UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning: Difference between revisions

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(→‎Imposters: replace with unsigned templates)
 
(967 intermediate revisions by 56 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div style="position: absolute; width:180px; height:75px; z-index:3; left: -220px; top: -95px; visibility: visible">[[Template:A/VBsub]]</div><div id="shortcut" class="noprint" style="border: 1px solid #999; background: #FFF; margin: 0 0 .5em 1em; text-align: center; padding: 5px; float:right; clear:right; font-size:smaller;">
{{VBheader}}
<span class="plainlinks">[[UDWiki:Shortcut|Shortcut]]</span>:<br />[[A/VB]]</div>
{{Administrationnav}}
{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="margin-bottom: .5em; float: right; padding: .5em 0 .8em 1.4em; width: 250px"
|__TOC__
|}
This page is for the reporting of vandalism within the Urban Dead wiki, as defined by [[UDWiki:Vandalism|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 Operator]]s. 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 [[:Category:Policy Documents|official policy]].
*Interpersonal complaints are better sorted out at [[UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration]].
*As much as is practical, [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith|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=
=Vandalism Report Space=
{{VBtriplebox}}


{| align=center width="auto" cellspacing="0"
==October 2024==
|- align="left" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
===[[User:Axe Hack]]===
| width="500" valign="top"|
{{v|Axe Hack}}
{| style="border:solid 2px #D7D7FF; background:#F0F0FF; margin:0 auto; width:600px; font-size:85%; text-align:center; margin-bottom:12px; -moz-border-radius:12px"
|- style="border:solid 2px #CDCDEB; background:#DCDCEB; -moz-border-radius:6px"
| '''Administration Notice'''
|-
| style="padding:3px 9px" | 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.
|}
{| style="border:solid 2px #FFD7D7; background:#FFF0F0; margin:0 auto; width:600px; font-size:85%; text-align:center; margin-bottom:12px; -moz-border-radius:12px"
|- style="border:solid 2px #EBCDCD; background:#EBDCDC; -moz-border-radius:6px"
| '''Administration Notice'''
|-
| style="padding:3px 9px" | 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 [[UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning|talk page]] for further discussion. Free-for-all commenting can lead to a less respectful environment.
|}
{| style="border:solid 2px #D7FFD7; background:#F0FFF0; margin:0 auto; width:600px; font-size:85%; text-align:center; margin-bottom:12px; -moz-border-radius:12px"
|- style="border:solid 2px #CDEBCD; background:#DCEBDC; -moz-border-radius:6px"
| '''Administration Notice'''
|-
| style="padding:3px 9px" | Warned users can remove one entry of their [[A/VD|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.
|}
|}
 
<br style="clear: left" />
 
==August==
 
===Imposters===
{{v|Walter Krenshaw}}
{{v|The Goth Store Owner}}
So, after {{usr|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: {{usr|Walter Krenshaw}} (not to be confused with the original {{usr|WalterKrenshaw}}). Widen the search just a hair more to a /16, and all of the [[#Zerging Imposters United|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. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 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. {{unsigned|The Goth Store Owner}}
 
::Learn to 1) spell, 2) format, 3) be more concise, cheers. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 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.
:::2208978
:::2208980
:::2208981
 
:::2207773
:::2207781
:::2207778
:::{{unsigned|The Goth Store Owner}}
 
::::tl;dr. I literally know nothing about this case and I already agree with Acorn. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 12:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
:::::Hey Mis, if someone fails to sign, just add the <nowiki>{{unsigned}}</nowiki> template. Thanks. {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 17:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 
===[[User:EmPathetic BiII]]===
{{v|EmPathetic BiII|Vandal alt|Permaban}}
{{v|BpeII|Vandal alt|Permaban}}
 
[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User:EmPathetic_BiII] Impersonation character.
[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User:BpeII]  Impersonation character
 
Even Pathetic Bill is amused at these.--[[User:EmPathetic Bill|EmPathetic Bill]] ([[User talk: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. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 18:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
::Agreed, '''vandalism''' --'''<span style="font-family:monospace; background-color:#222222">[[User:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime"> Spiderzed</span>]][[User talk:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime">▋</span>]]</span>''' 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. {{unsigned|The Goth Store Owner}}
: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. {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 20:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 
===[[User:The Goth Store Owner]]===
{{v|The Goth Store Owner|Not Vandalism|Proxies perma'd}}
 
[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=The_Goth_Store&diff=prev&oldid=2253511 Replacing] a link to a profile, on a group page, with an obviously new, impersonation character <small>-- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] 22:22, 23 August 2015 (BST)</small>
 
 
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. [[User:The Goth Store Owner|The Goth Store Owner]] ([[User talk: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 [http://hidemyass.com 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'''. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 16:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
::Agreed, '''Ban the proxies''' & '''Not Vandalism''' (for now) --'''<span style="font-family:monospace; background-color:#222222">[[User:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime"> Spiderzed</span>]][[User talk:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime">▋</span>]]</span>''' 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.--[[User:Real Siege22|Real Siege22]] ([[User talk: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. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 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 [[File:gothy.png]] ,
[[File:goth2.png|300px]]
and [[File:goth3.png|300px]]
it's clear someone is trying to claim they're an alt of a forgotten password character when both alts are active. --[[User:Rosslessness|Rosslessness]]<sup>[[Minor Mission List|Want to complete a dangerous mission?]]</sup>  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. --'''<span style="font-family:monospace; background-color:#222222">[[User:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime"> Spiderzed</span>]][[User talk:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime">▋</span>]]</span>''' 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 ? --[[User:EmPathetic Bill|EmPathetic Bill]] ([[User talk:EmPathetic Bill|talk]]) 19:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Submitted a [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning#User:Axe Hack|fake vandalism report]]. Unbelievable. Disappears for 4 years and he's already causing trouble. --[[User:Axe Hack|<span style="width: 50%; border: 1px solid red; background-color: #000000; text-align: justify; box-shadow: 2px 2px 5px silver; padding: 2px 5px 2px 5px; color: white; font-size:smaller;">•▬ ▬••▬ •</span>]] [[User talk:Axe Hack|<span style="width: 50%; border: 1px solid red; background-color: #000000; text-align: justify; box-shadow: 2px 2px 5px silver; padding: 2px 5px 2px 5px; color: white; font-size:smaller;">•••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬</span>]] <sup><sup><sup><sup><sup><i>#nerftemplatedsigs</i></sup></sup></sup></sup></sup> 08:17, 2 October 2024 (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?
:Don't see how I can rule vandalism on this considering that the alleged edit hadn't occurred prior to its reporting. Basically, there's no edit. Therefore, '''not vandalisim'''. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 02:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
::The response time on this wiki just isn't what it used to be. :( --[[User:Axe Hack|<span style="width: 50%; border: 1px solid red; background-color: #000000; text-align: justify; box-shadow: 2px 2px 5px silver; padding: 2px 5px 2px 5px; color: white; font-size:smaller;">•▬ ▬••▬ •</span>]] [[User talk:Axe Hack|<span style="width: 50%; border: 1px solid red; background-color: #000000; text-align: justify; box-shadow: 2px 2px 5px silver; padding: 2px 5px 2px 5px; color: white; font-size:smaller;">•••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬</span>]] <sup><sup><sup><sup><sup><i>#nerftemplatedsigs</i></sup></sup></sup></sup></sup> 02:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
:::That's because edits must first be translated into Gaelic by some guy who only works from 2-4pm on a Tuesday, then sent out via carrier pigeon one letter at a time. (One [[Wikipedia:Letter (alphabet)|letter]], not [[Wikipedia:Letter (message)|letter]].) --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 04:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)


