... A ZOMBIE ANT 23:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Something something talk page, not a sysop, not involved. Shoo. --dragonshardz | The Dead | You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 23:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
There’s some irony there, considering the nature of this case. I enjoy it. A ZOMBIE ANT 00:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
You mean the totally spurious nature? I'm glad you agree. --dragonshardz | The Dead | You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 00:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Hilarious actually -- Jack's Inflamed Sense Of Rejection (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Based on the below, Dragonshardz's edit was clearly done with the knowledge that it was poking a bear with a not-very-long stick. Whether the content of the edit was good faith or not, the context of it seems not to have been. This is in contrast to the edit I made to JISOR's page, which was necessary because the page was being miscategorized, and therefore affecting another important part of the wiki (the categorization system). The redlinks on JISOR's page weren't affecting any other part of the wiki. If the redlink was so bothersome, Dragonshardz could have created the page at DONE (which JISOR eventually did).

Thus I'm voting soft warning specifically mentioning that it's a good idea for Dragonshardz to leave any userpage of JISOR/Audioattack's alone. Waiting on other sops to comment tho. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 13:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll agree with a Not Vandalism and a Soft Warning that poking bears is bad practice and that, when in doubt with user pages, it's good practice to simply point out mistakes on talk pages instead.
It seems pretty clear that Dragonshardz' motivations were not entirely benevolent in making that edit (i.e. they were definitely trying to stick it to JISOR). Even so, I do think that Dragonshardz honestly believed—and had good reason to believe—that their edit would be in accordance with JISOR's intent and purpose for the page. It's exceptionally unusual for someone to demonstrate a clear pattern in their userspace code and then intentionally break from that pattern in order to link to a non-existent page outside of their userspace, so restoring the pattern would seem like the right thing to do. Likewise, JISOR's edits routinely contain errors—presumably because they don't preview their edits before saving—so anyone who has interacted with JISOR would have good reason to think that those redlinks were saved by accident.
Honestly, this is exactly the sort of "helpful" edit that I could have seen any veteran wiki editor making in good faith, had they found the seeming-mistakes first, so while I don't think Dragonshardz was being altruistic, I don't think they trying to do anything other than improve the wiki. Aichon 17:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I can't find myself to agree on what you are stating here. It was VERY clear that i deleted the suburb templates and was about to make another one - there were no seeming-mistakes as far as im concerned as the suburb templates removed had to be ctrl-f searched to be located. I will recognize your ruling, but I can never accept that you think that another user is qualified to revert my userpage based on "what they think" should be there. If he had bothered looking at the edit, he would have noticed that it wasn't random formatting error, but precisely the burbs I edited prior to adding the map to the profile. I can't consider pushing other peoples thoughts onto my userpage as good faith, or even a contribution if I have to revert the work done. Like Bob wrote, the correct way to do it would be to add the page I was redirecting to, and not reverting what i purposely did. I would think this logic makes it way to easy for everyone to edit each other userpages based on what we think they are going to be, even live-editing while im away from the computer. That would make it crazy interesting to edit some stuff if this is allowed? -- Jack's Inflamed Sense Of Rejection (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Technically userpages (unless specifically protected) are editable by anybody. In general, the correct response to someone unwanted editing your page is just to revert the edits, maybe leave a message on their talk page explaining that you don't want your page edited by others (or put a header on your userpage saying as much), and only bring it to A/VB if it's persistent and repetitive such that reverting the edits becomes seriously burdensome. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 22:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Firstly, the text I changed did not need to be searched out with a CTRL+F. Unless you're editing on a phone, it's not that hard to scroll down and add the appropriate suburb name piped next to "DONE". That single edit was made with the assumption that audioattack/JISoR was using the danger map code as a checklist of sorts and that they were (clumsily) replacing the suburb names with "DONE" instead of appending a piped "DONE" in the link - that is, changing [[Shearbank]] to [[Shearbank|DONE]]. Both Bob and Aichon are correct that the less dramatic move would be to revert the edits and drop me a line explaining the intent behind linking to DONE instead of the suburb pages. I certainly wasn't editing with the intent to create drama, but then again I probably should have foresaw the fact that JISoR is a drama quean and would go screaming to A/VB the moment anyone dared to touch their wiki pages - even after they left not even 48 hours ago in a two-door huff. --dragonshardz | The Dead | You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 22:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Sister Mary

Blanked User talk:Sniper4625 - normally I would give benefit of the doubt, but they seem quite hostile, so I thought I would bring it to your attention. Regards~ Sniper4625 (talk) 23:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I won't need any benefit of doubt, thanks for considering my feelings though. After reading I wanted to have my talk page protected both Sniper and Dragontard came to write on my page - if you don't want any hostile behavior I suggest you fuck off and leave me alone :) I don't even know who the fuck you guys are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sister Mary (talkcontribs) 23:37 June 3 2018.
further discussion moved to the talk page

Would everyone other than the involved parties (i.e. all of you besides Sniper and Sister Mary) please stop spamming admin pages? Hash out your differences somewhere other than here. We'll ask people for more information if we need it. And for those of you who are involved parties, keep your comments on topic or take them elsewhere. Aichon 02:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

