UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2015

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Administration Services

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

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

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

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

Guidelines for Vandalism Reporting

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

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

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

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

Before Submitting a Report

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

Vandalism Report Space

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


Misanthropy (2)

Adding a link to his own userpage onto Axe Hack's signature even though it specifically says do not edit in the form of a large, ugly image. A ZOMBIE ANT 14:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Soft warned for different sig baloney this month already. A ZOMBIE ANT 14:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd go with not vandalism here, unless Axe complained himself -- boxy 14:56, 9 October 2015 (BST)
As boxy, especially given that Axe's very next edit after Mis' one was this. Aichon 15:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
As long as Axe Hack doesn't complain, there is no room for a case, so Not Vandalism. If the link had been more expansive, it might have been impersonation, but a single letter in some 20 lines hardly constitutes that. -- Spiderzed 19:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Yep, not vandalism unless Axe was a complainant. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 19:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Can I complain about being distracted from New York Comic Con for...well. All this? --GAMBLER of LEGEND ΧIII 21:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Life is hard when you make a stupid edit and it comes back to bite you! A ZOMBIE ANT 06:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Shit in that man's cereal. What a dick. Hope he dies. Philanthropy 14:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Majority says not vandalism. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 05:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Axe Hack

Making an unnecessarily long signature [1] just to make a shitty point/joke. SLR precedent. Not identical but the intent is the same. What'll it be, ops? Another signature related policy voting that lasts 2 weeks just to curb long sigs, or is it time to nip this bad faith garbage in the bud right now? A ZOMBIE ANT 14:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Blatant vandalism, that could have been ignored if it was removed shortly after being changed. But it's still up there, 3 days later, and because it's a templated signature, it's plastered all over the wiki, fucking up thousands (yeah, thousands) of talk pages with a sig that is not only huge (datawise) but also adds up to half a page of meaningless text every time it's added to a page -- boxy 14:55, 9 October 2015 (BST)

While we work on sorting this out, I've gone ahead and reverted it (someone A/VB me if you want), since regardless of whether it's vandalism or not, it's disrupting the use of the wiki in ways that cannot be allowed to continue.

As for my stance on it, I'm willing to accept that he was acting in good faith in making his point, but, as boxy said, it's been three days now, it still remains, it's all over the wiki, and there's really no excuse for it remaining up. That said, he hasn't been active for the last two days and no one told him off (as per the existing sig policy) until today, so I'm saying Not Vandalism (yet), but definitely knock it off. If he undoes my edit reversion to restore his lengthy sig, then I'll consider it to be done in bad faith, since he knows better at this point. Aichon 15:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

As Aichon. Let Axe off the hook this time if he stops to disrupt the site, else hit him with our authoritah. - I'd also like to point to WP:POINT. Disrupting a site just to make a point is never a good idea. -- Spiderzed 19:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Not vandalism unless he reverts it back. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 19:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, hai again, wikizens. I didn't think I'd be seeing you all this soon again considering I pretty much appear once in a blue moon. You should thank Rev for poking me on Facebook about this. I'll leave this memo here: If I do a hit-and-run edit that needs reverting, feel free to do it if I happen to disappear for a week or something, especially considering I'm like, pretty much never here. --GAMBLER of LEGEND ΧIII 21:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, another thing...Since Gmail seems to flag all UDWiki emails sent to me as spam, it may be far more ideal to try contacting me through Twitter, Facebook (personal. Rev contacted me through this), or Facebook (public page). --GAMBLER of LEGEND ΧIII 22:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Not vandalism. Yes, it was long; yes, it was pointy; but it wasn't page breaking, and didn't break any actual rules. In effect, it was no worse than users writing walls of text in conversation--if it had called multiple templates and fucked the inclusion limit, or obscured other page element, or anything else of the sort, then it would have been problematic, but it was just long in terms of plain text and we're well accustomed to long blocks of pointless text around here. Now that it has been reverted, I see no problem in drawing a line under it provided it's not done again. For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee 14:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

No further comments means this one's a not vandalism. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 05:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


Replaced valid signatures with plain text links. Per directly applicable Lord K precedent, this would be considered vandalism. (“Impersonation”, I believe.) Does it still work this way?


ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 14:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

In my defense, I'll say that it's a good faith edit, to reduce the size of my own talk page, as well as the superfluous text in the edit window, when replying. You will notice, I left his one signature, that wasn't ridiculously long, untouched -- boxy 14:28, 9 October 2015 (BST)

It, in no way, reduces the functionality of the signature, while increasing the usability of my own talk page. Lord K did his editing on someone else's page, not his own -- boxy 14:37, 9 October 2015 (BST)
I get wanting to keep talk page size down, and I stopped using it on your talk page after you asked me nicely, but outright editing people’s sigs has long been considered impersonation last I checked. Per Specific Case Editing Guidelines, while your userspace is your own, “An exception to this broad authority is the impersonation of others. Impersonation of others can still be reported as a vandalism attempt, even if you are the one that did it on your User page.”
So, while it would be perfectly reasonable for you (or anyone else) to remove comments by users which did not meet your/their liking in some fashion (notifying affected users would be nice, but not necessary), actually editing the signature for them can be considered impersonation and reported as vandalism.
For the record, I would have had no problem with changing the sigs myself after boxy asked me not to use them on his page, if he had asked me to change them as well (or just removed the comment citing reason like Yon did). What I have a problem with is a user altering another user’s signed comment without it being absolutely necessary.
I don’t have a problem with boxy, just want to make sure the integrity of signatures is not violated. ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 14:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Do you know how long it took me to find where to reply to your comment... and I'm still not 100% sure this is it! Good luck with your case, you'll need it. It's my talk page, my rules, as long as I don't misrepresent you -- boxy 15:00, 9 October 2015 (BST)
Honestly this case is pretty much for the sake of clarity. It would help if this wiki had any clear definition of “impersonation”, but editing signatures has been considered impersonation pretty consistently in the past.
In case you missed it, Specific Case Editing Guidelines says “my page, my rules” has a speciic exemption for impersonation.
As for the length: although I can see your point, while there is no rule against long signatures I see no reason I should not be free to make use of them, as anyone else. ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 15:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Holy fuck, it's getting even worse, and I can't edit out your fucking annoying crap coding on this page, even though it adds not one thing to the discussion, other than discourage people from bothering to post at all. Changing sigs has been ruled vandalism when done on pages not owned by the editor, and even then, it's mostly because douchebags edit the sig to be insulting. I can remember no precedent of someone editing out annoying sigs like yours, from their own page, that has ever been ruled vandalism. Go fetch one, please, or stop asserting that you have precedent. I'm sick of trawling through your signature code to reply -- boxy 15:23, 9 October 2015 (BST)
Where's my case, Rev? I reverted your signature on your own page, surely that's even worse? What about AHLG and Bob? TIA A ZOMBIE ANT 14:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Wasn’t that the outright ridiculously broken one? This is {{Goonsig}}. Totally different signature. By all means, though, link the diff and you can get in on this. ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 14:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Just checked: you reverted the /Sig template, not the actual signature on the actual talk page, and you did it because it was fucking broken. My only remaining complaint there was that you reverted it to the outdated election version, and that’s more of a minor quibble than anything.
Sorry. Sad ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 15:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn't realise he had reverted the goonsig, I thought it was the bad one. My mistake, and apologies. A ZOMBIE ANT 15:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Mea culpa— apparently I forgot to link diffs in the post. Herp! Not your fault at all. Happy I sleep now. ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 15:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Not Vandalism. You chose your screenname as a way you want to represent yourself. He merely used your screenname as it's intended to be used: to represent you. That's not impersonation. Not even close. And as you already pointed out, he has control over his own user space, so he's allowed to make changes within reason. If he had done something like what Mis did a few weeks ago in the A/VB below, sure, you'd have a case, even if he limited it to his own pages, but this isn't even in that ballpark. Aichon 15:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Not Vandalism. A mere formatting clean-up on someone's own userpage that doesn't touch the content is not even close to impersonation. -- Spiderzed 19:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