::::And I'm just going to say my piece here as the official response of our group:
== April 2024==
::::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. 
===[[User:Tesy]]===
::::That is an official statement.
{{v|Tesy|Vandal alt|Banned}}
::::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... [[User:The Jack Yocum|The Jack Yocum]] ([[User talk: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. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 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? {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/a}} 00:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The March vandal is back with a new alt, and continuing what they started last month. --'''<span style="font-family:monospace; background-color:#222222">[[User:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime"> Spiderzed</span>]][[User talk:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime">▋</span>]]</span>''' 16:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
:I did the thing. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 00:46, 6 April 2024 (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 ? --[[User:EmPathetic Bill|EmPathetic Bill]] ([[User talk:EmPathetic Bill|talk]]) 01:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
==March 2024==
===[[User:EpicWikiGuy]]===
{{v|EpicWikiGuy|Vandal alt|Banned}}
Vandalized the SoC's page on his third edit as a user by [https://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Template:SoCnavbar&diff=2428778&oldid=2427320 replacing URLs with NSFW links]. Many of his edits since then appear to be [https://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Lascelles_Library&diff=prev&oldid=2428799 boring] [https://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Soldiers_of_Crossman&diff=next&oldid=2428820 varieties] [https://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=The_Pimm_Building&diff=prev&oldid=2428793 of] [https://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Dustan_Towers&diff=prev&oldid=2428800 defacement], including owned pages (and he also took a moment to create a group impersonation page), so it's clear he isn't acting in good faith. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 19:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
:Banned. Can't seem to rollback [[User:DangerReport/The Harraway Building]] but I'll circle back on that later. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 01:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
::[https://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ADangerReport%2FThe_Harraway_Building&type=revision&diff=2428810&oldid=2428760 They have undone their own edit on the Harraway Building], so there is nothing to rollback. --'''<span style="font-family:monospace; background-color:#222222">[[User:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime"> Spiderzed</span>]][[User talk:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime">▋</span>]]</span>''' 12:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Huh. I guess that makes sense. Never tried to rollback multiple edits where the net difference is zero before. Wiki can't handle an edit with no changes made, so it just errors. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 15:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


:::::Ah, I see now. I missed the claim in his UD profile. It does indeed seem bogus. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/a}} 04:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
===[[User:A helpful little gn0me]]===
::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. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/a}} 04:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
{{v|A helpful little gn0me|Vandal alt|Banned}}
:::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. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 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. --[[User:Rosslessness|Rosslessness]]<sup>[[Minor Mission List|Want to complete a dangerous mission?]]</sup>  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.
Obvious ban evasion alt of [[#User:Scrotum|the one below]]. The bad impersonation of AHLG is just the cherry on top. I recommend to check-user and issue an IP ban, also check if there is VPN abuse involved. --'''<span style="font-family:monospace; background-color:#222222">[[User:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime"> Spiderzed</span>]][[User talk:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime">▋</span>]]</span>''' 13:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::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).
:Got him. We have all mysteriously lost checkuser privileges ("no such special page"). So gotta use your imagination a bit. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 15:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::So if you have no relation to this character, how do you know such intimate details?--[[User:EmPathetic Bill|EmPathetic Bill]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:The Jack Yocum|The Jack Yocum]] ([[User talk:The Jack Yocum|talk]]) 16:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
===[[User:Scrotum]]===
{{v|Scrotum|3EV|Permabanned}}


Here is something else I'm also wondering:
Repeatedly vandalized the pages of [[Fort Feral Zombies]] and [[FPDF]] (among others). A note on the user talk page to cease the behaviour has already been left by me, but it was ignored. Scrotum qualifies for an immediate permaban as an [[UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines#When_a_User_May_be_Warned_or_Banned|3EV]], as they have made more than three edits of which none was constructive. --'''<span style="font-family:monospace; background-color:#222222">[[User:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime"> Spiderzed</span>]][[User talk:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime">▋</span>]]</span>''' 18:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
If the Goth Store page is a group page, then why is it not represented as such on the main Ackland page?
:Pretty sure this is the same guy as https://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Special:Contributions/Thetruth, based on the similarity in edit history. Seems like clear cut vandalism. -- [[User:Dislycan|Dislycan]] ([[User talk:Dislycan|talk]]) 18:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
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.  
::Could be. Anyways, banned. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 03:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
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?
==October 2023==
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.
===[[User:Matahashi]]===
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.
{{v|Matahashi|Vandalism|Warned}}
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.
Repeatedly and consistently blanking [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Soldiers_of_Confusedmen&redirect=no Soldiers of Confusedmen] or removing content from the page [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Soldiers_of_Confusedmen&action=history despite multiple requests] to, y'know, not mess with a group page they don't own. --{{User:Dragonshardz/dragonshardz}} {{Goonsig|Dragonshardz}} 21:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Ask and you shall receive. [[User:The Jack Yocum|The Jack Yocum]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Rosslessness|Rosslessness]]<sup>[[Minor Mission List|Want to complete a dangerous mission?]]</sup>  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. --[[User:EmPathetic Bill|EmPathetic Bill]] ([[User talk:EmPathetic Bill|talk]]) 19:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I never once blanked the page, only corrected false information which isnt vandalism. Specifically says on vandalism page that unwanted edits are not vandalism so long as they are in good faith. {{unsigned|Matahashi|17:53, 12 October 2023‎ }}
:I think the real issue here is that Matahashi is clearly a FckFaceMgee alt, since they took over where FckFace left off. This is not about unwanted edits, it about point of view and semantics.  The Soldiers of Crossmen want to play with us, it is their intention to draw us into a friendly game of tug of war.  We oblige and consider them to be friends. Whether or not they want to label us as friends or frenemies or enemies or whatever should not prevent us from expressing our point of view.[[User:ZPatriot|ZPatriot]] ([[User talk:ZPatriot|talk]])
::The fckfacemgee that got banned below me was just an imposter, only 2es in the name instead of 3 from the proper character. if this is not about unwanted edits than the case is closed. {{unsigned|Matahashi|23:45, 12 October 2023‎}}
::Also hadnt bothered to check the page before answering this one, Im satisfied with what it is now if that helps you sleep at night. {{unsigned|Matahashi|00:30, 13 October 2023‎}}
:::Even if you haven't blanked the page - going by character numbers, it looked like you had - you've been consistently removing/changing content on the page in a way that doesn't meet the bar of a good faith edit and attempting to assert ownership of, effectively, formatting. Continuing to edit the page after about the 5th time you were asked to stop seems like vandalism to me, thus the report. --{{User:Dragonshardz/dragonshardz}} {{Goonsig|Dragonshardz}} 18:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
While an unwanted edit by itself doesn't equal vandalism, all vandalism is unwanted. Generally a group page is "owned" by the creator, and non-owners shouldn't be editing the page except with permission (e.g., group member) or for maintenance (e.g., updating categories); to do otherwise might be considered vandalism. I can't verify the Matahashi = FckFaceMgee claim because CheckUser doesn't seem to be working for me. Can another Sysop confirm? For the time being, please don't continue to edit the page Matahashi, as it's clearly not constructive. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 22:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
:Also not enabled for me anymore either. In either case I consider this standard '''vandalism'''. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig5}} 11:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::So are you goobers going to process this or what? --{{User:Dragonshardz/dragonshardz}} {{Goonsig|Dragonshardz}} 05:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Uh, I blame DDR. Consider this a '''warning'''. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 03:16, 29 March 2024 (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 <small>-- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] 23:18, 29 August 2015 (BST)</small>
==May 2023==
===[[User:FckFaceMgee]]===
{{v|FckFaceMgee}}
[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Please_make_a_Free_Offline_Version_of_Urban_Dead&oldid=2425090 Blanking the page] and [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Please_make_a_Free_Offline_Version_of_Urban_Dead&oldid=2425138 again]. Obviously bad faith edits meant to vandalize the page. Also, considering the username, it seems to be a troll account.