You can delete all of this Aichon. Im out :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sister Mary (talkcontribs) 02:31, 4 June 2018.
As he uh apparently has just re-regged as 217, I guess that's that. Does the warning (I assume,) carry over? Sniper4625 (talk) 02:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Bring the vandal report over, as stated I have no problem dealing with that. At this point im going to make the A/A request, because as you clearly see these people are doing their best to keep the flames going. 217 (talk) 02:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism and a Warning. Don't blank other's pages. I'll serve the warning officially over at the Sister Mary page, but I assume you'll see it here as well. And yes, warnings carry over between accounts. Aichon 02:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

You can go ahead and add that warning to the other shit I already have at audioattack as I won't login to the other accounts. Feel free to ban me as I have no idea what the next step is. 217 (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
We tend not to immediately ban accounts on their first offense unless we've banned the person previously and they're circumventing the ban or they clearly only created the account to stir up trouble. You didn't do either (even though you did stir up some trouble), so you get a warning. And the steps are here. Aichon 03:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Aichon im not getting anywhere with you, what you tell the other guys, or with them. This has become a fight between 3 people banding together, a sysop who doesnt make consequence after saying stop (they stilllllllllllllllll comment on here.) and myself. Im not going to win anything so Im going to cut my losses :) Sister Mary (talk) 03:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I went away for a few minutes. That doesn’t mean I’m ignoring you or anyone else. Aichon 03:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
My problem was not that you should be available right there - but mostly that you do very little to prevent other people from stirring up more drama. I don't really know what I expect though, you said stop and they shit on that, so you're probably gonna say stop a couple more times (I noticed you already tried one more time, but I feel this is only stopping due to me leaving the wiki..) I requested deletion of all my accounts, so im going to sign out now and find something else to play :) Best of luck, and have fun eating harmanz! Audioattack (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh, you’re mistaken about the job of sysops. Sysops are not moderators. We don’t moderate drama. We simply deal with it. We’re janitors, not nannies. Aichon 03:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
further discussion moved to the talk page
Just seconding the verdict here. All the drama seems to happen while I'm asleep. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 15:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I also get the fact that you really want to destroy my mood, and after that get rid of me, even though I edit way more than what I see from your contributions. But you get what you want, seems like the sysops has given retards a run for their money in here. It's sad - but hey, you win! Sister Mary (talk) 03:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)



Created a new account to change profile IDs on a contentious page.

I don't have a chance right now to check the ID's that the account has used in the change but I'd bet good money it's for obfuscation. A ZOMBIE ANT 06:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Seems to pretty clearly be Vandalism. Given the account's prior activity, it's a Warning. Aichon 15:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Fact checker

Basically admitted to being a vandal alt. The name also follows the same line of thought of the others, "Fact checker," "Thetruth," "Neutral objector," etc. He seems to think it's proxy IPs that got him banned and not the rampant vandalism (or maybe not, since he's asking another user to do the edit for him). He hasn't done anything wrong on this account but by virtue of being a likely vandal alt I felt I should at least notify the sysops, and leave the evidence and action up to their discretion. --Ɛňvϊoцᵴ (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, and yeah, I had my eye on him already. Anyway, I checked this one's info. His story doesn't entirely add up, but sysops are called to assume good faith, so without stronger evidence I'm not going to escalate him as a vandal or ban him on the basis of those incongruities alone, much as I might suspect the same as you. Not Vandalism. Aichon 21:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
In a few ways, alts like this follow a really strange logic. If you're using alts to do anything on this wiki other than commit vandalism, then all you're doing is using alts to achieve a single account's purpose, without gaining the advantage of influence a single account can accrue over time.
If he's not doing anything that's explicitly vandalism, these accounts should hopefully be easily ignored. A ZOMBIE ANT 23:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Having heard nothing from the other sysops in about a week, I'll go ahead and close this one out as Not Vandalism. Aichon 15:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Late but endorsing this not vandalism. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 20:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

That guy that loves Soros

He made a load more accounts. I banned them from my phone as a way to kill time while waiting for my delayed plane to arrive. Aichon 17:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


Removed a comment of someone criticising him. [1]. A ZOMBIE ANT 07:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Er... Unless he was referencing Radicalwhig in the original response and accidentally did it. I thought that second comment was directly made to The Jack. Apologies if this is the case. A ZOMBIE ANT 07:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

You linked to an edit by Auralius, and I can't see Envious ever having edited that page. ???? Sniper4625 (talk) 12:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
wtf? --Ɛňvϊoцᵴ (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Apologies for that Envious. I copied the formatting of the one below and forgot to change it. My bad. A ZOMBIE ANT 22:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I think we should permaban Envious anyway, just to be on the safe side. --  AHLGTG 23:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I see your logic. You can never be too safe. Aichon 03:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
As one of two aggrieved users in question, and therefore a relevant party to this case, I am of the opinion that Auralius needs to go for the hat trick and get 100% bannage gracing his talk page so that no one can post on it.--RWSig1.png RWSig2.pngFoD PK Praise Rando!04:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Given the edit in question, it seems fairly obvious this case was intended to be against Auralius, so I’ve updated it accordingly. It’s a mild form of Vandalism, but it’s vandalism nonetheless. There’s nothing to suggest that this was an accidental removal, and removing a user’s comment from someone else’s talk page has long been considered vandalism. Aichon 18:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