To quote Revenant himself in the Lord K precedent you use,

Revenant said:
You can alter signatures to be plain links on your own talk page, but you can't do it on others' pages.

No one's ever objected to doing so, as far as I can tell. Not vandalism. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 19:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. So the linked case was vandalism (because it was somebody else's page), but not impersonation? Always hardddddddddddddddddddd to know what this wiki will consider impersonation. Thanks, guys, looks like we're done here. Happy ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 21:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

In the linked case, you appear to be the only one discussing the possibility that it may be impersonation. I'm not convinced that it was, and the way that the Goonsig was handled created a lot of strange precedents around that time. This appears to be one of them. Even so, your own words validate boxy's actions, so as you said, things are done. Aichon 21:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
… I hope you’re not just taking my word for it. past!Revenant could be totally full of shit! Happy ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 22:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

User: Revenant

Enough with the signature bullshite -- boxy 13:17, 9 October 2015 (BST)

Clarification: That's text, not signature. Happy See? → ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 13:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Your signature bullshit, from the past couple of days, is entirely relevant, though. And shows intent. Further discussion which is probably relevant can be found on my talk page -- boxy 13:48, 9 October 2015 (BST)

Yes, I would warn him, but I can't edit his talk page. Tongue :P --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 14:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Good luck Sysops, please do follow through now Boxy's made the first step. A ZOMBIE ANT 14:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism and he should be warned, since he already knew that those marks were causing issues for broad swaths of users and chose to make use of them to spam up an administrative page regardless. Aichon 15:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Just as long as you do not have any problem with me putting beans up my nose. ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 00:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism. This was actively mucking up an admin page. -- Spiderzed 19:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Yep, vandalism with warning, as he'd been informed that that style of text wiki-breaks in several browsers. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 19:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Obvious majority is obvious. Warned. -- Spiderzed 19:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


Goth Store‎‎

Placeholder for an obviously required IP check and monitoring. A ZOMBIE ANT 13:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I meant to block the /24 when I decided not to block the /16, but forgot to. Blocking the /24 now. Aichon 14:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


Rather classic 'impersonation', even though the original person didn't sign for themselves. A ZOMBIE ANT 08:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Just a note, I didn't originally report this as the signature did link to the correct person. I'm pretty sure on reconsideration that this is impersonation. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 17:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't remember the unsigned template. Its name is too unintuitive. For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee 20:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Not Vandalism. This is clearly a clerical error of someone who couldn't find the Unsigned-template on short notice. -- Spiderzed 07:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Wow. A ZOMBIE ANT 08:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Corruption reaching new highs.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 15:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Next week we'll move up to acting like we're kicking puppies, though none of us will be able to hold a candle next to the random bannings and escalations of yesteryear. ;) Aichon 18:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't jest too much, making biased rulings based on what they think of the accused is the misconduct case that god Jed demoted. I'm not sure if I believe that though, I just think it's a horrible ruling. Although I do have a bad history of missing Spiderzed's jokes and sarcastic comments, which if it is, doing it as official ruling is pretty bad. A ZOMBIE ANT 06:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I really think that this is much too petty to bother about. The only other two sys-ops disagree, and I'm fine with that as it shows we still get diverse opinions going. (But I'm also sitting in Greece right now enjoying the Aegaeian azure sky and a cool beer, so the whole case really appears petty.) -- Spiderzed 13:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
"This is petty" is different to "this is clearly an honest mistake". The latter is kinda alarming since, well, it clearly wasn't. A ZOMBIE ANT 08:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
But I do hope you're enjoying your holiday though, I hear Greece is great. A ZOMBIE ANT 08:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism. Obviously. --Spiderzed is a weinerWant to complete a dangerous mission? 09:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, Vandalism, simply because it's established precedent that you can't represent your own text as belonging to someone else. It's fair to say that The Goth Store Owner would not want to be referred to as "Some Weiner", so Misanthropy using that for TGSO's signature text, rather than TGSO's actual name, means that he's portraying his own views as belonging to TGSO. That said, this is slap on the wrist sort of activity here. It's a toss-up for me between soft warning and warning, especially considering that the posts were unsigned by TGSO and that the link Misanthropy used in the signature was the correct one, meaning that there was absolutely no confusion regarding who the comments belonged to. SomeWeiner 14:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Slap me, Acorn. I want it bad. For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee 21:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd have gone with warning, but with Aichon pointing out that he did indeed link un unsignatured post to its user, I'll say Soft Warning. Don't do this again Mis. Thanks. --RosslessnessWant to complete a dangerous mission? 21:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Everyone on board for a softie? -- Spiderzed 14:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
As Ross. Aichon 14:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism - and Mis knows what's up. Psyop misrepresents vandal douchebag, cause he can. Edgy as fuck -- boxy 09:50, 21 September 2015 (BST)

With three of us on board for a soft warning, I'll go ahead and make it official: Vandalism and Soft Warning. Aichon 17:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


So, after The Goth Store Owner claimed he switched to a phone from his dad's laptop, I checkusered him again, and lo and behold, it turns out he's from the same /24 IP block as another imposter account that went unnoticed until now: Walter Krenshaw (not to be confused with the original WalterKrenshaw). Widen the search just a hair more to a /16, and all of the imposter accounts from earlier suddenly show up too, which makes sense, given that he's claiming ownership of those accounts too.