: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.
Edit: [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Please_make_a_Free_Offline_Version_of_Urban_Dead&oldid=2425141 Just did it again].
: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. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 19:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


::I reported it so guess I am involved ?
[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Please_make_a_Free_Offline_Version_of_Urban_Dead&oldid=2425156 4th time].
::http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki%3AAdministration%2FVandal_Banning&diff=2254900&oldid=2252442
::--[[User:EmPathetic Bill|EmPathetic Bill]] ([[User talk: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. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 15:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


''Note: material that was duplicated from [[User talk:The Goth Store Owner#Official warning and proxy addresses banned|User talk:The Goth Store Owner]] has been removed.''
[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Please_make_a_Free_Offline_Version_of_Urban_Dead&oldid=2425160 5th time].


I don't know why we keep getting accused as someone else either {{unsigned|The Goth Store Owner}}
[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Please_make_a_Free_Offline_Version_of_Urban_Dead&oldid=2425183 6th time].


===Zerging Imposters United===
[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Please_make_a_Free_Offline_Version_of_Urban_Dead&oldid=2425332 7th time].


{{v|ZHU|Vandalism|Permaban}}
[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Please_make_a_Free_Offline_Version_of_Urban_Dead&oldid=2425336 8th time].


{{v|Pathetic Bill Tribute Band|Vandalism|Permaban}}
[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Please_make_a_Free_Offline_Version_of_Urban_Dead&oldid=2425339 9th time].


{{v|The Pathetic Bill Tribute Band|Vandalism|Permaban}}
[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Please_make_a_Free_Offline_Version_of_Urban_Dead&oldid=2425342 10th time].


Mommy can I kill some obvious impersonation accounts tonight? --'''<span style="font-family:monospace; background-color:#222222">[[User:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime"> Spiderzed</span>]][[User talk:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime">▋</span>]]</span>''' 20:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
--[[User:Please make a Free Offline Version of Urban Dead|Please make a Free Offline Version of Urban Dead]] ([[User talk:Please make a Free Offline Version of Urban Dead|talk]]) 23:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
:Sorry this took so long. '''Permabanned''' {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig5}} 10:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


Check user,suggests a lot more accounts could be added to this list. --[[User:Rosslessness|Rosslessness]]<sup>[[Minor Mission List|Want to complete a dangerous mission?]]</sup>  22:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
==December 2021==
: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. --'''<span style="font-family:monospace; background-color:#222222">[[User:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime"> Spiderzed</span>]][[User talk:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime">▋</span>]]</span>''' 19:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
===[[User:‎Meathshield 1]]===
::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. --'''<span style="font-family:monospace; background-color:#222222">[[User:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime"> Spiderzed</span>]][[User talk:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime">▋</span>]]</span>''' 17:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
{{v|‎Meathshield 1|Vandalism|Banned}}
[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=The_Meatshielders&curid=195079&diff=2416779&oldid=2416251 Similar MO] to the wild wild etc crazy, though used a proxy. Banned. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 14:48, 1 December 2021 (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 ‎
::--[[User:EmPathetic Bill|EmPathetic Bill]] ([[User talk: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.
==October 2021==
http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Siege22
===[[User:Kim Jung Undead]]===
--[[User:EmPathetic Bill|EmPathetic Bill]] ([[User talk:EmPathetic Bill|talk]]) 23:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
{{v|Kim Jung Undead|Vandalism|Warned}}


http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User:Saint_Giambi
Noting that KJU's IP address is shared by two other users previously searched in the checkuser log, including [[User:Dragnshardz]], who has been permabanned.  


It can only be made by Alwayz the ignore list zerger.--[[User:EmPathetic Bill|EmPathetic Bill]] ([[User talk:EmPathetic Bill|talk]]) 09:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Either we ban KJU as a vandal alt, consider them a "main" and warn them for the Dragonshardz impersonation, or, if we believe and honour their claim that they're JISOR, we associate the vandalism with JISOR/Audioattack's account and go from there. Or we do something else. Happy to have a chat over what the other sysops think. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig5}} 02:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
:Have any of these accounts been warned or otherwise notified about using multiple accounts to vandalize / circumvent bans?  --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 00:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
::Well, yes, JISOR/Audioattack has in the past, but not for this specific Dragnshardz vandalism which is what I assume you mean. Here's how it is right now: Kim Jung Undead has the same IP to 3ER account Dragnshardz, whose banning did not incur any warning for the perpetrator as we didn't know who made Dragnshardz at the time. Kim Jung Undead is claiming, on undeletions, and without hard evidence, that they are also JISOR, who is on A/VD under their original account Audioattack ([[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Data#User:Audioattack]]). JISOR has a history of making throwaway accounts excessively so if these were all the same person I wouldn't be surprised, but there's no hard proof from the IP history.
::So what we do here depends on who you think should be considered the 'main' in all this. Someone needs a warning for the original vandalism with a 3ER alt. Do we accept KJU is Audioattack without the proof and ban them all accordingly? Or do we warn KJU as the main because we don't know with certainty that they are Audioattack? That's kinda where I'm at with this. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig5}} 01:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
:::I wouldn't accept that KJU is JISOR/Audioattack without the IP link, so just warn KJU on using Dragnshardz for vandalism? --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 02:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
::::As the party affected by the attempted impersonation, warning KJU for the attempt seems just and reasonable, especially since there's no direct proof they're JISOR/Audioattack. --{{User:Dragonshardz/dragonshardz}} {{Goonsig|Dragonshardz}} 07:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
::::[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADragonshardz&diff=2416218&oldid=2416203 This edit] seems to back up that KJU is the same person that tried to impersonate me. --{{User:Dragonshardz/dragonshardz}} {{Goonsig|Dragonshardz}} 07:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
I found all the old edits on the JISOR account, among others - From what I understand you can only link my to myself via IP, so regardless of how you want to warn or ban or bake a cake I will just proxy a new account and go from there :) Thanks anyhow though! [[User:Kim Jung Undead|Kim Jung Undead]] ([[User talk:Kim Jung Undead|talk]]) 17:11, 8 November 2021 (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, [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&curid=12893&diff=2252258&oldid=2242135 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 [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User:ZHU&oldid=2251938 in order] [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Siege22&oldid=2252234 to post] [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Siege22&oldid=2252043 false claims] [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User:Siege22&oldid=2252198 using those names], which is what they've been doing here.
Hey doofuses, did you forget to do anything with this report for months? C'mon. --{{User:Dragonshardz/dragonshardz}} {{Goonsig|Dragonshardz}} 07:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
:Apologies. I must have lost interest once it was apparent this wouldn't end in some sort of big brain Harvey Specter play. I have '''warned''' Kim Jung Undead for vandalism with the prior edits as the alt Dragnshardz. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig5}}