That would be a 24 hour ban if deemed vandalism. --  AHLGTG 23:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
About that “if”...got any thoughts? Aichon 03:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
The "if" is a yes, especially considering it's a similar type of edit he was warned for last time. So a 24 hour ban? --  AHLGTG 01:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Ayup. Guess I’ll do it. 24 Hour Ban. Aichon 05:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised I'm not permabanned from the site anyway with all the bitchslapping I do, though I only pop on *maybe* once a month or so to update the group page and clear out the douchebag droppings on my talk page (lookin at you, aichon) - the wiki just isn't an important thing in my life (factoring somewhere between the last scab I had and the person who was three cars behind me on the drive home yesterday) unlike some (again, lookin at you aichon).. as for the jack's talk, yeah I removed some douchebag dropping directed at me intentionally and I'd do it again. it's called not taking someone else's shit, you wiki folk should look into it. so let me know how removing a trivial 'fuck you' comment from a third-party page is 'bad faith' and put your answer in the vandalism case against aichon that we'll never see because he's staff even though he doesn't seem to know how to leave someone's page the fuck alone. Auralius 13:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

This wiki doesn't have a civility policy, so your courtesy or lack thereof doesn't have an impact on the consequences you receive. You get to go through the regular escalation of consequences like everyone else. But by that same token, we give just as much weight to trivial insults as we do to thoughtfully-crafted paragraphs when it comes to enforcing the rules. As such, when you removed that trivial insult, you were removing someone else's contribution to the discussion, misleadingly making it seem as if they never participated in it to begin with. We give people some leeway to control the content on their own pages (hence why no one has gotten on your case about you removing comments on your talk page), but you did that on a page that wasn't your own, which isn't something that's allowed. And if you do it again, you'll find yourself receiving lengthier and lengthier bans with each subsequent act.
As for vandalism cases against me, the only reason there isn't one is because neither you nor anyone else has made it yet. Anyone can make cases against me, even you. If you think I've done something to warrant one, make the case. Instructions to do so are at the top of this page. Alternatively, if you think I've in any way abused my authority as a sysop (i.e. inappropriately used my rank as a badge of authority to get away with stuff, used my access to extra features on the wiki to do things I shouldn't have done, etc.), feel free to make a Misconduct case against me. Aichon 17:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Ha lame --RWSig1.png RWSig2.pngFoD PK Praise Rando!15:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


Obviously a sock puppet. Claims they have been on here 10+ years, active, but only made a new account? Looks like it might be connected to accounts sniper4625,Dragonshrdz, Mistress. Its time everyone knows what OG account this person is hiding. --The Dead 2.0 (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Frivolous vandal report. See below. --Ɛňvϊoцᵴ (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Nope. you're done. Also noticed you vandal edited another person's sig on here recently? I'll let them decide if they want to complain but I'm guessing Neutral objector might take issue with what you did yes? --The Dead 2.0 (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Correcting an improperly formatted signature is Not Vandalism. Play again? Y/N --Ɛňvϊoцᵴ (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Also, how very interesting that you would try to drag Murderess into this, Jack, given that she has not posted on the wiki for days. --Ɛňvϊoцᵴ (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
You'd be the expert on what Neutral Objector thinks, given that its you, Jack. C'mon son. Sniper4625 (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Case was created in bad faith by a vandal alt. Closing as Not Vandalism without any investigation. Aichon 20:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Dragonshardz (2)

Vandalizing the new page I created. As another member I have every right to create the page and since none was created took initiative. Dragonshardz refuses to follow warnings or protocol regarding someone else's creation. Just because you are one of The Dead, like myself, does not mean you get to superceeded. Thank you for the work you did before regarding the link but that does not mean you get to own everything and vandalize property you did not create. Now please leave the page alone until further notice, and it will be opened up to editing once the official template has been added. Again, we requested protected status for the page for just this reason. Also it is expected that no "homecooking favoritism" be shown to these other users or this will have to be taken further if administration is involved. --The Dead 2.0 (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a member of The Dead. You're another of Jack's sockpuppets. Go away. --Dragonshardz (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Frivolous vandal report. See below. --Ɛňvϊoцᵴ (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Frivolous report, not a member, just Jack. Sniper4625 (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Interesting how these three accounts are all interconnected so often and at the same times. Almost as if it was the same person stupidly thinking that using multiple accounts means you get multiple votes. looks like its time for the sysops to dig into this further. Also, you guys either ARE Jack or you just like to try and blanket blame him/them for everything you secretly do. i'm wondering how much breaking the rules. Time for that to change it seems. This isn't going away. The whole little wink, wink, nudge, nudge you've had going to coming out too. If it has to keep going to the top, even emailing to Kevan himself if needed be, then so be it. I'm serious to see how it all turns out given how much can be proven on here at this point. Fascinating. --The Dead 2.0 (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
You got us, Jack! Sometimes we're so interconnected that we even type our posts simultaneously and our edits conflict. It's all thanks to my freakish set of six functional arms that it's possible for me to write on three keyboards at once. Also please note mentioning contacting Kevan, which has been a central focus of The Jack's radio broadcasts in the past few days. --Ɛňvϊoцᵴ (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
You're still terrible at using colons to indent your stuff properly. Please learn to edit the wiki. --Dragonshardz (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I’m not even going to bother reading this, given that it was brought by a vandal alt that has since been banned and can actually be deleted as a vandal edit. Not Vandalism. Aichon 20:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

User:The Dead 2.0

(^The likely owner of the account.)