We let it slide earlier because it was conceivable that someone could have separately arrived at the name of "Goth Store Owner" and because there wasn't any evidentiary link to the rest of the vandal alts being created, but at this point it's evident that these accounts are linked with the other imposter accounts and that the choice of name was intentional, rather than coincidental.

To say the least, I'd suggest a permaban on these two accounts and a permaban on the latest /24 as well. I'd rather not widen it to include the /16 just yet, since two more accounts showed up in that search, and I haven't had a chance to check into whether they're related to all of this or not. Aichon 22:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

This is all just a stupid joke right?
Just admit you ppl are protecting you're cheating fail friends and be done with it.
I think it's unlikely you guys don't know the difference between impersonation and similarity
It's not impersonation unless I am pretending to be them. Look at the bios. None of them pretend to do that. All we did was make a name similar to the :original cheats and make better toons. None of us ever claimed to be them in-game neither.
We made characters to RP. Nothing agai.st the rules inl that.
In fact I thought tat is encouraged.
Serial killers have had copy cats before and some have been confused for others.
This isn't any different.
You guys are trying to spin it towards a technicality to help your friends and it's cowardice.
Truth is no rules we broken but you'll pretend they were to help garbage stay afloat.
Guess you guys aren't so unbiased as you pretend.
Let's hear some more lies and spin. It was pretty obvious you guys wouldn't do the right thing when you banned the accounts so fast the help your friend. :And it's obvious siege22 is someone else to that you already know but pretend like he is not.
Bunch of cowards you are trying to ma.iulate the game.
I can see why you fight so hard to slander players and accuse us of zerging and all being the same ppl.
It's because you do it yourselves and Thu.k you own it.
You don't and never will.
And I can't tell my dad what to do with his laptop.
I think there's prob nothing wrong with it anyway and you guys are just making excuses not to let us make same name but separate. Haracters of the cheating friend you protect. Dumb.
So go on then. Write sometime.g offensive in return, or something trying to put me down in an effort to show you're smart. Just more silly lies from ppl who don't play fairly and too chicken to keep things equal.
I'm sure your comments will be predictably snobby and full of fake politics.
You're not smart. Just cheats. And it's a shame pll like you act and protect scum instead of doing the job right.
I don't expect better than more lies, excuses, and pretending now.
Good luck with the cover up cheaters. If you need to cheat here than you certainly fail at life. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Goth Store Owner (talkcontribs) at an unknown time.
Learn to 1) spell, 2) format, 3) be more concise, cheers. For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee 12:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Hey dumb fuck it's hard to do on a small screen. That all you got? Fag grammar copper?
Or just using that to distract from the truth I.stead of giving a real answer be a use I make sense.
It's ok trolls always fails.
And with a user name like yours it's clear you're a loser IRL. Just another nerd.
Cheers on that.
So here are some ids
None impersonate.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Goth Store Owner (talkcontribs) at an unknown time.
tl;dr. I literally know nothing about this case and I already agree with Acorn. For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee 12:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Hey Mis, if someone fails to sign, just add the {{unsigned}} template. Thanks. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 17:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Are you for real? A ZOMBIE ANT 02:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
?? Mis had falsely "signed" for the user with a nom-de-flame. Even if somebody's a vandal, that's not a thing to do. (In part because it makes it confusing who's said what.) Bob Moncrief EBDW! 03:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I didn't notice that. Please report impersonation/vandalism when you see it. A ZOMBIE ANT 08:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi! You know what profile you didn't link? The goth store one. http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=2206553 Which was impersonating the original goth store owner. I see you've changed the profile young Jimmy Melad to suggest we're CHEATING. I am most offended and perplexed. Maybe, if you hadn't created a group of copies of different players, run them all yourself, and then used multiple IP's here to convince us they are the real people we may have believed you. But now we're on the wall of texts, next will be the vandalism spree with throwaway counts. I'm in agreement with Aichon, and these are banned I'll wait for someone with better wikifu to make a decision on the range.--RosslessnessWant to complete a dangerous mission? 17:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism. Let's ban them and be over with it. -- Spiderzed 07:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I took a look at the other two accounts in the same /16 as most of the IPs for this set of imposter accounts, and though they share the same user-agent string (i.e. they're running the same version of the same browser in the same version of the same operating system as our vandal(s) here), I see no activity connecting them with the vandals. Moreover, the two older accounts each have hundreds of constructive edits that stretch back for years, so I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt, especially since a /16 range is very wide-ranging. Aichon 22:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

User:EmPathetic BiII

[2] Impersonation character. [3] Impersonation character

Even Pathetic Bill is amused at these.--EmPathetic Bill (talk) 09:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Same /24 IP block as the previous ones. I'm going to go ahead and permaban these ones as vandal alts, then will ban the /24 IP range being used as well. Aichon 18:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, vandalism -- Spiderzed 21:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

My brother and I have characters named this. I explained on the other page an nd have to go Soon. We aren't impersonating anyone and just wanted to make bio pages. I can provide the. Up id's. Pls unlock turn as you can see by reading them we 're our own characters. So since the game let us make then we want to add them here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Goth Store Owner (talkcontribs) at an unknown time.

The game itself does not have a mechanism for banning characters whose names are clear impersonation of previous characters, but the wiki does have such mechanisms, namely this process. These wiki accounts have been banned as impersonation. If you wish to make additional wiki accounts, make sure they are distinctive and not impersonating another account. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 20:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

User:The Goth Store Owner

Replacing a link to a profile, on a group page, with an obviously new, impersonation character -- boxy 22:22, 23 August 2015 (BST)

Uh yeah Im a real person and i an the real character ingame. i can meet you in game if you need proof. i find it interesting you are attempting to delete me when you shadow edit a revision without just cause. i have been running the store ingame since 2/2015 and goth store owner has not been seen around at all until i did the edit to update the page to add myself. thats what this site is for. to keep track of the current owner. not let someone with an obvious zerg alt tag their name here forever without being active or even have a right to it. goth store owner is no more the creator of the page than i am but hasnt been seen around for years until zerging the mall this week. its allk over the news.

i had already open discusions on my user page and realsiege22 user page before Boxy did his/her shadow edit.

