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.

Spambots

Spambots are to be reported on this page. New reports should be added to the top. Reports may be purged after one week.

May 2010

User:Craptalker

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Wiped the MOB page for his very first edit on the wiki. And with a name like that, it sounds like someone with a grudge. —Aich on— 05:39, 30 May 2010 (BST)

Vandalisms. Warned. -- C h e e s e 17:46, 30 May 2010 (BST)

User:Saromu (2)

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	{{{2}}}

For spamming up A/M with silly little cases ... Just making frivolous misconduct cases and arguing on them till the death, just to cause drama.

A couple of additions from the last cast. 1. This is in reference to the stoopid case on Yonnua Koponen for simply going through with a ban that (IMO) was 3 days late. 2. Every time he goes on his idiotic misconduct spree and is let off on the basis that "he's allowed to make stupid cases" I will most probably do the exact same thing against him on A/VB with precedents (such as this and the doozey this) since as a user, I should have an equal right to make the exact same questions about what I personally believe is vandalism (even though Sonny doesn't actually think any of the cases is misconduct). And theoretically the more you rule Sonny's as Not Vandalism the more it perpetually makes these cases also. 3. I don't actually think the below sonny case is vandalism, if you check his contributions he makes no reference to acknowledging that he saw the original A/M case, and given the unusual circumstance surrounding the quick A/M case it would be beneficial to give him the benefit of the doubt. This, however, I believe he is guilty of. Even a soft warning is apt imo. --

13:45, 24 May 2010 (BST)

see talk page

Not Vandalism. Thanks --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 15:27, 24 May 2010 (BST)

Not Vandalism - I was okay with the Yonnua case (despite it being frivolous and unnecessary), since it was not a repeat and had a clear line of argumentation. I'm still deciding about the other one though. —Aich on— 21:20, 24 May 2010 (BST)

Not vandalism - as below, without the duplication thingo -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 23:27 25 May 2010 (BST)

Closed as Not Vandalism. —Aich on— 01:03, 28 May 2010 (BST)

User:Saromu

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	Soft Warning

Reposting a misconduct case (against Cheese) that had clearly already concluded decisvely. This is clearly just wasting the team's time and attempting to harass a sysop for no good reason. This vandalism for spamming admin pages needlessly. 22:51, 23 May 2010 (BST)

(Weak) Vandalism - The case had been made literally two or so days before. Reposting old cases for dramas sake is in my opinion, vandalism, unless anyone can show he wasn't aware of the last case.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:19, 23 May 2010 (BST)

ummm fuckoff with weak vandalism or i'm a/m-ing your sorry ass. If you're willing to destroy a users a/vd record and declare guilt you should be 100% fucking sure its vandalism, not this weak bullshit. wtf? x o x o 12:33, 24 May 2010 (BST)

Sounds like he's sure to me. "Weak" just means "over the line only a little" not "I don't stand behind my own opinion". —Aich on— 21:23, 24 May 2010 (BST)

Not Vandalism cycled so quickly even sonny may have missed it. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 13:02, 24 May 2010 (BST)

I highly fucking doubt it.

22:58, 25 May 2010 (BST)

Not Vandalism - there was still a link to the archived case at the bottom of the page, and Sonny's no newb, so I doubt he missed the case. However, admin page abuse has only been ruled vandalism in cases where there has been long and sustained periods of spamming up the admin pages with drama cases with no validity. I feel that this case should serve as a soft warning that Sonny is pushing the limits, but not result in an official warning, yet -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 23:25 25 May 2010 (BST)

A soft warning sounds about right.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 13:57, 26 May 2010 (BST)

Anyone going to close these cases up? I'm reluctant about ruling on or dealing with the above one in any way, because I'm involved, but if no-one else says otherwise, I'll close this as not vandalism tomorrow and let it serve as a soft warning.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:53, 27 May 2010 (BST)

The numbers are there so you shouldn't worry imo (backseet modding ftw). Just can't wait for next month for sonny to come back for another month of op-encouraged frivolous case spamming. --

01:13, 28 May 2010 (BST)

Not Vandalism - As boxy. I'll go ahead and post a soft warning to his page in just a moment. —Aich on— 02:46, 28 May 2010 (BST)

User:Poodle of doom

Verdict	Requested Ban
Action taken	1 Week ban

Apparently, I'm a complete douch, and the community would be better off without me... how long the ban is, is up to whomever bans me... -Poodle of Doom^M! ^T 06:14, 23 May 2010 (BST)

How about I give you a week ban to see if you get over whatever has set you off. After that you can either come back, choose not to post, or ask for a perma -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:36 23 May 2010 (BST)

User:Shazam (2)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

He's been warned for it before, but once again he's making inappropriate edits to Necronauts. Aichon already reverted it, but since Shazam appears to be doing it again and again (examples are other questionable edits such as on May 12 adding [[Image:Example.jpg]] to the page), I believe that officially reporting him is necessary. G F J 10:34, 22 May 2010 (BST)

Vandalism - Just as his previous case, further down this page.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:09, 22 May 2010 (BST)

Warned -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:42 23 May 2010 (BST)

User:Reddeyedjedi

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warning

Vandalism. Pretty straightforward, I think. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 08:32, 21 May 2010 (BST)

Vandalism and ~~permaban~~ (see below) by the 3-edit rule. —Aich on— 08:34, 21 May 2010 (BST)

I hate sounding like Iscariot. But please unban this user as he has not satisfied the 3 edit rule. The 3 edit rule requires contributions of at leased 3 edits and this user has made 2. Since the deletion log has no record of you deleting a vandal-created page I can assume that there are no deleted contributions I am unaware of. While I'm here, fucking ban woot. --

10:40, 21 May 2010 (BST)