Recently created impersonation account. It's clear from the mood of the discussions over at A/P that it was created solely to try and pretend to be The Dead -- for one, they've asked for their original group page back so that they don't have to go by The Dead 2.0 anymore. Secondly the account is asking to protect a page that was just freed up for editing so that only they can edit it. A speedy perma would be prudent. --Ɛňvϊoцᵴ (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The user in question is repeatedly reverting edits made on behalf of a member of The Dead and removing constructive, useful information. --Dragonshardz (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Nice try. Not an impersonation and I created the page. Envious is OBVIOSULY a fake account since they claim to be a member for 10+ years but its a new account. Dragonshardz has been warned before for vandalism. As a memeber of the group I have every right to create the page and did so. If they had created it then I would be the one vandalizing but since I created it
Dragonshardz is vandalizing.
I am trying to be considerate here, but the true abuse is clear.
Envious is a fake account/sock puppet.
Dragonshardz is vandalizing a account they did not create.
Please file the appropriate charges against them (since they are likely the same account too given how often they operate together, please look into that too). --The Dead 2.0 (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Envious is a fake account/sockpuppet! --account that was created today to edit war over a single page and who conveniently uses the exact same post formatting as Neutral objector. Hmmmmm. Please post your The Dead profile, if you are a member of the group. --Ɛňvϊoцᵴ (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Merely making the page doesn't mean you're actually a member of the group, and it's members of the group who should have control over the contents of the page. Also, please learn to indent your commentary properly, thanks in advance. Also I haven't ever been warned for vandalism in the past, champ, keep trying. Oh and pages are not the same as accounts, so you're 0 for 3. --Dragonshardz (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
In case it's not blatantly obvious, dude isn't one of us. Mods do the needful thanks. Sniper4625 (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Every single edit from Neutral objector has been via a proxy. I’ve blocked the proxy permanently and banned the account as a vandal alt, given that literally every single action it’s ever undertaken—including creating the account itself—was an act of vandalism, and the account made no other redeeming edits to suggest that its intent was anything other than to wade into drama in an effort to create a false consensus. I still need to look into the other account...Aichon 20:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Different proxies, but same story for The Dead 2.0. Perma’d the same as the other. We don’t know that they were the same person, but you can draw your own conclusions... Aichon 20:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


Account created today to edit war over the Danger Report pages. 3EV? --Envious (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Pending information from an uninvolved, trustworthy third-party, I'll delay a full ruling on whether or not the edits themselves are vandalism. That said, the only IP addresses they've used so far were proxy addresses, so I've gone ahead and immediately blocked all of them. Aichon 17:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Nothing heard from them since, so I suppose the matter is resolved one way or another. Thanks! --Envious (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I’m going to call it Not Vandalism and close it out. The situation resolved itself. Aichon 20:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


Hello, it would seem this user made recent changes to the danger levels for the areas Peddlesden Village, Chudleyton ,West Becktown, Owsleybank, Molebank, but having run through them myself to check and none are even close to red. Wouldn't really even consider them yellow as Darvall Heights looks worse by comparison to them. More accurate would probably be the Intact code. I didn't want to make edits myself to cause flare ups like recent issues on here. And while I don't think this person intended Vandalism, fictionally modifying areas to fit your group narrative (The Dead), is still a vandalism of a sort because it is neither neutral nor accurate. Can a request for an sysop that actively plays verify this before making the change? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fact checker (talkcontribs) 02:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC).