And realsiege22 is a new account yet does eiditing like someone who has been on here a long time. Something suspicious is going on here and investigating is needed for someone(S) other than just me. please investigate this. The Goth Store Owner (talk) 10:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I investigated it. That's a group page, as evidenced by the box on the right side discussing group numbers, leadership, etc., which means that it is owned by the group members, even if they are no longer around. Moreover, did you really think we wouldn't notice your poor attempt at hiding behind a proxy IP address? Nice try. I'll be banning those IPs in a moment and blocking at least part of that IP range as well (let me guess: you were using Hide My Ass?). Even so, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt with regards to this being vandalism, since no one seems to have laid it out clearly for you why you aren't allowed to edit that page, and I lack evidence that's conclusive enough to link you to everything else that's been going on these last few weeks, even though your modus operandi matches. So, Not Vandalism and Permaban on Proxies. Aichon 16:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, Ban the proxies & Not Vandalism (for now) -- Spiderzed 21:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The reason i consider this guy an impersonator is because at this point in game, the Yocum group is conducting a smear campaign against the real Goth Store Owner player (http://urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=1555072). How i know this? Well because i've been attacked several times by Yocums in game and he stated he believed i was an alt of that player. At the same time, Yocum tried to impersonate me on wiki: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User:Siege22. He's consistent in his modus operandi and there's obviously some kind of conflict between him and Goth Store Owner. That is why when i noticed the new Goth Store account on wiki and the changes he made (replacing the old profile with a new low level one), i thought this was fishy and reverted his edits. Unless he can bring solid evidence that he's the real group owner, this looks like an abuse.--Real Siege22 (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you about what it looks like, but sysops are required to "assume good faith" when it comes to matters here. Unless he does something more, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, even though I don't think he's deserving of it. Aichon 16:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

With Not a character the original goth store owner posting, (along with his edits going back to the pages creation) It's now fairly clear this in an imposter. Combined with my own homework Gothy.png , Goth2.png and Goth3.png it's clear someone is trying to claim they're an alt of a forgotten password character when both alts are active. --RosslessnessWant to complete a dangerous mission? 15:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Given that both are active in your contact list, the "opps forgot passwerd lel" story doesn't fly with me. The real question is, can we use blatant in-game impersonation to punsih someone on the wiki? I see no policy immediately that allows to do, but I am very open to persuasion. -- Spiderzed 22:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
The Jack Yocum group were griefing the original Goth Store Owner using their usual butthurt tactics of creating imposter accounts (Like the Bill clones, the bpell clones, the walter clones) and then camping an area tagging and such. All the characters the give "The Jack Yocum" the finger have been cloned and "The Goth Store Owner" is most likely another one. Given he is hiding behind an IP proxy (or trying to) it doesn't say a lot of his intentions. Celmere is that you ? --EmPathetic Bill (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Um....is this considered a neutral comment, or are blatant lies, undeserved bias, and wholly inaccurate assumptions allowed to be used to defame and erroneously convict our group?
And I'm just going to say my piece here as the official response of our group:
We didn't make the any clones, nor grief The Goth Store page. We have our own griefers doing the same, and I'll post them on our page, and I believe Pathetic Bill's page had listed the same issue. So this isn't something new, nor is it unthinkable that such a group of unscupulos players would be targetted. Honestly, I'm surprised it didn't happen soon given how they act.
That is an official statement.
We do NOT have a dog in this GOTH STORE OWNER/THE GOTH STORE OWNER race other than the same pwnt zergs desperately attempt to bring us into everything that ever happens in this game. Being a professional gamer, for some time now, I can say those actions occur when you expose cheaters, dominate them in a game...despite their cheating, and get completely in their heads. It's just natural, because that kind of immaturity needs to find a way to justify (inaccurately) why they simply aren't on the same level. I suppose we should take this as flattery, but still seems like there should be a bit more disgression on certain pages?
You will notice that the same person who originally griefed our page as User:Hunter of America (a member of our group ingame who did NOT make that user name here), had the same type of vitrol as the one who made the false "Jack Yocum" page before I joined. In fact, the zerg (known as mldhoc/mark dugan/Tim Dobbins bragging about it ingame, and that was what originally spurred me to make our page. Before that we just took care of business, winning the RIGHT way, and only using this site for the basic features like map/items/clothes/ect. And I'm sure emP Bill can attest to knowing Hunter of America as he has personally PKed Bill, for zerging, over 50x already!
Anyway, seems interesting that the person who created Siege22 also made those mldhoc alts.
Perhaps it is the same griefer that was posing as Jack Yocum/Hunter of America... The Jack Yocum (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Frankly, neither you nor Bill should be commenting here unless you have something material to add (e.g. links to evidence) to the case at hand, since, as you said, this case doesn't concern you. We're happy to look into other matters if they need looking into, but those would be other matters and would be best dealt with as a separate case. This case is closed, so unless you have new information that can help positively identify the person behind the account in question, I'll ask that you both refrain from cluttering this space with additional back-and-forth. Aichon 19:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd like some clarification on you and Ross' thought process here because I think I've missed something. Hasn't the above accused Goth Store owner account just stated that he's a separate account that has taken over the group page because the original has since gone inactive? Where did he say that he is the original that lost his password? A ZOMBIE ANT 00:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Not that it matters for the wiki but the original owner has been zerg griefed since at least June last year and then conveniently when he gives up a new "owner" appears. The Goth update was in 2007 or so wasn't it so the new person thinks he had it in 2005, or he meant 2007...or 2008 or 2009. The password\original owner is referenced in his UD profile that Ross has loaded to this page - you need anything else darling ? --EmPathetic Bill (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see now. I missed the claim in his UD profile. It does indeed seem bogus. A ZOMBIE ANT 04:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The most malicious thing he's done on the wiki is (probably) lying about whether he is another character... I don't think it's that big of a deal. A ZOMBIE ANT 04:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
If he's made the claim anywhere on the wiki that he's the original Goth Store Owner, I'd be up for permabanning it as a vandal alt intended for the sole purpose of impersonating a known character, given that it's well-established that he is not, in fact, the original Goth Store Owner. But as far as on-wiki punishments for in-game actions, nope, not our domain. We won't tolerate them engaging in those activities here, but we won't punish them for what they do elsewhere, though we will use it as evidence against them if need be. Aichon 14:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
It's down to that grey area of changing the profiles on the page. As referenced elsewhere I've protected the goth store page in it's original format, so we'll see what else occurs. --RosslessnessWant to complete a dangerous mission? 17:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Nothing convienient about it Bill, at least to those with a modicum of intelliegnce. He zerg attacked us first, and then ran out of town for an extended period. Can't understand why that logic would escape you unless you are on a specific witch hunt agenda for being exposed, and dominated, ingame.
It is interesting that you would know we hadn't seen him for said extendede time, since we don't bother looking for ants when they leave the picnic (nor does any person of reason).
So if you have no relation to this character, how do you know such intimate details?--EmPathetic Bill (talk) 19:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't even realized we were part of this discussion until a radio broadcast ingame alerted our group. Though can't say I'm surprised, since we're such rockstars :P, but since I'm here I decided to take a closer look. The Jack Yocum (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is something else I'm also wondering: If the Goth Store page is a group page, then why is it not represented as such on the main Ackland page? Instead it seems to be using a sort of hidden link on that page (Goth Clothes) to give the illusion it is the actual ingame store rather than only a group. I don't see The Kilt Store page being allowed to do that, and what would happen if another group made a Goth Store page? Would they ALSO be allowed to have the same link representation on the main page? Let's say, hypothetically, since I've been drawn into this moronic mess, that I now want to crate a Jack Yocum Goth Store page. I would expect to be allowed to have just as much representation, otherwise there would seem to be a perceived bias. Just saying. I think a Sysop needs to correct that link and have the group more accurately represented.