I'm just scanning the perma ban criteria. At least 3 yesses and at least 2/3rds of all sysops is needed for a perma. So theoretically if every other sop can and voted yes, he'd be perma'd. So lets give it a day ok? --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 10:44, 21 May 2010 (BST)

Permaban votes cannot happen unless the user has had his second month ban in a row. Stop making loopholes, this has happened countless times and we haven't been able to ban them. --

10:46, 21 May 2010 (BST)

Seriously, if you make me go through the horrible history of A/VD to find the precedents, I will literally murder one of you on A/M, most likely aichon, so please, just unban this user. It's standard protocol. --

10:48, 21 May 2010 (BST)

There's one I did a while back. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 11:46, 21 May 2010 (BST)

I'm with DDR on this. I botched it up, simple as that, and if someone takes me to Misconduct for it, I won't contest. I'll reverse the ban now and will change it to a warning instead. —Aich on— 10:49, 21 May 2010 (BST)

Haha, a two and a half hour ban is literally the worst that could happen and it isn't worth the effort making the case ;D But while I'm being a douchebag, a remind to unprotect his talk page, maybe say sowwie --

10:54, 21 May 2010 (BST)

His page was ~~unprotected before you even~~ in the process of being unprotected by the time you asked. Anyway, fair is fair, and I had actually typed up the acknowledgement of my own guilt before I saw your threat to take me there, but I was edit conflicted, so I was going to acknowledge it either way. I honestly don't mind if I'm taken to A/M, since the case is open and shut, the punishment is clear, and it's all as per protocol. —Aich on— 11:01, 21 May 2010 (BST)

User:WOOT

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Month Ban

More Promotions Spamming. He's already received 3 escalations for doing this and doesn't seem in any hurry to stop. Going by the guidelines, it's time for a permaban vote as well. -- C h e e s e 8:13, 19 May 2010 (BST)

You know if you'd all treat homophobia the way you treat racism you'd not have to try to wrangle cases on minor things like this.

16:12, 19 May 2010 (BST)

I don't know why we don't, honestly. —Aich on— 16:15, 19 May 2010 (BST)

Stop being faggots. Woot was being serious in his promotions bid. You can't ban a guy for wanting to be a sysop. Him and I planned on bringing up a shitload of oldfags to come back and vote for him. This isn't vandalism. Y'all faggots just racist. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 21:26, 19 May 2010 (BST)

Yep yep. --/~Rakuen~\^Talk

I Still Love Grim 02:22, 21 May 2010 (BST)

Vandalism - He's done it before, been escalated before, and clearly hasn't learned. It's minor, but the fact that it's a repeat offense makes it pretty clear, I think. —Aich on— 16:15, 19 May 2010 (BST)

Vandalism and Humorous plus as an avid player of Risk, I'd like to add I'm a great fan of South America. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 16:16, 19 May 2010 (BST)

South America is pretty cool. Easy to get, easy to defend, and has a decent enough reward. I tend to push for North America though...--/~Rakuen~\^Talk

I Still Love Grim 20:48, 19 May 2010 (BST)

asia on the other hands is for bastards. "Well done you've secured Siam." Bastards --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 20:55, 19 May 2010 (BST)

I always place a huge army on Asia, just so I can make it look like I'm going for there, and so that if someone does go for it, they have to kick me out first.--/~Rakuen~\^Talk

I Still Love Grim 21:25, 19 May 2010 (BST)

I personally prefer Europe, if only for idea of controlling the most advanced continent on earth, plus it gives you the center of the map which is quite handy if you can keep enemy attacks down. Also any assignment involving Australia downright sucks. Unless you spawn there it's incredibly hard to get through. --

Thadeous Oakley

21:39, 19 May 2010 (BST)

North has only three entrances and is worth five units a turn. Grab yourself south america as a bonus, and it's easily the strongest setllement on the board.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:48, 19 May 2010 (BST)

Vandalism --Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:37, 19 May 2010 (BST)

Perma? -- C h e e s e 20:26, 19 May 2010 (BST)

Narp --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 20:30, 19 May 2010 (BST)

Nope -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:11 20 May 2010 (BST)

No. As much as I want to because of drama like this, no. Maybe next time. —Aich on— 03:27, 21 May 2010 (BST)

Definately not.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:10, 22 May 2010 (BST)

Well there's no way we can achieve a perma then as half "the team" have voted against one. No Perma.

Which just leave the banning. Unless anyone has anything important to add I'll do it in an hour. What is is, Month? --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 11:17, 22 May 2010 (BST)

Yep. It's a month ban. -- C h e e s e 13:38, 22 May 2010 (BST)

Jesus, can one of your shits just fucking ban him already? Even I've been asking for this to quell the Sonny induced QQing for at leased two days now. It's not exactly a grey area here. Half of you are crying about the backlash of the A/PM removal but no one is banning him to finish it. Argh. --

13:47, 22 May 2010 (BST)

Sorry, figured someone else had already done it. Banned for a month.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 14:06, 22 May 2010 (BST)

I'm really itching to put you up for promotion now. --

Thadeous Oakley

14:07, 22 May 2010 (BST)

Dooo itt.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 14:09, 22 May 2010 (BST)

Maybe, I'd like to try in time, still have one week of semester. Atm though, We're not usually strict on this, but given the length of the ban and the circumstances, I reckon his talk page should be scheduled protected alongside his ban, y/n? --

14:34, 22 May 2010 (BST)

Hmm. I don't see the need, but we can always throw it up as a specific scheduled. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 15:29, 22 May 2010 (BST)

I dunno. I just thought since it was long and "controversial", but yeah, you're right, his talk isn't usually used. So it shouldn't be a problem. --

15:34, 22 May 2010 (BST)

