UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2017

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.


User:Auralius (2)

Wiped Gnome’s and Drawde’s talk pages this time, as Stelar mentioned below. It’s a single incident of vandalism on two pages, so I’ll just give him one last warning. Obviously, next one gets him the banhammer. Aichon 03:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Beat ya to it. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Dangit, had it all typed up when I realized I was gonna trample your edit. Too slow. Well, that’s what I get for wiki-Ing from my iPad. Aichon 03:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I endorse this ruling. If he does it again, it's 24 hours. Although I'm coming to believe he may just be a troll, I'm a stickler for the sequence of escalations. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 06:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


Replacing my talk page with "do not mess with my talk page kid.". For reference, here's me "messing with" his talk page.

I'm generally a good sport when it comes to people wiping or otherwise messing with my pages in good humor, but his comment and action indicate that he was trying to retaliate for my offering on his talk page to assist him with a problem he mentioned elsewhere. And had it been pretty much anyone else's page I'd likely be inclined to give him a soft warning as a wikinewb who didn't know any better, but my page isn't like most others. I have a box outlined in red at the top of the page with instructions, as well as a notice in all-caps on the first line of code for the page, specifically so that no one who engages in vandalism on my pages (as he has) can later try to claim ignorance about how commenting is supposed to work. He clearly was aware of what he was doing and he clearly was not acting in good faith. While mild, it's definitely vandalism, and I want to make sure that he understands that those limits exist. Aichon 18:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Yep, clearly bad faith. I'd vote vandalism with a warning, and I wonder if he'll blank the page of whoever serves the warning. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 23:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
This. Vandalism --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 23:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, warned. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Your warning obviously fell on deaf ears. He wiped both your talk page and and Drawde's talk pages and wrote something just because they wrote on his. I rolled both back. That is three counts of vandalism now right? stelar Talk|MCM|EBD|Scourge 03:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I'd lump those two edits into one, and I'll warn him again and that he may be banned. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


This Character http://iamscott.net/1512768020287.html under the control of Drawde decided it would be fun to wear my tags in game (TCC - Nina Ducks http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=1508051) and after what I hoped to be an adult conversation on discord he decided that it wasn't enough to grief me in game, he now created a wiki page for MY group : http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/The_Cleaning_Crew. This is griefing beyond the game itself and I can't sit back and tolerate. I ignore or fight off zergs/griefers and this one I have to step in. One might say we should have created a wiki page way back when but we had and still have our reasons to stay in the dark as BHers. We don't need publicity. This character is impersonating my group. --Murderess (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Murderess got in touch with me via discord regarding this. The sop team doesn't police in-game issues like the group tags, but she is pretty much making a claim to The Cleaning Crew, citing LUEshi's Rangers/Campaign Journal from 2010 as evidence of the (secretive) group's existence. I'll await any comments by Drawde (will message him on his talk page) and the rest of the sop team. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 20:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Can't say I agree with this at all - I've never heard of another group by the same name, and I find it extremely tenuous that a seven year old journal article is sufficient, when no other presence can be found. I'm founding this group with a few other people (old-timers, great times) and I'm looking to have fun-minded people join us. It's a legitimate group that I intend to have lasting in-game presence. -- Adward  20:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure we can come to an amicable compromise regarding our two groups. Honestly, I find it sets a very poor precedent if survivor players can issue a gag order to kill unrelated zombie group wiki pages. ----RWSig1.png RWSig2.pngFoD PK Praise Rando!21:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Murderess - Today at 2:00 PM

question.. what made you put up my tags ?

Adward - Today at 2:00 PM

I'd been shot by you guys a few times

And I'd never heard of them, so it seemed all gucci

Adward - Today at 2:07 PM

Also, your tactic of shooting zombies at RPs is very cute

Good use of AP

Murderess - Today at 2:07 PM

keeping him from getting a rev while AFK

I was aiming at DoX

Adward - Today at 2:08 PM

So you missed even?


Murderess - Today at 2:08 PM

he's down

and how do YOU know that

you weren't there, you are tagged

Adward - Today at 2:09 PM

omg omg

ya got me

Murderess - Today at 2:09 PM


and you would know if you had an alt sitting there that he was down... so who are you talking to ?