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, [[The_Rules#No_Alts_without_Good_Cause|this document]] is a helpful reminder of how things are supposed to work around here. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 17:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
===[[User:Wild wild crazy]]===
:And thus it was done. --'''<span style="font-family:monospace; background-color:#222222">[[User:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime"> Spiderzed</span>]][[User talk:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime">▋</span>]]</span>''' 17:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
{{v|Wild wild crazy|Vandalism|Warned}}
[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=The_Dead&diff=2415542&oldid=2415541 Vandalized] [[The Dead]]. --{{User:Dragonshardz/dragonshardz}} {{Goonsig|Dragonshardz}} 04:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
:I have warned them. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 03:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
::This is probably them again http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Special:Contributions/Wild_Wild_Wild_Crazy. Vandalized The Globetrotters. --<sub>[[User:Kirsty_cotton|<span style="color: lightgrey">K</span>]]</sub> 16:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
:::Looked like it to me. Blocked and warned the original user. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 15:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Some more vandalism to [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=The_Malton_Globetrotters&diff=prev&oldid=2415915 the Malton Globetrotters] and [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=The_Dead&diff=prev&oldid=2415916 the Dead]. I've filed this all under [[User:Wild Crazy]] as this seems to be the oldest "Wild Crazy" .--{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 18:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
:[[Special:Contributions/Wild_Wild_Wild_Wild_Crazy|You will never guess the contrib history of 4x Wild Crazy]] --'''<span style="font-family:monospace; background-color:#222222">[[User:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime"> Spiderzed</span>]][[User talk:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime">▋</span>]]</span>''' 17:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
::Blocked accordingly. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 21:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
:::How are we not already at perma? http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Special:Contributions/Wild_Wild_Wild_Wild_Wild_Crazy --<sub>[[User:Kirsty_cotton|<span style="color: lightgrey">K</span>]]</sub> 23:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
::::Because there are no gods. No masters. [[User:Kim Jung Undead|Kim Jung Undead]] ([[User talk:Kim Jung Undead|talk]]) 23:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
::::It's getting there. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 00:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
See [[User:Crazy Wild]], blocked. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 00:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
:Several more alt accounts have been created. Technically, we need a perma ban vote with 2/3 sysops to agree to perma ban the main account, unless the main account accrues 12 months worth of bans. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 13:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
::Unless this was you DDR, and I need to ban you? --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 13:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
:::Eh, or the vandal got on a boat and sailed away... --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 13:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
:::: I support permaban of DDR.  --<sub>[[User:Kirsty_cotton|<span style="color: lightgrey">K</span>]]</sub> 15:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
:::::Lol... I probably should have explained myself there. I made the next set of expected accounts to park and idle them. Hopefully it will break the cycle of stupidity. I dunno. It's just so crazy it might work..... right? {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig5}} 21:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
::::::It's just this technically makes you a vandal alt creator on five counts. So, 2 warnings, 24 hour ban, a 48 hour ban, and a week = I should ban you for 10 days. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 21:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
:::::::My babies did no such vandalising. They were innocent when you smote them down! {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig5}} 01:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Not vandalism but possible ban evasion.
Wild crazy made the zerg group page. http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Special:Contributions/A_Meatshielder --<sub>[[User:Kirsty_cotton|<span style="color: lightgrey">K</span>]]</sub> 18:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
:It looks like the same person to me. Any other sysops want to weigh in on a perma on the main account? --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 22:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
::Fine by me. As close to a 3-edit vandal as can be, without 100% being one. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig5}} 01:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
::: This probably him again. http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Special:Contributions/Lactose. Judging by the edit to meatshielders. --<sub>[[User:Kirsty_cotton|<span style="color: lightgrey">K</span>]]</sub> 13:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
::::AHLG, what's your take on this? Same crap, slightly changed MO (annoying the dead by playing dumb rather than outright vandalising) and the IP addresses are very similar to the other ones from Wild Crazy yet not the same (checkuser IP logs have them if you want to look). Are you happy to lump Lactose with Wild Crazy? {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig5}} 22:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
:::::The IPs have all switched around slightly between each alt. I've been banning them based on the similar behaviour, the similarities in the IPs and the fact that they all come from location "X". I would ban Lactose and move up to a third month ban on Wild Crazy (currently just on a 1 month). --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 00:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
::::::Do it. That triggers a perma vote anyway. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig5}} 01:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
:::::::Done! --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 02:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Wow. Just....wow. If I had a nickel for every time someone got this insanely butthurt, I'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice. --{{User:Dragonshardz/dragonshardz}} {{Goonsig|Dragonshardz}} 20:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


:::Thanks a lot --[[User:EmPathetic Bill|EmPathetic Bill]] ([[User talk:EmPathetic Bill|talk]]) 20:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
[[User:A Small Doughnut|Add this one]]. Main account escalated. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 00:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


===[[User:Clayton Carmine]]===
{{v|Clayton Carmine|Not Vandalism|None}}


::::: Another possible one - http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User:The_Goth_Store_Owner
Continues to make unsubstantiated edits to [[User:DangerReport/Darvall Heights]]
<br>If you look at the history, he even did a same day revert of Bob's changes
<br>http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ADangerReport%2FDarvall_Heights&diff=2406996&oldid=2406921
<br>Clearly he is just being a sore loser and making bad faith edits as a poor attempt to troll.
<br>I mean at least wait a day or two for the situation on the ground to actually change before just auto stomping reasonable intel updates. {{unsigned|ZPatriot|21:53, 12 October 2021}}
:I'm not yet demoted but going to refrain from ruling. That said, I wanted to drop in and reiterate [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2018#User:Dragonshardz|what I've said before]], which is that "the suburb danger statuses are the part of the wiki most designed to be corrected/adjusted with extreme frequency by interested users. In addition, the boundaries of what constitutes what status are vague and arguable on purpose. I doubt I'd ever accept an A/VB case based on a danger status dispute, unless it's a user clearly lying and manipulating the status in order to e.g. lure players or alter their behavior." {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 22:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
::That is literally what's happening.  Its in Clayton's interest to have the suburb look like an active combat zone to attract people there.  They are not making changes based on an actual evaluation of the status on the ground, it's a knee jerk reaction to my modification.  They are simply using the wiki as a combative tool, showing their preferred status.  The situation on the ground in Darvall is no different then any of the other ghost suburbs. These edits are in bad faith, 100% [[User:ZPatriot|ZPatriot]] ([[User talk:ZPatriot|talk]]) 06:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
:::Isn't what is happening at all so please don't put words in my mouth. Apologies for not taking your word on the state of Darvall Heights when all you had to add was "appears abandoned" as your reasonable intel update, yet we have survivors in the area and zombies sleeping in ruins around the suburb. Since this is such a sticky subject for you I'll give it a day before updating changes made to Darvall Heights Danger Report, even though the situation on the ground could change in a shorter span of time. [[User:Clayton Carmine|Clayton Carmine]] ([[User talk:Clayton Carmine|talk]]) 00:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
::::All I ask is that you take the time to evaluate the situation before making the change.  There had been little to no activity in the area for a couple days and I did a scout around and everything was still trashed, no humans to be found, and most of our people had gotten board and wandered outward.  I literally said "The Heights appear abandoned for the moment." in my summary.  Since you didn't bother to put any comments on your changes, all we are left with is projection, so not sure how you can expect anything other then that to occur. [[User:ZPatriot|ZPatriot]] ([[User talk:ZPatriot|talk]]) 09:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
This is a better fit for [[A/A]]. As I can't verify what's actually happening in this suburb, I can't say if anyone is fabricating the danger level. I'd recommend providing evidence when updating the level, or relying on the external military reports as they are more neutral. Otherwise, the edit warring will go nowhere. '''NV'''. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 01:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


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.
'''Not Vandalism''' - But it's closer to vandalism than it should be. Normally we don't rule on this kind of stuff at all because it's not the sysop's job to rule on grey areas created by interpreting the danger zones, but having quickly scouted Darvall, I would say there's essentially nothing that should classify it as Very Dangerous, let alone fighting someone in an edit war to keep it that way. That is unless the suburb went from "zombie-infested and/or massive hostile zombie mobs" to "devoid of significant survivor or zombie populations" in the two days between the edit dispute and my inspection. It's possible I guess. I'm also concerned by Clayton's reverting of Bob's report that was ''sourced by the EMRP'' and should be the most neutral and technically correct status at the time.