I would have banned him myself but seeing as how I brought the case I thought I'd let you guys do it. =p -- C h e e s e 16:14, 22 May 2010 (BST)

User:VashX20

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	{{{2}}}

Possibly an alt of CptWesker listed below, therefore circumventing a ban. Claiming Alt. And creating this group and listing CptWesker as leader. --Thadeous Oakley 22:32, 17 May 2010 (BST)

So this may indicate zerging, but this is of course beyond this case, and more something for Resensitized. --Thadeous Oakley 22:32, 17 May 2010 (BST)

IP doesn't match anything. :P --Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:51, 17 May 2010 (BST)

Right. Well he did admit CptWesker was an alt of Vash, or vice versa. If you don't think that's enough then feel free to go not vandalism on this case, fine by me. --

Thadeous Oakley

22:58, 17 May 2010 (BST)

Actually, I believe he's accusing Ryan Rocksmith of being an alt of CptWesker. :P Wait a minute... He editted someone else's user page. Damn, I should really pay more attention.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:10, 17 May 2010 (BST)

Wait, I was right the first time. Realistically, he hasn't done anything to be accused of.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:11, 17 May 2010 (BST)

Considering I haven't accused him of vandalism that's true in itself.--

Thadeous Oakley

23:17, 17 May 2010 (BST)

Not Vandalism - As above.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:19, 17 May 2010 (BST)

Not vandalism - your iwitness report seems to indicate that they are coordinating closely, but not the same person. It's rather difficult (not impossible) to get two alts to make alternating attacks like that in such a short timeframe -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:30 18 May 2010 (BST)

and your logic behind Thad's bolded link where he admits he's Vash? --

03:35, 18 May 2010 (BST)

Bullshitting an enemy? Attention seeking behaviour? Anyway, it's not enough evidence for mine, but we can keep an eye on it, and apply a warning for the below if needed -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:47 18 May 2010 (BST)

In all honesty I'm not too sure there's enough here for a vandalism ruling but I'd keep a damn close eye on him in the future just in case. I ran a check user and it came up with nothing though.

03:57, 18 May 2010 (BST)

"The below" was permabanned bro. --

08:51, 18 May 2010 (BST)

Yes, because of the 3 edit rule. However, if they turn out to be the same person, Vash did make a number of somewhat contributory edits before that (the page was deleted, however when he wiped the page to make their new group). If they are one in the same, Vash should get a warning for creating a vandal alt, and Wesker remains banned either way -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:59 18 May 2010 (BST)

No he fucking shouldn't, if a user gets permabanned and makes an account a week later to evade the ban, makes an account and makes a "contributory" edit (in this case, making his own group page) then he should be banned again. 3page and Izumi did the same thing; making "contributory edits" over the last year then reveal they were vandal alts just to see how we would handle it and they were banned, this shouldn't be any different. Having an account here is a privilege, not a right, and that's how we always deal with vandal alts. If this account was around before Whesker I'd agree, but since it wasn't then there shouldn't be a second doubt about it. Jesus Christ Boxy, those last two comments I made above were open ended to allow you to dig yourself out a hole from the stupid comments you made before them, and you just made even dumber calls, no idea what you're smoking tonight dude :/ --

12:31, 18 May 2010 (BST)

Actually, Vash was made first, but the page he'd been editting was deleted. That would mean that he should get a warning for the vandalisms, as with when people create a vandal alt, I think. i could be wrong, but that's how I remember it.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:54, 18 May 2010 (BST)

My apologies to Boxy then. I thought he was tripping balls or something :( --

13:31, 18 May 2010 (BST)

So both users were created on or around the tenth? Not enough proof yet, so Not Vandalism--Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 13:16, 18 May 2010 (BST)

Looking more closely, vask was created less than an hour after the other account went on its vandalism spree. Pretty close to convinving, but not their yet. Saying that We'll be watching Vsk like a hawk --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 13:18, 18 May 2010 (BST)

User:CptWesker

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Permanent Ban (3 Edit Rule)

Too many to bother listing individually. I hate doing the three-edit thing, someone just verify shit for me. 01:02, 10 May 2010 (BST)

I know I'm no sysop so you'd just have to trust me ;D But yeah, bad bad boy needs perma >=[ This should have been on the talk page I know but it might mean Mis has a better chance of seeing it. --

01:08, 10 May 2010 (BST)

Dones.

01:09, 10 May 2010 (BST)

User:Shazam

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Please evaluate this change to Necronauts. As it looks like Shazam is not part of the Necronauts (and judging from his other edits is actually owning or affiliated with two of the profiles he removed - "Zumm Zero" and "what's happened"), the edit seems questionable. G F J 17:11, 8 May 2010 (BST)

Vandalism - I'm not seeing any evidence that he's a member of the Necronauts and it looks like those characters are his. I'll see what the others say though before warning him. -- C h e e s e 17:16, 8 May 2010 (BST)

Vandalism - Yep, pretty cut-and-dry. Warned. —Aich on— 02:30, 9 May 2010 (BST)

User:Cornholioo (2)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Week ban

Racism. He is blatenly abusing the jewish race here. --^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 16:45, 7 May 2010 (BST)

Vandalism - Fuck it, I banned Woot for something similar, may as well be consistent. 16:47, 7 May 2010 (BST)

Damnit, Michaelson beat me. Let me dish out the precedents of non-vulgar racism... if something this dumb can constitute vandalism even when a joke, then doing the exact same thing in a serious manner in all ways should too. --

16:49, 7 May 2010 (BST)

lolvandalism -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 17:24 7 May 2010 (BST)

sigh Vandalism --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 18:28, 7 May 2010 (BST)

Vandalism and Week ban - I was planning to bring this here myself after I read some of what he was posting in the last 24 hours. —Aich on— 21:21, 7 May 2010 (BST)

User:Cornholioo

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Month ban

Breaking arbies ruling here preventing him to make arbies cases without neutral arbitrater Yonnua's go-ahead. Said case which breached ruling is here.