Adward - Today at 2:11 PM

All my alts are very far away from Creedy, but thank you

Murderess - Today at 2:11 PM

that doesn't answer my question... who are you talking to

Adward - Today at 2:12 PM

I talk to many people in any given day

Murderess - Today at 2:12 PM

Yup that answers my question

Adward - Today at 2:13 PM


I'd have said it was pretty obvious

And now Seth Doyle is wearing our tags : http://iamscott.net/1512768064636.html

Make conclusions of your own. --Murderess (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I really don't recognise this conversation - I'm starting a group here, I really don't want drama. We spoke earlier and I told you that I wasn't taking tags.-- Adward  21:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Note: I've edited the above discussion so it's a bit easier to read. A ZOMBIE ANT 23:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

And now we have both DoX and Peng wearing my tags. I didn't know I was soooo wanted !! http://iamscott.net/1512767981312.html (Seth = DoX - Chicken on fire = Peng) --Murderess (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, they were part of the latest Fort Creedy action, it was a good time! -- Adward  21:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay, Murderess. You make several accusations:
1) You claim we are impersonating you. This is false, we are a zombie group and we make this abundantly clear on our wiki page, while you claim to be a bounty hunting group. An entirely different set of playstyles that simply could not be confused. We had no clue another "crew" existed at the time we assembled one week ago. How could we? Your group is secretive after all, with exactly one mention on an obscure wiki article 7 years ago.
2) You claim several other of our members are wearing group tags. Well, yeah, we're a group. Why wouldn't we wear tags after the name of our group? This seems like a specious argument to me. In addition, Bob mentioned that tags are entirely outside the purview of wiki administration.
3) You object to the wiki page in question because your group is secret. Our group, however, is public and it has a right to remain public. We do not even briefly mention your bounty hunting activities, because we were unaware. In fact, it could be argued that our group is a great way for you to remain even more secretive by throwing enemies off of your trail.
4) You post a difficult-to-follow conversation of unknown provenance and authenticity. I would advise this evidence be treated with a very large grain of salt, if it is accepted at all.
As for unique arguments in our favor,
1) I would argue that again, it sets a very alarming precedent if a zombie group's wiki presence can be shut down because an unrelated secret group just happened to have a similar name.
2) How do we know Murderess' "crew" wasn't created at the last minute when she saw us wearing tags in order to lay claim like a domain squatter? How can we be sure that The Cleaning Crew mentioned in the LUEshi journal does in fact belong to her? Or is even the same group?
----RWSig1.png RWSig2.pngFoD PK Praise Rando!21:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
You guys really want a peace of me. Nice try. I have old evidence of belonging and pleased to show you. https://i.imgur.com/Fni2h0e.png. Also, I have screenies of DoA being Chicken and Seth from a few days ago. So there is no way you guys were "creating" a new group until this fun convo with this weirdo mentioned in subject : https://i.imgur.com/pXtnsNb.jpg and https://i.imgur.com/0rdt0Ya.png and https://i.imgur.com/dl8XoDE.png --Murderess (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
That's super, but it really doesn't address the fact it was an unknown group. This is a new DC group who are completely separate. I'll admit to putting on CDF tags briefly in the last week - my apologies for that one, but the issue of this new group is unrelated to that.-- Adward  22:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay, Murderess, so you had access to the 2010 group. What about your current group, can you demonstrate the connection between it and the 2010 group? In your discord screenshots, there are there is zero mention of "The Cleaning Crew" at any point, so I fail to see how it is relevant to this particular argument. In addition, Discord conversations can be edited post-facto, so there is no real reason to trust those screenshots.
And also rebuttal #5) As for your "screenies of DoA being Chicken and Seth", I would like to see a) the actual screenshots and b) how this is relevant. It's as simple as that.
More importantly, you have not even acknowledged my four other arguments- rebuttals #1, 2, 3 and unique argument #1. Are you conceding my points? --RWSig1.png RWSig2.pngFoD PK Praise Rando!22:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Okey "Peng" have it. I have better things to do than brain fuck this with you. That was a perso email to me, nice try again trying to divert this and fool the SOP team. Shame on you. Have TCC, see how long you do with it before going back to your original tags. I hope EVERYONE in UD gets how you and and cute friend DoX think you're the lord of games and realize they are just fooled by you guys. Keep poking at me, the box will open. *waves* --Murderess (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Uh hi, my name is Radical Whig, not "Peng". And you still haven't addressed any of my objections. At all. And who is DoX and what does he or she have to do with this? --RWSig1.png RWSig2.pngFoD PK Praise Rando!22:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The sysops don't have any authority on in-game activity, just the wiki. I just want to be clear here, you're both claiming to have separate groups called the Cleaning Crew? If it is the case that two separate groups exist in-game with this name, then this isn't a case for wiki vandalism. It may be a case for UDWiki:Arbitration if you want to settle any disputes on the wiki. Either way, the wiki is intended to contain information on what happens in-game, including groups. If you would like your own group recognized in the wiki, the protocol would be to have the Cleaning Crew page as a disambiguation and linking to two other group pages the Cleaning Crew (bounty hunters) and the Cleaning Crew (zombies) (for example). --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Just want to say, I was about to suggest this exact answer, with two separate pages and a disambiguation page. Would any/all of the involved parties accept this? Bob Moncrief EBDW! 22:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
It's a very good solution, one that, on the bureaucratic side, will hopefully sort out your grievances. A ZOMBIE ANT 23:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
If we have disambiguation pages for buildings with the same names in the city, I am sure the same can happen for groups too. Definitely not vandalism - that would only be if Murderess had created the page and Drawde had edited it as his own. Hopefully we can sort something out quickly that suits both parties. stelar Talk|MCM|EBD|Scourge 08:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Please stop cluttering this A/VB section. Keep any messages to the talk page until sysops have weighed in. Thanks! Bob Moncrief EBDW! 22:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