Also, how is it that the page was not modfied back to the original creation, since Not A Player is not the creator of the page, and only took "ownership" of the page only in 2009? So it seems that either Goth Store Owner will need to share the claim of being owner through similar links on the Ackland page, or neither one should be incorrectly linked from there. And I'll add that I had no interested wasting very valuable time with this whole mess, when I could be otherwise living my enjoyable life, but certain disreputable elements of the community felt the overwhelming (fanatical?) need to include my group in this discusiion. So, since I'm here, I figured I'd bring with me the two most important, and sorely needed, weapons on this site: truth and common sense. In fact, if we had not been included in said discussion, I wouldn't have even bothered to offer my opinion, even though it is decidedly accurate. Ask and you shall receive. The Jack Yocum (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Words are not weapons my dear fellow, they are tools, I reverted back to the original version of the group page, because I was asked to. There is a player who created the Goth Store group, and it is correct to call him the leader of said group. In addition to your other question, the Kilt store (group) does exactly the same thing. My opinion is to always side with the original creator, especially when the secondary account pretends to be him. --RosslessnessWant to complete a dangerous mission? 16:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh your baby teeth are coming through - how cute. Great to see you back Yocum. When all your group characters (and your impersonator accounts of the cool kidz) went inactive for a few days we thought maybe something had happened. But as your all now active again hopefully it was just a technical glitch in your team speak. Hopefully you and the goth impersonator can defend your claim to the wiki while the Bills and I keep the Goth Store Owner (the real dealz) in fresh supply of gimp masks. --EmPathetic Bill (talk) 19:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
It's either a group page, in which case your zergs don't get to take control of it just because you chose a similar name to it's owner, or it's a community page, in which case your zergs don't get to take control of it, because community pages don't have anything to do with leaders or owners. Pick an option, douchebag -- boxy 23:18, 29 August 2015 (BST)
The group listing for each suburb is entirely optional and voluntary, and is up to each group to handle for themselves. The vast majority of active groups either don't care about being listed or actively choose not to be listed, for various reasons. And if a main space page isn't neutral, it isn't the job of the sysops to clean it up. It's anyone's job. The sysops are here to deal with rule-breakers and the things that normal users are unable to fix, but for everything else, it's everyone's job. When it comes to the content of pages though, we really don't get involved unless the page is in dispute, in which case we'll either do our duty as a regular user, or we'll protect the page until everyone cools down and sorts things out on their own.
As for the hypothetical group page stuff, leave it hypothetical. There's no sense in dealing with problems that don't exist. We have enough problems as it is.
Finally, I'll kindly ask that all non-sysops refrain from commenting here unless they are directly involved in the case or have something material to add. A random A/VB case is absolutely not the place to hash out this nonsense. Deal with it elsewhere. Aichon 19:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I reported it so guess I am involved ?
--EmPathetic Bill (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Setting aside that that's a separate case, discussions about off-wiki stuff should be taken to the talk page or kept to the minimum amount necessary (i.e. state the facts and move on; don't get drawn into arguments). These cases operate more smoothly when the evidence isn't hidden in walls of text, and we have in the past taken action against folks who clog up the admin pages. We do read the talk pages as well (*waves at Hagnat*), but the main page should be reserved for stuff that is of immediate relevance to the case at hand. Aichon 15:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: material that was duplicated from User talk:The Goth Store Owner has been removed.

I don't know why we keep getting accused as someone else either —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Goth Store Owner (talkcontribs) at an unknown time.

Zerging Imposters United

Mommy can I kill some obvious impersonation accounts tonight? -- Spiderzed 20:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Check user,suggests a lot more accounts could be added to this list. --RosslessnessWant to complete a dangerous mission? 22:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It does indeed, but I don't see them being impersonation accounts. Although, if we count account creation as edit, maybe they could be nailed under the 3 edit rule. -- Spiderzed 19:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Calling for additional sys-op input. This is very blatant stuff, but it's not like they are flooding the wiki to give me carte blanche to deal with them with just 2 sys-op's input. -- Spiderzed 17:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
The following are all impersonation accounts and not the actual in-game player.
  • (User creation log); 01:57 . . User account Bpell (Talk | contribs) was created ‎
  • (User creation log); 01:54 . . User account The Real Spad (Talk | contribs) was created ‎
  • (User creation log); 01:40 . . User account ZHU (Talk | contribs) was created ‎
  • (User creation log); 01:39 . . User account Malton Teachers Union (Talk | contribs) was created ‎
  • (User creation log); 01:34 . . User account Malton Teacher's Union (Talk | contribs) was created ‎
  • (User creation log); 01:31 . . User account Tim Dobbins (Talk | contribs) was created ‎
  • (User creation log); 01:24 . . User account Mark dugan (Talk | contribs) was created ‎
  • (User creation log); 01:14 . . User account Mldhoc (Talk | contribs) was created ‎
--EmPathetic Bill (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Great to see the fast action on the edit layout Aichon. Another fake wiki account claiming other peoples characters.I'd be impressed if his trolling ability was better than a 12 year olds.