Before anyone suspects that I actually baited Cornholioo into this, I don't bait users into A/VB cases (I was just fucking about with him) and honestly, I actually forgot the ruling myself until Spiderzed mentioned it to Yonnua.

But really. Hey Cornholioo, you were right, sure looks like you won in this one.

You always win.--

15:38, 7 May 2010 (BST)

Frankly, I think it's counter productive to limit drama magnets like Corni from creating arbies cases via such rulings. Despite his agreement with the ruling, I feel that the ruling was outside the scope of the case in question. It would have been smart for Corni to actually gain approval before the case, but he does need to have arbies open to him, to stop people abusing his talk page (if he can actually prove abuse).
Not vandalism - invalid arbies ruling -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 16:10 7 May 2010 (BST)

It wasn't a banning of his use of A/A, he just had to ask Yonnua the go ahead. Yonnua isn't an unfairly minded user, he probably would have allowed it to go through. The only time I remember arbies rulings being overturned in A/VB was when Anime and Sonny raped Terminalfailure, which was justified because of its basis of trolling and bullying but I don't believe this is. It means ruling not vandalism can be done, but I don't think the same purpose applies to this case at all. The ruling was in no way harsh, unfair or draconian and it is incredibly easy to follow for Corn... --

16:23, 7 May 2010 (BST)

Actually I know for certain that arbies rulings have been overturned in at least 1 other case on the basis of placing ufair/unrealistic demands. --Honestmistake 10:08, 14 May 2010 (BST)

I always welcome other examples or precedents but without elaborating or providing any actual links your claim is mostly insubstantial. --

13:59, 14 May 2010 (BST)

And it doesn't exactly affect my argument since I used the precedent to actually demonstrate that ruling against A/A rulings was possible but (imo) not necessary or just in this case. --

14:00, 14 May 2010 (BST)

Vandalism - As DDR kindly explained. 16:47, 7 May 2010 (BST)

Vandalism - Cornholioo could've simply waited until next week before starting the arbitration proceedings (there was no reason why he needed to start it today), or could have easily gone through Yonnua, who has already said that he would have allowed the case to go forward. Had he asked Yonnua, been denied for shady reasons, and then posted it anyway, I would have agreed that it was not vandalism. Had he even questioned the rightness of the ruling itself when it was handed down, he may have had a case. But the fact that he didn't make any attempt to honor the ruling while also never contesting it tells me that he voluntarily chose to ignore it, and that constitutes vandalism. —Aich on— 21:45, 7 May 2010 (BST)

I consider myself an involved party so I won't be ruling. Just to clear that up.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:39, 9 May 2010 (BST)

Sigh. Corn accepted the arbies ruling, and complied with the process in the past, as Yonnua's archive shows. Much as it pains me to say, Vandalisms. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 20:38, 9 May 2010 (BST)

Given the quick succession of cases against Corni, and the fact that they both deal with the same arbies case, I'd suggest that this case and the one above be treated as one, and no further escalation is required -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:36 10 May 2010 (BST)

Um, one is about racism/anti-semetism, the other is about the breach of a valid arbitration ruling. Why should they be conflated?

03:41, 10 May 2010 (BST)

Agreed. But even if we do as boxy says, then the right thing to do would be to make another case with a list of every other anti-semitic comment he made that day, since there were plenty to choose from that were worthy of escalation, not all of which were on A/A. I treated the above racism case as handling all of those other comments as well (since it would have been ludicrous to take each one here). If we're going to roll these two into one and treat it as an arbies issue, then there needs to be another case to deal with the racist comments that weren't on A/A. It'll be the same outcome either way, since many of his other comments were much more racist than the one cited in the above case. —Aich on— 03:56, 10 May 2010 (BST)

Some quick examples of other comments from that day: [1], [2]. [3], [4]. Though the last one is from A/A, it's not his initial post there and I'd say it's a separate issue since he went back in and deliberately added the "Jewish childmurderers- and rapists" part later, just for additional effect. Long story short, the racism issue needed to be handled separately, just as it has been. —Aich on— 04:11, 10 May 2010 (BST)

One last additional note, I know Google Translate isn't perfect, and I don't speak Dutch, but I think you can get a sense of what he was saying in one of those comments I linked. —Aich on— 04:15, 10 May 2010 (BST)

Well, I guess if there's other pages he's added his racist trolling to, then go for it. Month ban anyone? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:54 10 May 2010 (BST)

Aye. Might give us some piece and quiet for a bit at any rate. -- C h e e s e 14:48, 10 May 2010 (BST)

Don't forget about the racism I quoted in my A/A case against him. -Poodle of Doom^M! ^T 15:16, 10 May 2010 (BST)

Has anyone actually added on the ban time, or are we waiting for him to be unbanned first?--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:20, 13 May 2010 (BST)

No one's applied it yet. I'm waiting until it's a bit closer. Personally, I don't have a problem if we shave off just a few hours by applying it in advance a bit, but I'd prefer to do it as close as possible to when his other one expires, just to be as fair as possible. —Aich on— 19:26, 13 May 2010 (BST)

Why don't we just add the ban time from this one to the end of his current one? That would seem the most logical to me. :P --Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:53, 13 May 2010 (BST)

Sounds great! If you can tell me how to do it, I'll get right on it. :P —Aich on— 22:41, 13 May 2010 (BST)

I dunno. The "other" field on the dropdown maybe? If we worked out how much he had left and added a month to that, then stuck it in the box, that should theoretically sort it out, right?--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:55, 13 May 2010 (BST)