They are not cluttering up the A/VB section. They are people pertinent to the case, talking about stuff pertinent to the case. They should be discussing it here. A ZOMBIE ANT 23:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Most of the above is actually just about in-game tags on various people's alts, not about the actual identity of the groups. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 23:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

This is not something that can be ruled with Vandalism. Making a page that belongs/belonged to another group, with malice, could be considered vandalism on a good day. But I'm unsure if there's enough evidence here. I suggest you sort this out with Arbitration, with a neutral arbitrator you can both agree on. These kinds of cases is exactly what A/A is for. A ZOMBIE ANT 23:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

All of this is ignoring the real issue here: what, if any, are these groups' connection(s) to real-world Cleaning Crew(s)?
e.g. http://the-cleaningcrew.com/, http://the-cleaning-crew.com/, https://thecleaningcrew.net/, http://cleaningcrew.co.za/
Inquiring minds want to know! ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 02:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Could’ve sworn I hit the save button on a comment here before I left work today, but apparently not. Anyway, everyone else said what I had planned to say. Not Vandalism, make a disambiguation page, and if for some reason that isn’t acceptable, take it to A/A. Aichon 08:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

If nobody objects, I'll be implementing Gnome's disambiguation suggestion in a day or so. Oh, and not vandalism. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 18:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the disambiguation suggestion. The alleged bounty hunter group never had a page here, or have showed interest in having one as they are secretive, quoting Murderess first message in this claim "One might say we should have created a wiki page way back when but we had and still have our reasons to stay in the dark as BHers. We don't need publicity.". So as this has been clearly said not to be vandalism and they do not want the publicity for their group, the defending group should have the right to the page without the need for a disambiguation. DoXBr (talk) 05:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

That isn't something we sys-ops can resolve via this page, as there isn't clear-cut vandalism with a clear-cut perpetrator, but a conflict of interests between two groups of users. As Gnome recommended, UDWiki:Arbitration would be the place to go. -- Spiderzed 13:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I completely agree with you, my point is that neither group asked or agreed with a disambiguation page, and by making one you (the sysops) may cause it to go to Arby's when there may not have been the need to. My suggestion is to leave as it is unless both agree with the disambiguation or decide to take to Arby's. This was a vandalism claim and was ruled to be not vandalism, so if they want further changes, let either party speak up instead of doing it for them and potentially escalating things unnecessarily. DoXBr (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm assuming Gnome's suggestion is as a good-faith user of the wiki, not as a ruling by a sysop. I'm still waiting on Murderess and Drawde to weigh in on if they like the suggestion or not before pointing them towards arbitration. (And DoX, neither of them has disagreed with a disambiguation page yet either, hence my waiting.) Bob Moncrief EBDW! 23:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm the owner of the page, as Drawde has passed this mighty and noble responsibility onto me and I do not want either an arbitration case nor a disambiguation page. --RWSig1.png RWSig2.pngFoD PK Praise Rando! 23:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
So moved. Will leave things as they are. Thanks! Bob Moncrief EBDW! 23:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
You do realise that no one can own a page in the non user area of the wiki right? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 23:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I assumed "owner of the page" was shorthand for "leader (or at least member) of the group", which is generally how we treat group pages as operating. (Assuming the content isn't defamatory, etc.) Bob Moncrief EBDW! 00:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
This matter will be dealt with the TCC way and outside the wiki. You can consider this matter closed. Thanks. --Murderess (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Then there's nothing else to do here. Have a nice day! :) --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)



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

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

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

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

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



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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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



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

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

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

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

"Kermit" & Alts

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

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

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


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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Vandal Banning Archive

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