--[[User:EmPathetic Bill|EmPathetic Bill]] ([[User talk:EmPathetic Bill|talk]]) 21:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
TLDR; It's not fair to assume every one of Clayton's reverts in the past were based on a bad faith interpretations of Extremely Dangerous, especially since not all of them were to change the status to Extremely Dangerous anyway. I think that kind of history would be required to call this behaviour vandalism. But it definitely felt closer to bad-faith than the typical dispute. I think if the status isn't clear cut, your idea of waiting a little longer before changing it may be good Clayton. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig5}} 06:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


==July==
==March 2021==
===[[User:Kerkel]]===
===[[User:Fistbump Jackson]]===
{{v|Kerkel|Ye Guilty|48 hour ban}}
{{v|Fistbump Jackson|Not Vandalism|None}}


Removing content from a group and an user page he has no ownership of. [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_01#User:Kerkel|Was escalated back in 2009 for the very same edits.]] --'''<span style="font-family:monospace; background-color:#222222">[[User:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime"> Spiderzed</span>]][[User talk:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime">▋</span>]]</span>''' 22:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Well I guess we're seeing how this plays out. [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Fistbump_Jackson&curid=194759&diff=2412307&oldid=2412140 Has redirected his talk page to a category page] despite the notice provided after the discussion below. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig5}} 12:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
:Watch out, Spiderzed! He might PK you in-game if you ban him!--[[User:Yonnua Koponen|<span style="color: DarkOrange">Yonnua Koponen</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Yonnua Koponen| <span style="color:Blue">Talk</span>]] <span style="color:DarkOrange">!</span> [[Special:Contributions/Yonnua_Koponen| <span style="color:Blue">Contribs</span>]]</sup> 23:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
:Well if you want to pull the trigger, go ahead, but I won't look. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 17:49, 10 April 2021 (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. --'''<span style="font-family:monospace; background-color:#222222">[[User:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime"> Spiderzed</span>]][[User talk:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime">▋</span>]]</span>''' 20:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
:I was warned against redirecting to groups and users. Not categories. Check the history. Furthermore, I asked to be pointed to a specific rule or any kind of precedent and received none. [[User:Fistbump Jackson|Fistbump Jackson]] ([[User talk:Fistbump Jackson|talk]]) 20:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
::::Escalate obvious vandals yourself. There is no need to wait for confirmation unless you are unsure if it's vandalism <small>-- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] 13:03, 9 July 2015 (BST)</small>
:If the rule and/or precedent is “hi I’m DDR/Bob Moncrief and I rule by fiat” then cool but I’d like you to at least say that. [[User:Fistbump Jackson|Fistbump Jackson]] ([[User talk:Fistbump Jackson|talk]])|
:::::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. --'''<span style="font-family:monospace; background-color:#222222">[[User:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime"> Spiderzed</span>]][[User talk:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime">▋</span>]]</span>''' 22:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
::Based on the below case, most active sysops made clear their position was that any redirect of a user talk page produces an unreasonable barrier to contacting that user. <s>'''Vandalism.'''</s> ''revised, see below'' {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 13:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
::::::It's good to see you guys aren't letting the drama llama leave the premises without at least a ''little'' fight. ;) {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 16:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
:::well good job linking me to the discussion! i didn’t know this page, or that discussion, even existed until yesterday [[User:Fistbump Jackson|Fistbump Jackson]] ([[User talk:Fistbump Jackson|talk]]) 13:20, 11 April 2021 (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.--[[User:Yonnua Koponen|<span style="color: DarkOrange">Yonnua Koponen</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Yonnua Koponen| <span style="color:Blue">Talk</span>]] <span style="color:DarkOrange">!</span> [[Special:Contributions/Yonnua_Koponen| <span style="color:Blue">Contribs</span>]]</sup> 17:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
::::Are you planning to redirect your talk page again? {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 14:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
::::::::The train begins. Yonnua, I summons you to the unholy court of vandal banning, jury of the damned and judge of hellstorm incoming. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/a}} 00:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
::::It seems based on subsequent edits like FJ is planning not to do so again. I'm happy to revise to '''not vandalism''' with '''soft warning''' already served. {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 13:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
:::{{wh}} {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 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.  --<sub>[[User:Kirsty_cotton|<span style="color: lightgrey">K</span>]]</sub> 21:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
::::Alts whose sole contributions are three or more edits of vandalism go straight to a permanent ban. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 21:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
:::::[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Krazy_Monkey&diff=prev&oldid=1358351 A single constructive edit] is enough to offset the 3 edit rule, unfortunately. --'''<span style="font-family:monospace; background-color:#222222">[[User:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime"> Spiderzed</span>]][[User talk:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime">▋</span>]]</span>''' 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? --[[User:Rosslessness|Rosslessness]]<sup>[[Minor Mission List|Want to complete a dangerous mission?]]</sup>  21:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Easy. Concluded as '''Not Vandalism'''. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig5}} 02:50, 21 April 2021 (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. --'''<span style="font-family:monospace; background-color:#222222">[[User:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime"> Spiderzed</span>]][[User talk:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime">▋</span>]]</span>''' 22:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


==April==
===[[User:Dragnshardz]]===
===[[User:Shazam]]===
{{v|Dragnshardz|3eV Impersonation|Perma}}
{{v|Shazam|Vandalism|Bans all around}}


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? --[[User:Rosslessness|Rosslessness]]<sup>[[Minor Mission List|Want to complete a dangerous mission?]]</sup>  17:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Based on IP data & edits, a clear attempt at impersonating [[User:Dragonshardz]]. I've blocked the user based on IP data which indicates they are absolutely not the same user, about to revert the edits (which are all userspace & talk page messages, hence the 3eV), but would love a sysop to double-check me before I block the IP and delete the user/talk/sig pages. {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 17:07, 28 March 2021 (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'''. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 20:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
:Sounds good to me. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 22:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
::Sensible. Some semi protection as well?--[[User:Rosslessness|Rosslessness]]<sup>[[Minor Mission List|Want to complete a dangerous mission?]]</sup>  22:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
:Yep, all good. Deleted. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig5}} 23:12, 28 March 2021 (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.) --'''<span style="font-family:monospace; background-color:#222222">[[User:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime"> Spiderzed</span>]][[User talk:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime">▋</span>]]</span>''' 23:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
:As the party they were trying to affect: lmao, owned, idiot. --{{User:Dragonshardz/dragonshardz}} {{Goonsig|Dragonshardz}} 23:57, 28 March 2021 (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. --[[User:Rosslessness|Rosslessness]]<sup>[[Minor Mission List|Want to complete a dangerous mission?]]</sup>  17:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
===[[User:Dragonshardz]]===
: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. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 18:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
{{v|Dragonshardz|Not Vandalism|None}}


==March 2015==
[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Dragonshardz&diff=next&oldid=2411851 Has] [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Dragonshardz&diff=next&oldid=2411923 repeatedly] [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Dragonshardz&diff=next&oldid=2411937 replaced] their user talk page with a redirect to a group talk page, including after [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Dragonshardz&diff=next&oldid=2411798 being told that that is not allowed] as users need to be contactable on their talk pages. Has also done so on [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Fistbump_Jackson&curid=194759&diff=2411941&oldid=2411938 another user's talk page] after that redirect was reverted by <s>me</s> DDR as well.
===[[User:JoshCz]]===
{{v|JoshCz|Presumed wikinewb|Soft warning}}
[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki%3AAdministration%2FRe-Evaluations&diff=2240200&oldid=2240068 Eeeh]. Having a hard time assuming good faith here. --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 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. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 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. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/a}} 07:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