Deliberately posting false information is considered bad faith and is, as a result, an act of vandalism. That said, if The Dead is active in large numbers in that region, very dangerous may be applicable, even if the infrastructure is still intact, which is one possible consideration. Anyway, I’ll leave the checking to the ‘sops who play. Aichon 02:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
It's entirely possible if the numbers on the stats page is true (it says 122 as of writing this), and both the 'dangerous' and 'very dangerous' statuses both say "hostile mobs" so maybe that's the reason for the change and not the building statuses themselves. I will try and get an alt to that area and see if the changes are correct or need to be reverted/amended. stelar Talk|MCM|EBD|Scourge 14:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Hmmmm... fresh account made specifically to attack this user, says they're posting from their phone (which allows them a dynamic IP)... malicious prosecution, methinks. I mean, I think we can all guess who "Fact Checker" is, but I'd recommend sysops dismiss this for the libel it is. Having personally been to those areas, West Becktown and Molebank are 100% ruined, and the outlying areas are in a state of disarray and filled with zombies. --Envious (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
It's generally considered polite, in Wiki circles, to leave a message on a user's talk page if they make an edit you disagree with before you go running to sysops with cries of vandalism. It's also considered polite to post with your main instead of creating a sockpuppet account to level spurious accusations of vandalism. Lastly, yes, I have a character with MCDU tags in the area and have been playing zombie. All of those 'burbs are at the very dangerous level, being mostly in ruins and full of zombies with The Dead tags. It's not hard to add 2 + 2 and get 4. --Dragonshardz (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, it's poor form to submit a case in situations like these before discussing the matter with the other user, and even if we find that your information was inaccurate, you have no history of vandalism, so I'd be inclined to let you off with little more than a soft warning that you remain factual and that subsequent incidents of this sort may not be taken so lightly. If this case was brought frivolously, however, we may be investigating Fact checker a bit. Aichon 16:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm in the mentioned area, as I've said, and based on what I can see marking those suburbs as VD is justified. High zombie presence, lots of ruins or buildings under attack, etc. --Dragonshardz (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I hear you, but hopefully it's obvious why I want to wait on a known-neutral source of information, given your involvement in this case. Aichon 17:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello. As a member of The Dead I'm not a neutral party, but I would like to point out that a street level sweep of the mentioned suburbs is likely not going to reflect our true presence there. As our instructions are to stay off the streets and sleep inside any ruined buildings to prevent repair/recadding. JAZED (talk) 02:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
^And certainly I'd trust the view of whatever group is most active there, unless someone gives evidence to contradict the reports! --  AHLGTG 02:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I just heard word back from some of my old pals who were able to check out the area. They didn't get through all of it, but they're describing West Becktown and Dunnel Hills as mostly ruined with a low presence of both survivors and zombies. They're describing it as more closely resembling a Ghost Town than a Very Dangerous suburb, but given that there's a lot of overlap between the two statuses (i.e. anything with lots of ruins could conceivably go either way, depending on how many zombies a person observes), I'm going with Not Vandalism unless Stelar or one of the 'sops. comes back with very different information. Aichon 18:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Precisely my assessment. You'll notice that rather than reverting those suburbs back to Very Dangerous when they were vandalized earlier today I went ahead and changed them to Ghost Town. Given that the assertion Fact checker made is patently false given the areas he claimed are "Intact" are thoroughly ruined, I think some investigation into frivolous vandal reporting is warranted. --Envious (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

^What they said. I don't actually think the accuracy of the report is all that important, unless it is repeatedly and deliberatly false info. --  AHLGTG 02:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Relevant to this complaint, I've reverted their addition of The Dead 2.0 to Suburb, as changes to the noteworthy suburbs section warrants discussion (as stated by the talk page) first. A ZOMBIE ANT 01:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Whatever. --Dragonshardz (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I scoured the Dunnell Hills talk page, and saw nothing regarding such a rule. Mind pointing that out for us? Sniper4625 (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Suburb talk page. Additions are voted upon under the section Talk:Suburb#Simple_Guidelines_for_Noteworthiness. It doesn't specify changes rather than additions, but I would recommend submitting it there nonetheless, as the edit itself seems to be contentious in nature. A ZOMBIE ANT 02:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
So, just to confirm...changes are not an explicit rule then? Sniper4625 (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I would push that the need for discussion is within the spirit of the rules rather than the letter, but you already know that. What you've said it correct. It's not a codified rule. A ZOMBIE ANT 03:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
The only person who seems to think it was a contentious edit is you, since you're the one who reverted it. This report was entirely about Danger Map edits someone disagreed with and didn't bother talking to me about before they went haring off to screech about vandalism. --Dragonshardz (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
If you'd like to frame it that way, you can, I have no problem with it but I'm prepared to make the case that the edit in question should be agreed upon by committee. It's a contentious edit, because it's a POV declaration by the group who put it there, unilaterally. And it's not even about the historical noteworthy, it's about current status of the suburb and the group, which may not have been the case a month ago, and theoretically, could not be the case in a month. That makes it unsuitable to be placed on a section about historical suburbs and their groups.
This isn't the first time people have tried to bolster their own ego by having a group put there. And doing so without discussion has always had it reverted. My suggestion is to bring it to discussion. A ZOMBIE ANT 03:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Blah blah I'm important blah blah. Maybe I'd care what you had to say if you didn't pile onto a spurious "vandalism" report made by an obvious sockpuppet. --Dragonshardz (talk) 05:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Don't equate wanting the right decision and a willingness to explain it with unwarranted self-importance. You can care about what I have to say or not, I don't give a shit, I'm telling you what's going on. Ignore it if you want. A ZOMBIE ANT 05:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Yessuh, massah sysop. --Dragonshardz (talk) 05:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic but in case you're not, I'll just quickly get this out of the way... I'm not a sysop. I'm just a normal user... I just try too hard. A ZOMBIE ANT 05:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Can we wrap this up and get the official verdict already? Or is this going to just sit until Aichon comes back from his vacation? Missed the verdict in the mix, thanks, cheers. --Dragonshardz (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Chiming in very late with a not vandalism. The suburb danger statuses are the part of the wiki most designed to be corrected/adjusted with extreme frequency by interested users. In addition, the boundaries of what constitutes what status are vague and arguable on purpose. I doubt I'd ever accept an A/VB case based on a danger status dispute, unless it's a user clearly lying and manipulating the status in order to e.g. lure players or alter their behavior, but even that would be extremely difficult to prove. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 20:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


Banned for page blanking. --  AHLGTG 22:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

User:A.R.M.P.I.T O.D.O.R I.S F.U.C.K.E.D et al.