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Siege22 --EmPathetic Bill (talk) 23:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


It can only be made by Alwayz the ignore list zerger.--EmPathetic Bill (talk) 09:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

So, now that I've finally had a chance to sift through eveyerthing, it's quite evident that all of these (Siege and Giambi included) are vandal alts created for the sole purpose of impersonating other people, so I'm going to go ahead and ban the lot of them in just a moment. Check user shows they're all linked, most of them were created within minutes of each other, in-game profiles are being used to corroborate claims that these accounts are being used in bad faith, and while it's fine for someone to want to have the same username as someone else, it's absolutely NOT fine to create a massive number of accounts in order to post false claims using those names, which is what they've been doing here.

As a final note to cover my ass, whether the individual accounts have edits or not shouldn't matter. The person behind this effort was clearly acting in bad faith when they launched this account creation attack campaign, thus making each of these accounts a vandal account subject to immediate permaban. Also, while it's not policy, this document is a helpful reminder of how things are supposed to work around here. Aichon 17:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

And thus it was done. -- Spiderzed 17:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot --EmPathetic Bill (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Another possible one - http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User:The_Goth_Store_Owner

Goth Store Owner (real) reported being targetted by Jack Yocum group and given the surge in impersonation accounts I'll leave it to your judgement.

--EmPathetic Bill (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)



Removing content from a group and an user page he has no ownership of. Was escalated back in 2009 for the very same edits. -- Spiderzed 22:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Watch out, Spiderzed! He might PK you in-game if you ban him!--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
As some day after filing the case none of you other fuckers have been on the ball and the user has been repeatedly vandalising the same pages, I have blocked him as Vandalism. Will take the misconduct charge later if (when) it becomes necessary. -- Spiderzed 20:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Escalate obvious vandals yourself. There is no need to wait for confirmation unless you are unsure if it's vandalism -- boxy 13:03, 9 July 2015 (BST)
As there was a large time gap between the edits of the user, I had decided to wait to handle it properly by waiting for other ops. It is sometimes better to be too soft and to have the vandals hang themselves with the rope provided for all the community to see, rather than to jump the gun and never know if the vandal would be stupid enough to repeat a reverted vandalism hours later. -- Spiderzed 22:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
It's good to see you guys aren't letting the drama llama leave the premises without at least a little fight. ;) Aichon 16:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Aichons, I hope you feel bad about your egregious posting on this case in a humourous manner with no bearing on the decision. Prepare your body for Misconduct.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 17:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
The train begins. Yonnua, I summons you to the unholy court of vandal banning, jury of the damned and judge of hellstorm incoming. A ZOMBIE ANT 00:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Whistle2.gif For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee 20:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Isn't there some 3 vandal edit permaban rule? I clicked 2 links and didn't find it, so I gave up. --K 21:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Alts whose sole contributions are three or more edits of vandalism go straight to a permanent ban. For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee 21:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
A single constructive edit is enough to offset the 3 edit rule, unfortunately. -- Spiderzed 21:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Less than 24 hours between reporting and completing the case yourself? MISCONBRIATION. Obviously I agree with your actions. Worth semi protecting the targeted pages? --RosslessnessWant to complete a dangerous mission? 21:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't jump the gun yet on semi-protecting, as especially the PK kill list gets edited by low-edit wiki accounts who would be equally hurt. After two more bouts of this it is off the permaban vote land anyway. -- Spiderzed 22:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)



Blanking the same pages he was in 2011. Last escalation was a weeks ban, looks like zumm zero is a clear multi and should be banned? --RosslessnessWant to complete a dangerous mission? 17:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Yup, very clearly the same person for both accounts, and very clearly vandalism. We'll be consolidating the vandal data and banning one of them as a vandal alt, though given the history's of the accounts and the names he seems to go by, I'm kinda more inclined to ban Shazam as the vandal alt, while moving all of the escalations to Zumm Zero and banning Zumm Zero for a month. Aichon 20:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Sensible. Some semi protection as well?--RosslessnessWant to complete a dangerous mission? 22:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Vandalism. I agree with consolidiation (with Shazam as vandal alt), month ban for Zumm Zero and semi-protection for threatened pages. (Also, I had no time for anything but a quick one-click reverting at the time I noticed ZZ's renewed vandalism. He has been warned just days ago for the exact same thing, so no more kids gloves despite the age of the player's in-game account.) -- Spiderzed 23:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Right. Banned, perma'd, pages semiprotected. Now can someone check I've correctly merged the Vandal Data and issue the warning. I'm super busy. --RosslessnessWant to complete a dangerous mission? 17:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Put up the notice on his talk page, rearranged A/VD data a bit and did some other tidying on the page. Everything should be done now. Aichon 18:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

March 2015


Eeeh. Having a hard time assuming good faith here. --Janus talk 13:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Based on what was said, I get the strong impression it's nothing more than a person leaving their computer unlocked in a public place. Even if it's not, it's not worth a warning. Soft warning is the appropriate response. Aichon 18:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Caught using UDWiki in a public place. Embarrassing. To me it looked more like a classic Nallan drinking spree. A ZOMBIE ANT 07:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Zumm Zero

Deleted group page stuff. Warned him for now. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

That was generous of you. Guy creates account and for his first 10 or so edits does nothing but delete content that mentions him from others' pages. I'd be more inclined to 3ev him. I'm glad you got to him first. Aichon 06:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The vice unit stuff looks like he may have been a member of the group. I reverted it, but it may be a reasonable edit, so I agree with gnome. --Rosslessness 06:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I gave him the benefit of the doubt. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 15:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Zumm Zero is an old player (he is mentioned as far back as 2006), not a simple throwaway account. For that reason alone I err rather towards Warning than invoking the three edit rule. There is also the Vice Unit stuff that is possibly constructive. -- Spiderzed 17:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Good sleuthing! A ZOMBIE ANT 13:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Februrary 2015