===[[User:Zumm Zero]]===
I'm not bring Fistbump to A/VB since they only made the redirect once and Dragonshardz did so the second time, but will keep monitoring. <s>How do people feel about me protecting the talk pages in non-redirected state while the case is carried out to prevent an unnecessary edit war?</s> <small>(nvm, see below)</small> (And for reference Dragonshardz currently has two warnings from previous cases, so this would be a 24 hour ban.) {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 18:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
{{v|Zumm Zero|Deleting stuff|Warning}}
:Actually, nevermind on the protecting talk page issue. I'm looking back through precedent and think protecting the page would be self-defeating; I'll continue to revert the redirects, if needed, until this case is concluded. {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 19:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted group page stuff. Warned him for now. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 01:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
::Per the [[UDWiki:Specific_Case_Editing_Guidelines|Specific Case Editing Guidelines]], ''my'' talk page belongs solely to ''me'', and I can do whatever the hell I damn well please on it. I logically cannot be vandalizing my own property, and the person who would be able to accuse me of "vandalizing" Fistbump's Talk page is Fistbump. Not you. There is no policy on the wiki that requires my Talk page to be "usable to contact" me, or that I cannot redirect it to another Talk page as I wish. In short, go soak your head. --{{User:Dragonshardz/dragonshardz}} {{Goonsig|Dragonshardz}} 19:33, 25 March 2021 (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. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 06:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
::Also, every time you revert my edit to my talk page, I get notified that I have a "new message" which is something I clearly do not want, as evidenced by the redirect existing, the change summaries,  and my request to RadicalWhig to please not mess with my talk page. He's able to abide by that, why can't you? Or do you simply want to harass me with constant notifications of blank text? --{{User:Dragonshardz/dragonshardz}} {{Goonsig|Dragonshardz}} 19:43, 25 March 2021 (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. --[[User:Rosslessness|<span style="color: MidnightBlue ">R</span><span style="color: Navy">o</span><span style="color: DarkBlue">s</span><span style="color: MediumBlue">s</span><span style="color: RoyalBlue"></span>]][[User_Talk:Rosslessness|<span style="color: RoyalBlue">l</span><span style="color: CornflowerBlue">e</span><span style="color: SkyBlue">s</span><span style="color: LightskyBlue">s</span>]][[User:Rosslessness/Safehouse_Hatred|<span style="color: LightBlue">n</span><span style="color: PowderBlue">e</span>]][[Monroeville Many|<span style="color: PaleTurquoise">s</span>]][[Location Page Building Toolkit|<span style="color: PaleTurquoise">s</span>]]  06:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
::To the sysop team: I'm currently collating the relevant precedent to link here. (Also making a longer version in my userspace.) I can't find anything specific about redirects, but there is widespread precedent that User Talk pages must be usable by both sysops and the general community to contact the user, and obstructions to its usability for this are not allowed. Feel free to hold on ruling til I get that together, hopefully in about an hour. {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 21:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
::I gave him the benefit of the doubt. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 15:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
:::Zumm Zero is an old player ([[Malton World Cup Committee|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. --'''<span style="font-family:monospace; background-color:#222222">[[User:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime"> Spiderzed</span>]][[User talk:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime">▋</span>]]</span>''' 17:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
::::Good sleuthing! {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/a}} 13:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


==Februrary 2015==
Ok, here it is: There has long been a guiding principle to rulings that user talk pages must be usable to contact that user by both the sysops and the userbase at large, with the sole exception of banned users, whose talk pages are protected. The user talk page is the first stop for anyone discussing edits elsewhere on the wiki. There are innumerable examples of "take this to the admin talk page or your talk page" if you go back through the A/VB and other admin archives. The user talk page is ''the'' place to have discussion, including discussion the user in question doesn't like.


===[[User:Jack Yocum]]===
A user making their talk page unusable is not allowed.[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2011_05#DerpDerp] Doing so is vandalism if it is intentional, but not if it is an honest coding mistake.[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2008_12#User:Umbrellaemployee_.282.29] This includes to the extent that others may e.g. reduce image size in order to make a user's talk pages useable.[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2011_12#User:Generaloberst] Users can request that their talk page be deleted, but cannot, for example, demand their talk pages remain deleted/uncreated by other users, as they are needed as a point of contact.[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2011_04#User:Revenant] I don't believe a user has previously attempted to use redirecting to circumvent this, but it stands in clear comparison to the prior examples. (This is excerpted from a [[User:Bob Moncrief/Precedent Collation#User Talk Pages|much longer text I just collated in my userspace]] if you want more details.) {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 21:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
{{v|Jack Yocum|Impersonation|Permban}}
:Neither precedent or principle are policy. Redirecting my talk page to another page doesn't make my talk page unusable. It encourages people not to use it. And again, logically, it is not possible to vandalize something ''that belongs to you''. --{{User:Dragonshardz/dragonshardz}} {{Goonsig|Dragonshardz}} 22:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I believe [[Jack Yocum|coercing users to break the game's one rule]] = bad faith. I also suspect ban avoidance. See [[User:CarelessWill]]. ~[[Image:Vsig.png|link=User:Vapor]] <sub>04:21, 16 February 2015, The year of our lord (UTC)</sub>
::Precedent is a big part of how the wiki has operated since 2006. If you're opposed to that, I encourage you to craft a policy proposal that invalidates precedent and requires all policies to be explicit.
: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.
::Redirecting your talk page significantly hinders a user's ability to edit or post on it. Also, you absolutely can vandalize your own user talk page, for example by posting something that violates TOS there.[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_09#User:Sexylegsread] {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 22:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
: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.
:Also the VERY FIRST CASE you link to in order to back up that your claim that my edits to ''my'' talk page are vandalism was ruled to not be vandalism. --{{User:Dragonshardz/dragonshardz}} {{Goonsig|Dragonshardz}} 22:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
:I'm gonna wait for the others though. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 05:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::It was ruled not vandalism because the user fixed it before it could become vandalism. {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 22:22, 25 March 2021 (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. --'''<span style="font-family:monospace; background-color:#222222">[[User:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime"> Spiderzed</span>]][[User talk:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime">▋</span>]]</span>''' 15:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Either way it still isn't vandalism for me to redirect my talk page. --{{User:Dragonshardz/dragonshardz}} {{Goonsig|Dragonshardz}} 22:44, 25 March 2021 (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. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 15:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:AND that case is about having text or other material outside the normal page area, which is not what a redirect does, so it's not even barely fucking related! --{{User:Dragonshardz/dragonshardz}} {{Goonsig|Dragonshardz}} 22:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
::::[[Bioterrorism Security Assessment Alliance|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. --'''<span style="font-family:monospace; background-color:#222222">[[User:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime"> Spiderzed</span>]][[User talk:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime">▋</span>]]</span>''' 17:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::It has the same effect of hindering a user's ability to post on your talk page. If anything, making a page a redirect makes it more difficult to do so, especially for those who have less familiarity with wiki operations like the (+) button. {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 22:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::Well it's about to be molested now. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 18:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:::It requires them to ''click a single clearly visible link'' to go back to the talk page. It's not that hard. {{unsigned|Dragonshardz}}
:::::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. ~[[Image:Vsig.png|link=User:Vapor]] <sub>00:28, 17 February 2015, The year of our lord (UTC)</sub>
:::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 :'). --[[User:MisterGame|<span style= "color: darkblue; background-color: white">'''Thadeous Oakley''']]</span> [[User_Talk:MisterGame|<span style= "color: gold; background-color: white">'''''Talk''''']]</span> 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. ~[[Image:Vsig.png|link=User:Vapor]] <sub>19:44, 16 February 2015, The year of our lord (UTC)</sub>
:::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. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 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). ~[[Image:Vsig.png|link=User:Vapor]] <sub>00:28, 17 February 2015, The year of our lord (UTC)</sub>
:::::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. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 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. ~[[Image:Vsig.png|link=User:Vapor]] <sub>02:01, 17 February 2015, The year of our lord (UTC)</sub>
:::::::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. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 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
:[[User:Jack Yocum|Jack Yocum]] ([[User talk: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. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 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. [[User:Jack Yocum|Jack Yocum]] ([[User talk: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. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 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. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 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. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 14:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
'''Not Vandalism''' - Dragonshardz wants to do something with their talk page and clearly believes they have the right to do it. I can't in good faith have them warned/banned right away for something they don't ''realise'' they can't do. However, Bob ''is'' right, user talk pages must be reasonably accessible for the function of the wiki. That essentially overrules talk page rules or any other personal touches one wants to add to their home page.