I know it's not my place to get involved in such things, but it seems to me that I've heard somewhere else that the ban length/time limit begins counting down from the moment its awarded, and can't be tacked onto the end of another... I could be wrong though. -Poodle of Doom^M! ^T 23:56, 13 May 2010 (BST)

Yes, but if you add the amount left to the amount needing to be given, it'll give the overall time. I just don't understand the "other" field which I'd need to use, because I've never banned anyone before.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 00:02, 14 May 2010 (BST)

That doesn't make any sense, because it would negate the length of the ban before it, and not only that, but the ops could easily just wait until the first bans over before applying the second ban making that precedent rubbish anyway. Yonnua, fiddle with the "other" tag on yourself (you can unban yourself as a sysop even when banned so you won't accidentally perma yourself) until you can work out how it works? --

01:20, 14 May 2010 (BST)

Ooh, good call. I'll fool around with that and will write up my findings after applying the new ban, assuming I figure anything out. —Aich on— 02:03, 14 May 2010 (BST)

Done. He's now blocked for an additional month. I was off by one minute, meaning that he'll technically get one minute shy of a full month's ban time, so you can Misconduct me for that, since I have no intention of trying to fix it. As for how you use the "other" field, I just entered something like "1 month, 19 hours, 7 minutes" with the commas like that and the numbers as digits. Seems to have worked fine, since the expiry it's showing is correct (aside from being one minute off). —Aich on— 02:17, 14 May 2010 (BST)

User:The_Colonel

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	{{{2}}}

Posting on my talk page after told not to.

To support this I want to bring this. White regards, CORNH卐 LIOO REMEMBER WHAT THE FIGHT IS FOR 14/88!!! 9:30, 7 May 2010 (BST)

Administration, Approved Policies, Administration Guidelines, a search for the word "harassment".

There, go look through those, and let me know when you can tell me what rule he supposedly broke. I know Ross may have said one thing, but I cordially disagree with his statement since I can't find anything to back up the idea of "harassment" being vandalism. We've already told you that this is Not Vandalism several times, and it shouldn't need to be repeated. When it comes to harassment as an official matter, sysops aren't allowed to bully around other users by using their status as a badge, which doesn't apply to the people listed on your page, and "harassment of any user through administration pages may result in vandal escalations," which seems as if it might apply soon if you keep this up. —Aich on— 10:08, 7 May 2010 (BST)

Not vandalism - do you see a pattern forming here, Corni? Go to arbitration and show reason why they should be banned from your page. Telling you not to spam recent changes is not harassment, it's what your talk page is for, so that people can contact you. Banning everyone who says something you don't want to hear is not reasonable (try not being a douchebag instead) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:44 7 May 2010 (BST)

As boxy. There's a surprise. Theres at least two sysops telling you that it may be a case. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 10:23, 7 May 2010 (BST)

... and a third one that actually told me to get these people to vandal banning. Rings any bells Rosslessness? --CORNH卐 LIOO REMEMBER WHAT THE FIGHT IS FOR 14/88!!! 12:18, 7 May 2010 (BST)

User:Spiderzed

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	{{{2}}}

Posting on my talk page after told not to. White regards,Cornholioo 17:16, 2 May 2010 (BST)

I have only to add the following: I'm aware of not being welcome on that talk page. For that reason, I've kept my comment short, to the point, factual, and have done it in good faith (to point out an oversight I assumed Cornholioo had at that time). That being said, I'll gladly receive an official warning if the sys-ops deem that this hasn't been sufficient reason and damage control. --Spiderzed 17:32, 2 May 2010 (BST)

Just avoid it entirely.

17:33, 2 May 2010 (BST)

Vandalism. Will you guys all just not do things any more? 17:30, 2 May 2010 (BST)

Fuck it, Acorn makes sense, Not Vandalism.

20:08, 2 May 2010 (BST)

Not Vandalism - As we explained last time this came up with Cornholioo, until it goes through arbitration, there are no teeth to it. —Aich on— 20:04, 2 May 2010 (BST)

NV -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:04 3 May 2010 (BST)

User:Oidar

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	{{{2}}}

I take highly offence of this: Image:Adolflikedchildren.png. Vandalism? --Cornholioo 14:45, 1 May 2010 (BST)

Category:Humorous Images Oidar 14:48, 1 May 2010 (BST)

Humorous? How dare you call that humorous? --Cornholioo 14:49, 1 May 2010 (BST)

Would you mind explaining exactly what it is that you find offensive? Oidar 14:54, 1 May 2010 (BST)

I found it funny--

^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 14:54, 1 May 2010 (BST)

Please take it to a talk page somewhere -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:55 1 May 2010 (BST)

Tough. Not vandalism -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:51 1 May 2010 (BST)

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACornholioo&diff=1702380&oldid=1701661 --Cornholioo 15:10, 1 May 2010 (BST)

This is ridiculous. Not vandalism and I'll drop a train full of precedence on you if I need to. 15:44, 1 May 2010 (BST)

Not Vandalism. Open and shut case. —Aich on— 23:15, 1 May 2010 (BST)

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

April 2010

User:The_Colonel

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None needed

Editing my messages. White regards, Cornholioo 18:05, 30 April 2010 (BST)

See talk page.