User:Jack Yocum

I believe coercing users to break the game's one rule = bad faith. I also suspect ban avoidance. See User:CarelessWill. ~Vsig.png 04:21, 16 February 2015, The year of our lord (UTC)

Find me some evidence I can use for the ban avoidance. I've looked. I can't find any. His past bans (on the Jackyocum username) are all expired at this point. That said, given that he does have a warning still on that old account, I think a second warning is warranted, on the basis that his actions are clearly in bad faith.
As for why I consider them bad faith...we follow the TOS because we understand that the wiki exists in that jurisdiction and can't exist if it fails to abide by the TOS, right? Likewise, Kevan sets the ground rules and we're free to build on top of them, but we are not free to break them. If a zerger wants to come here and chat, fine. But the moment you come here and encourage others to join you in an illicit activity, you're no better than someone encouraging a DDoS against the game. You're seeking to use forbidden mechanics to undermine the game itself. That stands in direct opposition to the mission of this wiki, which is to support the game.
I'm gonna wait for the others though. Aichon 05:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The game has measures against zerging. The wiki is a different beast, and we have tolerated blatant zergers like TZH, Zoomie or Thad for a long time. I wouldn't cry if Yocum went down, but a pro-zerging stance alone on a group page isn't sufficient for a ban. -- Spiderzed 15:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The wiki exists for the game, and the game states not zerg. How does it make sense to be okay with someone signing up just to tell people to zerg? I know you guys like to stick with a "mechanical" view on vandalism, banning people for page blanking for instance, and tend to shy away from the more "behavioural" type where we would take issue with how people conduct themselves. But creating an account to make pages telling people to zerg doesn't make for a good wiki, and doesn't help the game; it makes it worse. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 15:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Hugely relevant precedent. BSAA calls for years for zerging, yet the group page sits unmolested on the wiki for years. Has never been brought up on A/VB though. -- Spiderzed 17:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Well it's about to be molested now. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
That's not precedent, that someone getting by unnoticed. If it had been brought to a/vb or a/sd or arbitration, I'd agree it stood as precedent but as it never was. ~Vsig.png 00:28, 17 February 2015, The year of our lord (UTC)
Wahahaha, after all these years I see my name is still mud struck whenever convenience arises. Being compared to TZH or Izumi is laugable, it was never blatant and my slate was cleaned just during my first sysops bid. Never change UDwiki :'). --Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I know it has been a long time since jackyocum was warned, but unless I'm mistaken then warnings do not automatically expire. Unless a request is made at a/vb/d, then it kind of is ban avoidance (or more accurately escalation avoidance). I just found it interesting that CarelessWill claimed that there was a vandal spree and even claims of suing the sysop team. Either there's another user account here not being taken into account, or CarelessWill was mistaken. ~Vsig.png 19:44, 16 February 2015, The year of our lord (UTC)
Yeah, he'd get a second warning, for sure, but I'm not sure if we can consider it avoidance since he used the same name, just with a space. But yeah, he did get insta-banned twice back before the escalation guidelines were established, due to his vandalism. Those are still on the record and will come into play if he gets back to the point where a ban is warranted. Aichon 20:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The naming structure shouldn't matter in my opinion. If Cornholioo came back as Corn Holioo, it wouldn't make it less of a vandal alt. And it would likely affect things more than you lead on if you guys consider this vandalism, because ban avoidance cases typically get handled by banning the alt and warning the user (the vandal alt contributions are usually removed from the wiki as well). ~Vsig.png 00:28, 17 February 2015, The year of our lord (UTC)
Sorry, I should have been clearer. What I meant is that by using what is essentially the same name, rather than trying to pretend to be a new user, he wasn't trying to avoid an additional escalation. It's far more likely that—given the lack of edits on the old account—he simply lost the login info years ago, or possibly even forgot that he had it at all. Which is to say, I don't see any avoidance at all. He seems to be "owning" all of these edits, both old and new. We'll simply take his old vandal data into account when escalating. Aichon 01:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
We're talking about Jack Yocum here, the game's longest running and worst offending serial zerger. I don't think it's safe to assume anything of the sort. I do realize that at the moment, it is a rather precarious claim. And though I could be wrong, I think it warrants looking into thoroughly and escalating to the full extent of the sysop's authority. And most of all, unless precedent shows otherwise, users should not be allowed to advocate for zerging on the wiki. ~Vsig.png 02:01, 17 February 2015, The year of our lord (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, what's happening here is vandalism. Beyond that, however, I need convincing. Just because I find someone's actions repugnant doesn't mean that I'll cheat them out of due process or skip the whole "assume good faith" part for actions that are questionable. If you can find evidence, that may change things, but I've looked, and I'm not finding anything that has changed my mind yet regarding the avoidance issue. Aichon 03:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm here to defend myself. I do NOT come here to "promote" zerging, I just state that I don't care if my group does and if they must, they should only use humans. That is just a suggestion
Jack Yocum (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The fact that you're advertising a group that openly condones zerging is, in and of itself, promoting the act of zerging. Aichon 02:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
But I am not advertising in the sense of trying desperately trying to gain new members. I am simply telling the truth regarding our stance on zerging. Banning us here won't change the fact we exist in game. Is therr a way you would suggest I state this without lying? I am trying to cooperate with you. That isn't something a vandal does. Jack Yocum (talk) 03:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
If you change it in such a way that it interferes with any of your zerging activities, that would be an improvement. A NPOV description of what your group does, where they are active, followed by say, a list of your "members", would do. You could use Save the yeti as a guide. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The advertising was done when you added the group to the group listings for those two suburbs and then linked them to a page suggesting zerging is perfectly fine and that others should feel free to engage in it too. Aichon 08:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The game bans characters for zerging. The wiki accounts created promote zerging. The accounts haven't done anything else. Ban the accounts. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 14:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

We tolerate the players who engage in prohibited activities, not their actions. A vandal is welcome here so long as they are on good behavior, but the moment they start vandalizing, we cease tolerating what they're doing. I have never had a problem with us tolerating known zergers, but zerging is an activity that is outright prohibited by the game (and as AHLG said, the wiki exists for the game), so the moment the wiki is used to facilitate zerging, as is happening here right now, a line has been crossed.