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.
Some relevant precedent. [[UDWiki:Administration/Protections/2008/January#User_Talk:Nalikill_2|A user cannot have their talk page protected for periods that they are actually active on the wiki]], for the specific reason that it their obligation to be contactable if they are contributing to this wonderful website. [[UDWiki:Administration/Protections/2008/April#User_pages|Users like Finis Valorum thus needed to request talk page protections only when declaring they were to be absent from the wiki]] and their talk pages would have to [[UDWiki:Administration/Protections/2008/May#User_talk:Finis_Valorum|be unprotected once they returned]]. [[User_talk:Iscariot|Iscariot's talk page]] had [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Iscariot/Archive&diff=1260616&oldid=1253314 stupid rules] in an attempt to literally forbid admins from posting on his page "or he would misconduct them". It didn't work and as I recall he never bothered testing it cause even he knew it was dumb. He removed them a year or so later.


I'll reiterate: I believe a '''warning''' is warranted. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 16:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
And there's also the general "function of the wiki" precedents that come into play here. Kind of. [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Prohibiting Content Outside of the Normal Page Area|You can't do certain things on this wiki that make the function of the wiki more difficult for general users]]. [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2015#User:_Revenant|same goes for random crap that breaks basic wiki functions]]. These examples aren't directly related obviously. But they are examples of the Sysop's mandate to ensure the wiki can run smoothly, as it's intended, at the base level.


We enforce the rules of the wiki, not the rules of the game. Not vandalism <small>-- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] 01:42, 17 February 2015 (BST)</small>
Basically, it's unfair to ban you for something you didn't know for sure that you couldn't do. But, like the [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2011_05#DerpDerp|predecent Bob posted above]], now you do. That means if you continue with this edit war I'll vote vandalism next time. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig5}} 22:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
: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. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 02:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
:Redirecting the page doesn't make it more difficult for general users to leave a message. There's a link right under the title of the page it redirects to that takes you back to my talk page without being redirected. I'm not doing anything that prevents people from editing my talk page, just encouraging them to ''not''. It's absolutely ridiculous to state that it's possible for me to vandalize my own talk page. --{{User:Dragonshardz/dragonshardz}} {{Goonsig|Dragonshardz}} 22:42, 25 March 2021 (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 <small>-- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] 10:25, 17 February 2015 (BST)</small>
::Vandalism isn't something that can only occur on some pages and not on others. It's literally just a bad faith edit. It can be done by anyone, anywhere. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig5}} 22:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
:::A redirect on a talk page which by {{WIKILAW}} ''belongs to me'' is a bad faith edit based on what policy, exactly? --{{User:Dragonshardz/dragonshardz}} {{Goonsig|Dragonshardz}} 23:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
::::The creation of that redirect was not vandalism. I said so above. The continuing to do so after being told it goes against the sysop's interpretation of past precedent & policy, is bad faith. Policy dictates sysops are allowed to interpret on a case-by-case basis to this degree. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig5}} 23:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::There is no policy that I cannot redirect my own talk page, nor is there precedent for this specific issue. --{{User:Dragonshardz/dragonshardz}} {{Goonsig|Dragonshardz}} 00:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
::::::Exactly. So the decision is 100% up to the interpretation by the sysops as explicitly stated in the [[UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines#General_Conduct|guidelines]], my reasoning of which is collated in the above links and examples provided by myself and Bob. You are welcome to your interpretation and it is entirely your choice to push it as hard as you are pushing it. I expect the result of that will be that by the end of this endeavour you will have helped create the precedent you seem so interested in us producing. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig5}} 00:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::::I'm only pushing it because Bob is a tedious fuck who decided that the best way to coerce me into doing what ''he'' wants is making a VB case. --{{User:Dragonshardz/dragonshardz}} {{Goonsig|Dragonshardz}} 01:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
:::Y'all's argument is the same as telling someone that they cannot paint the inside of their owned home a specific color, and now that they have been told this, they will go to jail if they paint the inside of their house a specific color. --{{User:Dragonshardz/dragonshardz}} {{Goonsig|Dragonshardz}} 23:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::All I'm reading here is that you think I should have voted vandalism straight away because that fits the standards of real-life criminal justice more. This is not real life, your talk page is not your house. It's a wiki. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig5}} 23:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
::::::My talk page is ''my'' talk page. Why is choosing to redirect it to a different talk page such a big fucking deal in the first place? --{{User:Dragonshardz/dragonshardz}} {{Goonsig|Dragonshardz}} 00:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::::It's not a big deal at all. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig5}} 00:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
::::::::If it's not a big deal, why bother making a VB case about it? Eh, Bob? --{{User:Dragonshardz/dragonshardz}} {{Goonsig|Dragonshardz}} 01:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm very thankful for this actually as it was a great way to establish a precedent. Sorry you had to be the vector for it, but thanks! {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 01:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::I didn't '''"have"''' to be the vector for it, you pretentious twat. --{{User:Dragonshardz/dragonshardz}} {{Goonsig|Dragonshardz}} 02:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
::::The user talk page is more like the mailbox on the front of your house (which is your userpage) — you own it but legally it has to be functional to receive mail there. And I live in a city where by ordinance our mailboxes have to be one of a specific set of colors (mine is dark green). {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 01:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::And in this case, you're the neighborhood Karen on the HOA making a big fuss about my shade of green being oh-so-slightly off. --{{User:Dragonshardz/dragonshardz}} {{Goonsig|Dragonshardz}} 02:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
::::::There's no policy against being a Karen. ;) {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 14:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::::Nobody ''likes'' a Karen, Karen. --{{User:Dragonshardz/dragonshardz}} {{Goonsig|Dragonshardz}} 15:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
::::::::I do! At worst I find them entertaining, at best a challenge to out-Karen. {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 19:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::You find white women who call the cops on Black people for having a cookout ''entertaining''. This explains an uncomfortable number of things about you. --{{User:Dragonshardz/dragonshardz}} {{Goonsig|Dragonshardz}} 00:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::That's not what a Karen is, that's called a racist. Or if that's your definition of Karen then I'm definitely not, I think rules-monger is a much more accurate appellation. Also I think this conversation would at this point be better held on a user talk page rather than on A/VB, so will continue on one if you like. {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 01:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
:I'm a-ok with this. Would love at least one other sysop to agree with DDR (not vandalism but this is precedent that you cannot redirect your user talk page going forwards) before I officially withdraw the case. {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 01:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
::Imagine spending hors of your free time to scroll back through 16 years worth of vandal banning data just to stick it to someone who doesn't operate their talk page in the way that you want. --{{User:Dragonshardz/dragonshardz}} {{Goonsig|Dragonshardz}} 02:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
:::Ehh, it was only ~13 years and ctrl+f is my friend. But that kind of scrolling is what I signed up for when I applied for sysop. {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 14:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