Our "friend" is back with some spam pages and a boatload of sockpuppets. --AORDMOPRI ! T 19:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Dealt with. They're all banned, blocked, and cleaned up after. Aichon 21:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Imp Accounts

Not to be confused with The Jack.

I just noticed these in the Recent Changes and saw that the latter copied User:The Jack's page verbatim, clearly intending to pose as him. Checkuser shows that they're the same person. The latter is using a Unicode character that resembles an "a" to make their name look identical to The Jack. Anyway, given that every single edit from an impersonation account is inherently vandalism, we've always treated them as vandal accounts and Permabanned them as such, which I'll go ahead and do here in just a moment. Aichon 18:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

You deserve a medal for these. --  AHLGTG 22:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)



yawn A ZOMBIE ANT 04:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Obvious 3EV and Perma’d as such. Aichon 05:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh, it's also worth mentioning that this account belongs to the serial vandal from below, so it's not just 3EV: it's ban evasion. Aichon 16:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

User:The Jack

Repeatedly blanking pages. I believe this is considered vandalism via UDWiki:Vandalism#Some examples of vandalism. Also worth noting that being that this is a wiki, no user "owns" pages. The purpose is to document, not provide a biased viewpoint or be one user's personal playground. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tenantryd (talkcontribs) 15:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC).

I’m afraid you’re grossly mistaken. The page you yourself linked to discusses how page ownership works on this wiki. Group’s own their own group pages. Users own their own user pages. The remainder of the pages are public and can be edited by anyone, provided you maintain a neutral point of view in your edits (NPOV). The Jack is welcome to blank their own page, should they choose, and your attempt to bait them into doing so in the hope that it would get them in trouble is misguided. Also, you’re banned again. Aichon 15:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

It's our own page. Of which you kept repeatedly attempting to vandalize (notice how the sig is not signed like a typical coward?)...and miserable failing. Cheers Scrub. L.2.P. :D --The Jack (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Just a heads up. Now they're changing images uploaded to the Wiki. Not sure where to put this, but I'll notify Aichon, since he seems to be currently on duty, on his page as well to be safe. --The Jack (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Just to summarise, Aichon has beaten me to these and I agree with all these separate rulings.--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 08:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Nice try, please try again soon. A ZOMBIE ANT 04:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


More of the same on our page. Same zerg cheat. Consider all other accounts modifying our group page (outside the discussion tab) to be continuos petition for Vandal banning. Thank You --The Jack (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

ALSO, given this specific scenario. Should this new page, http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/The_Joke, also be removed as well? --The Jack (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Banned and deleted. Aichon 16:32, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Just to summarise, Aichon has beaten me to these and I agree with all these separate rulings.--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 08:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


New User made right after last User Starlingt was blocked by Aichon. Same unoriginal edit attempted. Obviously this guy feels so impotent in game, that he's desperately trying to bother us here. Fortunately, while our group finds it laughable, and pretty damn sad, it's still important to file this request. Is there a way to do a more indepth search of their information (I know IP can be viewed, but do not know what else can be determined and would like to learn?). I'd guess they're using the whatever IP cheats they also use in game, but perhaps they have some other account(s) on here, where they have stuff they consider valuable, that can be removed? Seems this person is desperate to be noticed, so taking away their contributions, and recorded history for the long term, may finally give them pause to their futile attempts to terrorize? --The Jack (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Same m.o., same time, and elements in the logs point towards them being the same person. Perma’d as a vandal alt. As for nuking other stuff, it all depends on if we can connect them to other accounts. The more they evade, the more info we glean and the more likely we are to catch onto anything like that. If they do it again, you can just report the subsequent accounts under here and we’ll nuke them accordingly. Aichon 15:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Sniper4625 and User:DHPDWiki

Like the case below, both accounts have made vandal edits to The Jack page. The former does have previous edits, all to the Malton Globetrotters talk page in 2012. The latter has the sole vandal edit done in a similar manner to Sniper4625, so I suspect they are likely the same person. I also suspect this is related to the Starlingt case below due to the continued targeting of this particular page. - Cheese 08:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