I'll reiterate: I believe a warning is warranted. Aichon 16:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

We enforce the rules of the wiki, not the rules of the game. Not vandalism -- boxy 01:42, 17 February 2015 (BST)

Vandalism is defined as anything that is not a good-faith effort to improve the wiki. Can you honestly say that what he's doing here is either in good faith or improving the wiki? We may not be (read: we aren't) enforcers of the game's rules, but the wiki exists as a resource for the game, so facilitating something that runs in direct opposition to the very nature of the game is, by definition, not an improvement to the wiki. Aichon 02:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The wiki exists to inform players about the situation "in-game". There are zerging "groups" in-game. If he is honestly stating the in-game situation in regards to his group, then it is a good faith, and on topic, edit, as long as it's restricted to the group page. Others can add context (via the NPOV section of the group page) or remove the page (via deletions). The closest he came to vanadlism due to "encouraging zerging" is his edits to a suburb page, stating that people should zerg. That is a NPOV zone, where dubious group "interpretations" are not allowed. I removed this edit, and would have probably VBed him, if he repeated it -- boxy 10:25, 17 February 2015 (BST)

Jack, what do you have to say about the claims made against you on the page User:CarelessWill? It would seem some think you have some history with the wiki already. ~Vsig.png 05:12, 17 February 2015, The year of our lord (UTC)

Well to tell you the truth which you won't believe anyway, I am NOT the real Jack Yocum. I am a resident of Shearbank and saw these idiots saying and spraypainting all around the burb "Jack Yocum restored Shearbank. You're welcome!" and saying we don't care if you zerg, PK, etc. So I decided to make this here parody account and parody group to say basically whaf he said in game here on the wiki. Take that for what you will. If this gets deleted, at least the truth got out. Jack Yocum (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I.e. You're admitting to creating a wiki account with the express intent of impersonating another wiki user. That's grounds for a permaban on your account. Aichon 08:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
No, not impersonating a wiki user, just an in game UD character. But go ahead and ban this account I don't care. Jack Yocum (talk) 09:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, apparently, there is a previous account going by this name (without the space). You probably was unaware of this, so I would be in favour of this account being permbanned, however, not having that ban being carried over to any new account they may wish to sign up to. This is technical impersonation, however, not intentional impersonation of a wiki account. Worth a warning (for any new account) -- boxy 10:32, 17 February 2015 (BST)
I'm with Boxy. Perma the impersonation account, warn the follow-up for impersonation. -- Spiderzed 23:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Did you make the account User:ZergingZerger too? ~Vsig.png 13:55, 17 February 2015, The year of our lord (UTC)
It appears dear Mr Jack Yocum has left. And he didn't bother answering my last question. So what is this? Impersonation? Self ban request? Warning for bad faith? And what about the ZergingZerger account? What does the IP data suggest? Is there evidence of proxy use? ~Vsig.png 01:56, 20 February 2015, The year of our lord (UTC)
If no one says otherwise, I'll permaban it this weekend as an impersonation account. As per boxy and Spider, we'll need to warn someone for the impersonation as well (and I still think a warning is due for the zerging stuff, even if it wasn't spelled out before, since encouraging cheating is always bad faith), but see below for why applying warnings to other accounts may be an interesting conundrum. Aichon 02:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

So, in an interesting twist, one of the confirmed Jack Yocum zergs in-game just contacted me in-game to claim that the Jack Yocum here in this case is actually CarelessWill. I caught it in real-time and was posting it to Talk:Jack Yocum as it was happening, but I'm reposting the links here since they're of relevance to everything that's going on.

If this is true, then it adds a wrinkle, in that this Jack Yocum would have been fully aware of the prior one and their history here on the wiki, suggesting the impersonation would not exactly be a benign one. Of course, it could also just be a case of us dealing with the real Jack Yocum all along, and now he's trying to cast some blame on someone who called him out years ago. I can't confirm or refute any of the claims he's making.

Anyway, something to think about. Aichon 02:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

So, the plot thickens? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
So, the bullshit thickens? ~Vsig.png 16:10, 21 February 2015, The year of our lord (UTC)

OK, I think we've given it enough time. I'm permbanning this account, and deleting it's page (as vandalism), as it is a self admitted impersonation account -- boxy 21:20, 21 February 2015 (BST)

If any clear evidence of who owns this alt comes to light in the future, they should also get a warning -- boxy 21:32, 21 February 2015 (BST)
I have strong reasons to believe it really was Jack Yocum and not just some random person, though admittedly there's no hard evidence to back that up. It's just too convenient that the in-game JY found Aichon in-game just a few days after this case started and acted as if he'd been following along the whole time. It sounded just like he was continuing this conversation in-game, and nothing like he was a third party just making an observation. Also, I've spoken with Spad and I am thoroughly convinced he was not behind it as in-game JY alleged. Other things like the second account, the proxy use, his claim of leadership, and his attempted justification for the group's actions all lend weight to the notion that this was the actual Jack Yocum. I'm glad that he has been banned, but I don't think impersonation was the right call. ~Vsig.png 06:03, 22 February 2015, The year of our lord (UTC)

Apparently I have a knack for checking on my account right as real-time stuff is happening:

And my response:

To say the least, I doubt we will be taking action on this, given that it's a user page, but I wanted to share it with everyone, regardless. Aichon 18:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Annnnd, one last response from him: http://ispy.dxavier.net/1276672063.html. Aichon 02:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


As above, bad faith attempt to encourage breaking game rules. Similar MO as User:Jack Yocum. Suspect these two are alts. ~Vsig.png 04:21, 16 February 2015, The year of our lord (UTC)

I'd be inclined to ban this one too. Given the timing, content, and activity level, it's very likely to be the same as the case above -- boxy 21:32, 21 February 2015 (BST)

Let's not forget this case in all the excitement over Yocum. Checkuser information isn't conclusive, but this user has edited from an open proxy solely. That raises enough flags with me to consider it to be editing in bad faith, and possibly evading a former ban. I'm inclined to go for a 3 edit perma for three edits using a proxy (making them non-constructive by definition), plus the proxy use itself. No additional escalation for Jack Yocum, as there is no conclusive proof of a connection between the two accounts. Additionally, the proxy IP will be perma'd as is standard practice for proxies. Everyone on board for this? -- Spiderzed 01:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Permaban and block the proxy would be my vote as well. Aichon 03:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Calling Boxy, Gnome and Ross for more input. Else I will carry the perma out in the next few days. -- Spiderzed 22:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Proxy use is good enough for me. I concur. --Rosslessness 23:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Permbanned -- boxy 11:15, 26 February 2015 (BST)


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