Vandalism (sigh) - It was last month for this case. That one was more obvious since they were also making a personal attack, whereas you were removing some questionable information, but you know better than to impersonate someone. —Aich on— 18:42, 30 April 2010 (BST)

Not Vandalism, unlike the link above The Colonel had never previously edited a danger report. Seems like a newb error. Don't do it again. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 19:46, 30 April 2010 (BST)

I'm going to say Not vandalism based on the fact that Colonel was editting a publicly-available area in a manner condusive to maintaining a neutral point-of-view, and simply made a schoolboy error in doing so (ie, editting only the comment field without looking through the entire table). If it can be demonstrated that this was actually a personal attack or deliberate impersonation then I'll change my vote to vandalism, but as it stands this does not strike me as a bad-faith edit. 21:31, 30 April 2010 (BST)

Not Vandadidalisms - As Mis. -- C h e e s e 21:39, 30 April 2010 (BST)

Arsebaggery moved to talk page

Closed as Not Vandalism, April archives done. 01:07, 1 May 2010 (BST)

The Colonel should know better. V -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:46 1 May 2010 (BST)

User:Cornholioo (4)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	48hr ban

Removing stuff from another user's talk page. Infrastructure 16:40, 28 April 2010 (BST)

I'll be glad to stop seeing this whole clusterfuck appearing on the admin pages. Thankfully this one is clear-cut vandalism, since I checked the times to be sure it's not just an edit conflict. 16:42, 28 April 2010 (BST)

You didn't sign your post and I see it as a direct attack on me. Thus I've deleted it. I'd say next time you see a bus coming, jump in front of it and do the world a favour. Fucking ehero. I wonder if you're so tough as well in real life. Probably not. --Cornholioo 17:02, 28 April 2010 (BST)

1. Have I implied any kind of toughness in the so-called real world? 2. Do your homework first, fuckwad. Infrastructure 17:05, 28 April 2010 (BST)

That's not signing retard. If we go down that road then I don't need to sign any of my posts. And you're making personal attacks on me. I wonder if you dare to say that in my face. --Cornholioo 17:28, 28 April 2010 (BST)

Quiet the both of you. The admin pages of this wiki are not staging grounds for your pissant little drama.

17:07, 28 April 2010 (BST)

I'll shut up now, right after an somewhat logical point: I was trying to say that me signing anything has no meaning, as I'm not involved in this. Infrastructure 17:32, 28 April 2010 (BST)

Also, given this, if I see it happen one more time before anyone else rules, I'm just closing it right away as vandalism.

17:12, 28 April 2010 (BST)

Vandalism - good night -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 17:17 28 April 2010 (BST)

Vandalism - Corn, it wasn't Infrastructure's edit that was unsigned. It was Zyckde's, and that's his talk page. He can do whatever he wants there, including not signing his posts if he's so inclined. 48 Hour Ban. —Aich on— 17:55, 28 April 2010 (BST)

Well, Zyckde should still sign his replies, even on his own talk page, but the way to deal with that isn't to wipe the reply, but rather use the {{unsigned}} template -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:57 29 April 2010 (BST)

I'd agree that he should, but so long as he doesn't commit impersonation (and I can imagine a few ways to get around it) when/if he fails to sign, I don't see a problem in terms of vandalism. But yeah, it's definitely best if he signs, and the appropriate response would be the template, as you said. —Aich on— 03:01, 29 April 2010 (BST)

~~Cunt~~ Vandadidalisms -- C h e e s e ~~02:52, 29 April 2010 (BST)~~ 02:59, 29 April 2010 (BST)

User:Cornholioo (3)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	24hr ban

Has revealed personal information in form of IP adresses on the National Socialist Union page. Ross had informally purged it meanwhile, but now it can be found again in the first revision of today. (Later, Corny removed it again, but it's yet in the page history). Given the severe nature of revealed personal information, swift action would be welcome! --Spiderzed 12:19, 23 April 2010 (BST)

~~Vandalism Childish attempts at revenge = Awesome?~~ I know, I'm pathetic. Can you blame me? It's not my fault I can't read rules. Infrastructure 12:21, 23 April 2010 (BST)

New vandalism cases go at the top. Only sysops can vote on vandalism cases so it would be best if you un-bolded the word vandalism, Infrastructure. It should also be noted that Cornholioo claims that he didn't see Ross's warning before adding the IP addresses back in. - User:Whitehouse 12:28, 23 April 2010 (BST)

Yeah, I've seen later myself that Corny has apparently seen Ross' warning too late, and that he has done his bit to remove the information. It should yet be ASAP purged from the page history, though, regardless of any further actions such as formal warnings. (And thanks for fixing the order, I've been quite hastily reporting, given the nature of the problem.) --Spiderzed 12:32, 23 April 2010 (BST)

The reposting revisions have been removed now. If it was just a posting for member info, I'd go with not vandalism, as long as it didn't happen again. However, this seems to be part of a wider baiting and drama creation agenda, so Vandalism. If you're going to create drama, make damn sure you don't break rules in doing so, and listing IP info here is not on -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:52 23 April 2010 (BST)

I have readded this information before Rosslessness was able to comment on my talk page, so I didn't know I wasn't allowed to. Otherwise I wouldn't have done it. I deleted the info again straight after I read the comment and I've even said it probably is still in the history. I haven't deliberately broken the rules. I can't remove it from the history or I would have done that. --Cornholioo 13:10, 23 April 2010 (BST)

Time to quit slapping wrists boys,... let 'em play in the big house.... -Poodle of Doom^M! ^T 13:24, 23 April 2010 (BST)

Judging by the swiftness of my actions, Its more than fair to say that Corn had not seen the warning when he restored the page. Apologies for my earlier swifness and slapping, but I felt nipping the situation in the bud quickly was the best course of action. Misconduct me if you so wish. Anyway. I fail to see how its a good faith edit, and regardless is Vandalism. Learn from this corn, no personal information about Real Life please.--Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 15:29, 23 April 2010 (BST)

How u mean 'good faith edit'? I've deleted that stuff after I read your comment. --Cornholioo 23:59, 23 April 2010 (BST)

It means you didn't put the infomation there to help people. Therefore it was put up in "bad faith"--

^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 00:01, 24 April 2010 (BST)

Vandalism. Unwarranted dropping of dox is muchos bado. 17:06, 23 April 2010 (BST)

Implying that it is ever warranted? Cyberbob Talk 00:13, 24 April 2010 (BST)

Yarp. I already linked to my RL shit on the wiki here, so I dropped it on myself. Hence, warranted.