This and the below strikes me as meat puppetry for the most part. It isn’t conclusive whether these two are the same person or not, so I think we’ll be treating them as separate accounts. Given the prior history of the one and a lack of edits for the other, I’m thinking warning for both. Aichon 14:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: Sniper4625 made a comment on the false Aichon Misconduct case where he said to me the same thing that one of the zerg vandalism accounts made yesterday (The Reel Jack Yocum). I copied the quote of that reverted edit and added it to my repose on the Misconduct case. Since he was already issued a warning, and it's connected to a huge issue, I think (if you agree with his culpability) that this account should be permanently removed to set a precendence for that behavior and as an example. Regards --The Jack (talk) 04:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Check the administrative guidelines linked from the top. We don’t just randomly ban people for bad behavior. Aichon 04:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Apologies, but either Im either confused, or just not explaining myself well enough. So though it was erroneously commented on under the ridiculous Aichon misconduct case, since deleted by Dance, this Sniper4625 said the same comment one of the zerg alts said in a reverted vandalizing attempt (The Reel Jack Yocum). I posted the quoted information there from the reverted file by The Reel to compare with what Sniper said. I can go retrieve it if it needs to be officially posted here. My point, is that if it connects this Sniper4625 to a account(s) that are already permabanned for abuse, then shouldnt the Sniper4625 alt also be banned for vandalism as well? Adding to the fact that there is also already a consideration for warning. It would seem that this account is one of the roots needed to be removed rather than just snipping the pointless branches. Correct? Just want to say that while im not out for blood, and this all has obviously been more trouble to you guys than me innhaving to deal,with it, i do think extreme measures may be required in this instance simply due to the volume, frequency, and outright lack of respect this unrepentant offender has Shown in regards to their repeat offenses. --The Jack (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot that not everyone speaks wiki jargon. Back up above, I referenced my belief that they were "meat puppets", i.e. distinct people whose activities are being encouraged or directed by a person or group off the wiki, which was my determination based on the evidence in the logs (their use of similar rhetoric to a banned vandal is not sufficient evidence of a connection). Sysops assume good faith (as best we can), don't punish people for perceived associations, and try to give newcomers every effort to become a contributing member of the community. We have a series of escalating corrective measures (detailed in the guidelines) that we use for dealing with vandalism, with permabans being reserved for repeat offenders or those who clearly joined the wiki for no purpose other than to vandalize it (e.g. spambots, three-edit vandals a.k.a. "3EV", etc.), neither of which appears to be the case here. If you'd like sysops to have more freedom to ban people willy-nilly without going through those escalations first, you'll need to get the wiki's policies changed, since we act according to them. Aichon 16:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Apparently I got a warning? News to me. But I sure didn't do anything worthy of a permaban, and the fact that I'm so far under your skin as I clearly am is infinitely hilarious. TRJY ain't me, so looks like your snitch attempt has misfired. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sniper4625 (talkcontribs) at an unknown time.

Yes the man who is apparently sitting here while horde of idiots dogpile onto the wiki to pester him and get banned, your pals are definitely the ones under his skin. A ZOMBIE ANT 04:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't know who you are, but all you have to do is read any of the quite large amount of words the Zerger has published today to get the truth of the matter. Thank you for your attention to good signing conventions though I will strive to do better on this, the Urban Dead Wiki.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sniper4625 (talkcontribs) at an unknown time.
What takes more effort, talking like an ass for 4 paragraphs or making countless fake accounts with different IPs to harass someone? He's definitely not coming off as the dipshit in this instance. A ZOMBIE ANT 04:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Provide your proof, good sir, as you seem to think you're some sort of SysOP, going around closing Vandal cases and the like. Provide your proof. I do find it hilarious that you, an uninvolved party, are so willing to leap to the defense of a Zerger. Why?User:Sniper4625
Oh trust me, I'm not closing this case. That's none of my business.
I also think you might be mistaken. I don't give a shit about who is zerging and who isn't. The only thing I care about is order on the wiki. Conflict and drama bothers me, and even more so when it's because of pure idiocy. I refuse to give a shit about what each party is saying when it's being said in such a preposterously idiotic and futile way.
Bringing all of your issues to the wiki solves nothing, and only serves to bother people who care about it as a resource. Neither party, right or wrong, is going to change their behaviour based on a short-lived wiki harassment campaign. If anything, it might strengthen his resolve because it gives him attention. Keep giving it if you want. Doesn't change how I feel about how stupid this all is. A ZOMBIE ANT 05:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
You have not received a warning. I’m waiting on other sysops to weigh in before taking action. Should you receive one, we’ll notify you on your talk page. Aichon 04:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Still waiting to hear from other sysops. If I don't hear anything within 24 hours, I'll go with the warning. Aichon 19:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not seeing that these two are the same person. So a warning for Sniper for the page clearing makes sense, if you'd like to go for it. --  AHLGTG 00:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I warned both of them. --  AHLGTG 22:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


We are requesting this newly created user account be banned for multiple attempts to vandalize our group page since yesterday. They even undid the revision that was done by Rosslessness, which may be another sort of infraction? In their most recent edits they mentioned Doritos, which is also what another user, sniper4625, presented as well with their unwanted edit yesterday too. We would postulate that this is someone very familiar with this site, and likely a longstanding user here too afraid to comment with their real user name and IP address. Fee free to let us know what else we need to do to facilitate this process further. Thank you. --The Jack (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I’m inclined to Perma as a 3EV, but I’ll wait for other opinions lest someone disagree. And I doubt Sniper4625 is the same person as Starlingt. Aichon 04:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
They're not letting up. Very likely just a vandal account at this stage. -- Cheese 08:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
There's nothing constructive about what they are doing, and they have made more than three vandal edits. But I guess wait and see what they do now that you have warned them? stelar Talk|MCM|EBD|Scourge 11:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I just did that in the hope that they might stop if they knew that those sorts of actions were unwelcome on the wiki. Plus, I didn’t want the edit warring continuing as I went to sleep. Based on their response on my talk page and lack of additional vandalism, however, maybe they’re willing to turn over a new leaf? I don’t think it’s possible to believe they were acting in good faith, but assuming they don’t do it again, I’m okay giving them a formal warning and being done. Aichon 14:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello Aichon, they just did it again about 6 minutes before you posted your last message. I have already undid their last revision, but I believe that takes them past the formal warning stage? --The Jack (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, just saw that. I’m back to thinking 3EV and Perma and will go ahead and do so in the interest of bringing this to a close. Aichon 14:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Understood and Appreciated. I'm sure this is more annoying to you guys than it is to me or anyone in our group. Cheers. --The Jack (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