00:18, 24 April 2010 (BST)

Oh, I thought we were more or less talking about people doing it to others. Cyberbob Talk 00:22, 24 April 2010 (BST)

Yeah when it happens that way it's bad.

00:37, 24 April 2010 (BST)

24hr Ban -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:46 24 April 2010 (BST)

Dang boxy ninja and his wiki editing ways...I had everything all entered and was gonna make all of the changes at once, but then you beat me by less than 15 seconds. —Aich on— 00:49, 24 April 2010 (BST)

User:Imthatguy

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	{{{2}}}

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACornholioo&diff=1695682&oldid=1694446

I've said at the top of my talk page that his messages are unwelcome. I've done that because he's been messing around before.

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACornholioo&diff=1692548&oldid=1692544

As can be seen, I've said this on 16 April 2010. He has ignored the warning so now I've reported him. --Cornholioo 18:32, 21 April 2010 (BST)

Vandalism - Obvious bad faith and continued even after being asked to stop. -- C h e e s e 18:41, 21 April 2010 (BST)

Not Vandalism - Corni is carrying on a conversation with him on the talk page. If he wants him to stop using that talk page, he can just wipe the comments instead of encouraging him, and take him to arbitration. Without an arbitration ruling, that notice at the top of the page means nothing -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:23 22 April 2010 (BST)

Not Vandalism - As boxy (and as Ross explained to Corn, I believe), until it goes through arbitration, there's no teeth to it. —Aich on— 02:53, 22 April 2010 (BST)

Warning retracted -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:40 22 April 2010 (BST)

Deleted then. --Cornholioo 13:44, 23 April 2010 (BST)

=P--

Arthur Dent

BIN LADEN IS DEAD!!!!! 14:00, 23 April 2010 (BST)

User:G F J

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	{{{2}}}

For this bad faith use of admin pages. Putting groups up for deletion that you do not like is not a good faith use of the admin pages of this wiki, all it does is create drama and takes up time and space for no use. He blatantly lied in his deletion summary (by saying the group never existed) in an attempt to mislead voters. This was quite clearly proven when Sonny showed up and reminded us all that it's his group and still active.

We don't delete inactive groups on this wiki, we certainly don't delete active ones. Deliberately going after groups that disagree with your own and using the admin pages as a weapon to achieve this in no way improves this wiki and should be stamped on from a great height.

We'd be warning Cornholioo if he put up WWSIS for deletion and then went and collected a group of followers from a message board, this is no different. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 19:52, 19 April 2010 (BST)

Not Vandalism - There was no clear evidence of activity for the group on the wiki over the last few years, and I can see his statements as being well within the realm of reasonableness. Perhaps to the best of his knowledge the group never did exist, since it seemed to merely be a parody group. The fact that he was later proven incorrect does not make his actions malicious, merely misguided or mistaken. —Aich on— 20:57, 19 April 2010 (BST)

Not vandalism - not the best way to deal with a legitimate problem, but not bad faith either -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:56 20 April 2010 (BST)

Not VaNdaLiSM --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 11:27, 20 April 2010 (BST)

Am I allowed to make a statement here? If not, please feel free to delete/move the following as appropriate, I apologize for the inconvenience if this is the case.
As has been correctly guessed, I have not been aware that the "NDEM" is an active group. I had taken it to be a mere parody site, without any actual group activities, etc. going on. As had already been noted, there are several points that led me to believe it was not an active group:

No edits to Department of Emergency Management (new) or its talk page for at least two years, and if one looks at the talk page, it is somewhat reasonable to assume that the last edit by Pdeq had not been one made by the group as well.
The NDEM is categorized as humor, not as for example Survivor Groups.
There is no contact information on the NDEM page that I could have used to contact any group leadership.
Looking at the "subgroups", Axes Low is already labeled as inactive and it does look like a mere joke about or from Axes High. The Malton Sanitation Department is not labeled as inactive, however, in the last two years only a single edit had been made to it or its talk page as well, and that edit does not look like it was made by the group itself. No Malton Sanitation Department appears on the UD stats page. Of the members listed, several of them do not have Malton Sanitation Department as their group tag, and except for one person (that does not have the MSD group tag), all are striked through in-game. Coming to the forum that the MSD page links to, this is supposed to be on Brainstock (not even the "new" Brainstock that was announced on August 20, 2009, still the old one), but as anyone can verify, is not available and thus "dead" as well.

In short, I was unable to find anything that would indicate the NDEM is an active group, I had been under the impression that it is not. Hence, I did not lie. While the above is only for the current situation, I had likewise not been aware that the NDEM had ever existed in the past, that it was once an actual group and not simply a parody as the humor category suggests. Everything I could recall that I had heard about the MSD, etc. in the past was only about a joke and parody, not an actually existing group. As the consequence, I wrote "is not existing and never has" - this was to the best of my knowledge. If I have been wrong, I apologize for the confusion, but this has not been bad-faithed lying as I did not know better. You can accuse of me of having been misinformed, but not of lying.
Regarding the accusation of "getting a group of followers from a message board, etc.": I have not. If you look at the votes, you will notice that aside from myself only two DEM members have participated. Both of these are not new accounts registered just to vote, their first wiki edits go back to 2007 and 2008. If the DEM had attempted to rally its member and get them to vote, I do believe that with the UD stats page showing more than 130 members of DEM groups, we would have been able to gather more than two single participants. Once again, the DEM has not and will not attempt the "meatpuppeting" or whatever it has been called that we are sometimes accused of.
If there are any questions, please let me know.
With best regards, G F J 10:50, 20 April 2010 (BST)

Not Vandalisms - Case closed. -- C h e e s e 17:31, 20 April 2010 (BST)

Then don't forget --

Thadeous Oakley

18:11, 20 April 2010 (BST)

User:Apclear

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Permban

Some childish page tampering. Open and shut really. 19:30, 17 April 2010 (BST)

Thank you--Kikorules 19:44, 17 April 2010 (BST)

3 vandal edits, no constructive posts. Permban -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:16 18 April 2010 (BST)

User:Thaedracy (2)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	One week ban

Used an alternate account to subvert his two day ban currently in force. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:10, 12 April 2010 (BST)

Vandalism - warning should be made to Thaed and a perma to radio girl. IRL issues mean I won't be able to do this just now, so if no one has done/complained in the next few hours I will do it myself tonight. --

08:02, 13 April 2010 (BST)

I'd do it the other way around, but yeah, Vandalism.

12:10, 13 April 2010 (BST)

well, technically, the new one is the 'alt' since it was made first. and hey, even though she uses the "old main", banning the "new alt" as a vandal alt and keeping the "vandal main" (after banning for a week as per escalations) only inconveniences her more. And when it comes to a retard using an alt to vandalise for personal lols, the less concessions the better. And I'm demoting tomorow, so bring on the A/M cases ;D --

13:31, 13 April 2010 (BST)

CISMONDUCT!

13:32, 13 April 2010 (BST)

DDR is right. The Thaed account was created first and the RG account is the one guilty of vandalism with these edits (namely circumventing the ban to the primary account). RG needs perma-ing and Thaed needs a week adding to his go away clause. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 13:45, 13 April 2010 (BST)

User:Thaedracy

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	2 Day Ban

Blanking userpages. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 05:37, 11 April 2010 (BST)

banned for 48. Looks like he didn't learn from that 24 hour ban, eh iscariot!! ;D ;D If only it were two days from the getgo! ;D ;D --

06:07, 11 April 2010 (BST)

That 24 hour ban stopped him for three weeks it seems, looks like the duration doesn't need to be increased :P --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 06:13, 11 April 2010 (BST)

IP check brings up User:Radio Girl with same IPs. God knows which one is the dedicated vandal account *sarcasm* --

06:35, 11 April 2010 (BST)

User:Cornholioo (2)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warning

Cornholioo has repetedly ([5] [6] [7]) removed this template from this page. Infrastructure 14:12, 10 April 2010 (BST)

Not Vandalisms - For now. -- C h e e s e 14:37, 10 April 2010 (BST)

Vandalism - Ignoring requests to leave the page as is so I'm assuming he's now just doing this to piss all those involved off. -- C h e e s e 15:03, 10 April 2010 (BST)

What the fuck is this shit. Seriously. 14:41, 10 April 2010 (BST)

At this point Corn appears to have finally decided on an acceptable arbiter on his initial Battle of Krinks page. With that in mind it may be prudent to protect this page as a larger part of that case, as it seems to be basically the same issue. Thoughts? --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 14:43, 10 April 2010 (BST)

That would be giving him attention, which is all he actually wants.

14:46, 10 April 2010 (BST)

That is a fair point, but I think it's just a page he's made to work around the fact that he can't edit the other one. =/ I get the feeling we should stop "battle of..." pages being made while the conflict is ongoing. Wait until they're done before writing anything up. -- C h e e s e 14:48, 10 April 2010 (BST)

What the.. Infrastructure 14:59, 10 April 2010 (BST)

If it's reverted again, I'll protect it. -- C h e e s e 15:03, 10 April 2010 (BST)

Vandalism in light of this. But seriously, from now on, ignore the troll.

15:05, 10 April 2010 (BST)

Oh someone's warned him already. Either way, I'm adding to the manpile. Vandalism. --

15:33, 10 April 2010 (BST)

User:Sgt Raiden

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	24hr Ban

Blanking sections of another user's talk page. This includes several comments that were not his own. 05:26, 10 April 2010 (BST)

Vandalism - He's been warned for a blanking incident before (albeit, that one was more significant), so he should know better. You can't go blanking parts of someone's page. —Aich on— 05:55, 10 April 2010 (BST)

When it comes to wiki griefing, this guy fails. Vandalism, and so it comes to a 24hour ban. --

06:08, 10 April 2010 (BST)

User:Boom12389

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Rule 10 of the suggestions system. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:05, 5 April 2010 (BST)

Warned. --

05:29, 6 April 2010 (BST)

User:Cornholioo

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	{{{2}}}

Probably not the right place/way to do this, but.. What the heck. Cornholioo edited a user's archive. I'm not a very good reader, but from what I can see that's against the rules. Infrastructure 14:51, 3 April 2010 (BST)

Sigh. Not Vandalism, just petty. The classic "wait until the other person has left and then think of what you wanted to say to them that would have been cool". I assume that the user in question will ignore the comment as its in an archive. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 16:06, 4 April 2010 (BST)

Not Vandalism - But only barely, since it may not be clear that new comments are not welcome on that page. It's a user page for a user with whom he is currently in conflict and whose page he has previously vandalized (and been warned for). He was also soft warned over a similar issue, but the fact that the page holds comments for a recent line of discussion that was moved there quickly may have led to the confusion over what was proper. Another soft warning, I think, since it's not clear that it was bad faith. —Aich on— 21:02, 4 April 2010 (BST)

Not Vandalism - However, for peace of mind to Zyckde, I undid the edit, as it was archived by him for a reason. --

02:02, 5 April 2010 (BST)

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

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:Shazam (2)

Navigation menu

Search