We would also like to mention that we have openly offered for anyone, including detractors, to leave open commentary of the Discussion part of our group page if they have something they wish to convey. But this offender seems bent on simply attempting to be annoying, infantile, and destructive only. --The Jack (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


FYI for any sysops coming in after the fact, I've been permabanning all accounts and IPs associated with this user, of which there were (and may yet be?) quite a few (if you checkuser the accounts, you should notice some fairly obvious patterns in the logs that I'd rather not disclose here). I also went ahead and protected the relevant pages for autoconfirmed users only, at least temporarily. I believe everything is dealt with at this point, but I wouldn't mind someone checking my work. Also, the vandal decided to launch a Misconduct case against me, so be sure to rule on it. ;) Aichon 16:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

For future reference, here's the list so far:

Fun times. Aichon 16:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

And another:
Aichon 02:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


  • User: The Joke was snuck in there right before The Reel Jack Yocum. --The Jack (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Greetings, I hope I am also allowed to add something to this message. It might be relevant. I have just finished speaking with my predecessor, the user who created "The Jack Yocum" page for our group's previous incarnation, and he directed me to view that page's history. There was a similar situation there, though far less pronounced, with a vandal created the "Hunter of America" wiki account to attack that page. The character "Hunter of America" is a member of our group, in game, but was never created by us on this site. Hunter was a particularly adept thorn, at the time, to a player zerging Shearbank with alts that literally populated the whole burg. Anyway, looking into the Hunter of America wiki user account may, I hope, provide a link with these accounts as well. Regards --The Jack (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Anti-Soros IS BACK!!!

He really isn't --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 14:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

This dude really seems to be into skunks, on top of the rest of it Bob Moncrief EBDW! 15:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

User:‎Soros is a cocoon with bent dick

Created a bunch of spam pages. --AORDMOPRI ! T 20:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, creating a bunch of sockpuppets. For example, User:Anti-Soros 005 --AORDMOPRI ! T 20:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Looks to be the Siptar guy from last month based on IP. I've perma'd the one you linked and blocked its IP, but it'll take me a few minutes before I can get to the rest. Aichon 21:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Okay, blocked all of the accounts linked to that IP, blocked the IP, and nuked the pages. If I missed anything, let me know. Aichon 21:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


Sockpuppeting and impersonation. [2] [3] --AORDMOPRI ! T 18:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

3 Edit rule - Also stuck a semi protection on the page in question. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 20:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
As an addendum, checkuser seems to confirm that this one is yet another vandal alt of the below cases, since it's showing a match with Infernozerg when the IP range is slightly widened. Aichon 16:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


Probably another sockpuppet of User:Wangguy. [4] --AORDMOPRI ! T 15:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I got him. We should ban all the associated accounts at this point. --  AHLGTG 16:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I’d suggest this should be a second warning for Wangguy, given that he did it after he had already received the warning from Bob. Aichon 20:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Is this all the same guy, no? It's good to give the benefit of the doubt for a new user, but he hasn't done anything else except vandalize. --  AHLGTG 20:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Infernoguy and sirguy are using the same IP, which I've now blocked. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 21:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Have also blocked Blowme, and the IP that account edited from. At this point I'd say User:Wangguy counts as a 3eV, since none of the original account's edits were constructive either, so I'd support a perma of the Wangguy account as well. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 15:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, and Perma'd appropriately. Aichon 15:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Sirguy & User:Clubbedtodeathsucks

Good old fashioned vandalism. [5]. Looks similar to User:Wangguy who was doing similar stuff to the same page. [6] A ZOMBIE ANT 01:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Likely a sock puppet of Sirguy in DDR's report below. --Cheese 22:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I've combined the two since they're clearly the same M.O. Technically both have exactly three edits and thus count as 3eV-eligible. They're also with the same M.O. as Wangguy, whose target is also Clubbed to Death, and which I meentioned in my welcome message on their talk page. If others are OK with it, I may checkuser all three and see if they're alts of the same person. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 13:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Having checked, I'd suggest we Permaban Clubbedtodeathsucks and Sirguy as vandal alt accounts and then apply this case as a Warning on Wangguy. I'd have been willing to accept that he may not have known better, but the fact that he's using multiple accounts tells me that he knows he's up to no good. Aichon 19:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
He's still at it. - Cheese 20:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
And again. - Cheese 09:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Due to the ongoing offenses, I've perma'd Clubbedtodeathsucks & Sirguy and left a warning on Wangguy's talk page. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 13:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


User:Hashim thaci is lunatic idiot and loser, User:Албанци су смеђи турски циганови, User:KlaBusters, and User:Siptars are goat fuckers

See all contribs. --AORDMOPRI ! T 19:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I believe I blocked all of them and deleted any associated pages. Wish I would have seen this sooner. Thanks Armpit. --  AHLGTG 20:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Endorsed. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 00:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


Blanking the Autobots page, despite a previous warning not to do so. --AORDMOPRI ! T 19:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

And I warned him. --  AHLGTG 20:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Endorsed. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 00:05, 17 March 2018 (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 2017 2018 2019
Personal tools