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. ~[[Image:Vsig.png|link=User:Vapor]] <sub>05:12, 17 February 2015, The year of our lord (UTC)</sub>
* Bob's argument rests on whether changing Dragonshardz's talk page to a redirect makes it impossible (or at least difficult) to contact Dragonshardz directly. However, it takes a single click on <small><font color='grey'>(Redirected from [[User talk:Dragonshardz]])</font></small> to go back onto their page and make a comment, so it's certainly still possible to contact them; it's just mildly annoying and not difficult. Any user is allowed make edits to Dragonshardz's talk page in this manner, and Dragonshardz can revert these talk page edits if they wish. Both of these users can make these edits back and forth endlessly, and neither of the user's edits would be vandalism. If Dragonshardz doesn't want a specific user from using their talk page, they can make an [[A/A]] case. They could also try to make an [[A/A]] case to block any and all users on the wiki from using their talk page, but I don't think an arbitrator would rule in their favour and I'm not sure how such a case would work mechanistically anyways.
: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. [[User:Jack Yocum|Jack Yocum]] ([[User talk:Jack Yocum|talk]]) 07:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
* I think a stronger argument is that the redirect could prevent an inexperienced user from directly contacting Dragonshardz, but that's speculative. They may or may not notice the redirect, or understand what a redirect is.
::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. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 08:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
* It matters where the redirect goes to and what is on the page. A point in Dragonshardz's favour is that the redirect directs people to [[Talk:The Dead]], a group of which they are a member (so far as I understand). If the page contained elements that blocked the redirect message, or linked to the main page of an unrelated group (for example), I'd change my conclusion here.
:::No, not impersonating a wiki user, just an in game UD character. But go ahead and ban this account I don't care. [[User:Jack Yocum|Jack Yocum]] ([[User talk:Jack Yocum|talk]]) 09:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
* It's best to not assume that Dragonshardz is being deliberately disruptive. Perhaps they prefer the redirect because "I get notified that I have a "new message" which is something I clearly do not want" (Dragonshardz).
:::::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 [[User:Jack Yocum|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) <small>-- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] 10:32, 17 February 2015 (BST)</small>
* '''Not vandalism.''' --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 15:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
::::::I'm with Boxy. '''Perma the impersonation account, warn the follow-up for impersonation'''. --'''<span style="font-family:monospace; background-color:#222222">[[User:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime"> Spiderzed</span>]][[User talk:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime">▋</span>]]</span>''' 23:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
:I'm glad somebody gets it. --{{User:Dragonshardz/dragonshardz}} {{Goonsig|Dragonshardz}} 17:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
:I understand this — I disagree in that I do think the redirect click constitutes making it difficult to post on the user's talk page, but I'm cool with this ruling. Before we wrap and so I understand, if a user talk page redirected to, say, [[Talk:Main Page]], would that be obstructive enough to count as vandalism? {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 19:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
::I probably wouldn't bother ruling it as such, unless it became common for people trying to reach Drangonshardz to post on [[Talk:Main Page]] by mistake. Call it a pointless redirect, in that case {{tongue}}. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 21:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


:::::Did you make the account [[User:ZergingZerger]] too? ~[[Image:Vsig.png|link=User:Vapor]] <sub>13:55, 17 February 2015, The year of our lord (UTC)</sub>
As DDR [[User:Rosslessness|<span style="color: MidnightBlue ">R</span><span style="color: Navy">o</span><span style="color: DarkBlue">s</span><span style="color: MediumBlue">s</span><span style="color: RoyalBlue"></span>]][[User_Talk:Rosslessness|<span style="color: RoyalBlue">l</span><span style="color: CornflowerBlue">e</span><span style="color: SkyBlue">s</span><span style="color: LightskyBlue">s</span>]][[User_Talk:Rosslessness/Quiz|<span style="color: LightBlue">n</span><span style="color: PowderBlue">e</span>]][[Monroeville Many|<span style="color: PaleTurquoise">s</span>]][[The Great Suburb Group Massacre|<span style="color: PaleTurquoise">s</span>]]<sup>[[Location Page Building Toolkit|<span style="color: DarkRed">Want a Location Image?]] </span> </sup>  19:42, 26 March 2021 (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? ~[[Image:Vsig.png|link=User:Vapor]] <sub>01:56, 20 February 2015, The year of our lord (UTC)</sub>
:::::::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. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 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.
Closed as '''not vandalism''', although I will be removing the redirect according to the majority of sysop feedback. Same for Fistbump Jackson. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig5}} 04:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
*[http://ispy.dxavier.net/1204266162.html http://ispy.dxavier.net/1204266162.html] (I had just moved to a different block, but I stepped back to where I had been when I realized he was talking in real-time)
*[http://ispy.dxavier.net/1277738337.html http://ispy.dxavier.net/1277738337.html]
*[http://ispy.dxavier.net/1627097766.html http://ispy.dxavier.net/1627097766.html]
*[http://ispy.dxavier.net/1465242637.html http://ispy.dxavier.net/1465242637.html]
*[http://ispy.dxavier.net/1897779198.html http://ispy.dxavier.net/1897779198.html]
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. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 02:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
===[[User:Bob Moncrief]]===
:So, the plot thickens? --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 03:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
{{v|Bob Moncrief|Not Vandalism|None}}
:So, the bullshit thickens? ~[[Image:Vsig.png|link=User:Vapor]] <sub>16:10, 21 February 2015, The year of our lord (UTC)</sub>


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 <small>-- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] 21:20, 21 February 2015 (BST)</small>
Has repeatedly reverted edits to my talk page despite clear indications that I do not wish for the redirect on it to be removed. --{{User:Dragonshardz/dragonshardz}} {{Goonsig|Dragonshardz}} 20:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
:If any clear evidence of who owns this alt comes to light in the future, they should also get a '''warning''' <small>-- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] 21:32, 21 February 2015 (BST)</small>
:My response is basically the outcome of the above vandalism case, so it should be dealt with before this one. Undoing the edits is a basic administrative action to undo vandalism (the redirect) and thus isn't vandalism. {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 21:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
::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. ~[[Image:Vsig.png|link=User:Vapor]] <sub>06:03, 22 February 2015, The year of our lord (UTC)</sub>
::Undoing my edits on my talk page is vandalism, regardless of it being a "basic administrative action to undo vandalism" - which my redirect is not. --{{User:Dragonshardz/dragonshardz}} {{Goonsig|Dragonshardz}} 22:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
:::An unwanted edit to a talk page, even repeated, is not vandalism, and a redirect is not a "message" so I didn't remove anything that isn't allowed (actually required, see above) to be removed. {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 01:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


Apparently I have a knack for checking on my account right as real-time stuff is happening:
'''Not vandalism''' {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig5}} 22:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
*[http://ispy.dxavier.net/1278261260.html http://ispy.dxavier.net/1278261260.html]
*[http://ispy.dxavier.net/1180573862.html http://ispy.dxavier.net/1180573862.html]
And my response:
*[http://ispy.dxavier.net/1647305253.html http://ispy.dxavier.net/1647305253.html]
*[http://ispy.dxavier.net/1477332971.html http://ispy.dxavier.net/1477332971.html]
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. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 18:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
:Annnnd, one last response from him: [http://ispy.dxavier.net/1276672063.html http://ispy.dxavier.net/1276672063.html]. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 02:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


===[[User:ZergingZerger]]===
At best this is a good faith attempt to revert vandalism; at worst it's an edit war. '''Not vandalism'''. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 13:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
{{v|ZergingZerger|Vandal alt|Permbanned}}
As above, [[Zergs Unlimited|bad faith attempt to encourage breaking game rules]]. Similar MO as [[User:Jack Yocum]]. Suspect these two are alts. ~[[Image:Vsig.png|link=User:Vapor]] <sub>04:21, 16 February 2015, The year of our lord (UTC)</sub>


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 <small>-- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] 21:32, 21 February 2015 (BST)</small>
'''Not vandalism''' As the Gnome [[User:Rosslessness|<span style="color: MidnightBlue ">R</span><span style="color: Navy">o</span><span style="color: DarkBlue">s</span><span style="color: MediumBlue">s</span><span style="color: RoyalBlue"></span>]][[User_Talk:Rosslessness|<span style="color: RoyalBlue">l</span><span style="color: CornflowerBlue">e</span><span style="color: SkyBlue">s</span><span style="color: LightskyBlue">s</span>]][[User_Talk:Rosslessness/Quiz|<span style="color: LightBlue">n</span><span style="color: PowderBlue">e</span>]][[Monroeville Many|<span style="color: PaleTurquoise">s</span>]][[The Great Suburb Group Massacre|<span style="color: PaleTurquoise">s</span>]]<sup>[[Location Page Building Toolkit|<span style="color: DarkRed">Want a Location Image?]] </span> </sup>  19:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


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? --'''<span style="font-family:monospace; background-color:#222222">[[User:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime"> Spiderzed</span>]][[User talk:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime">▋</span>]]</span>''' 01:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Closed as '''not vandalism'''. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig5}} 04:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
:'''Permaban''' and block the proxy would be my vote as well. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 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. --'''<span style="font-family:monospace; background-color:#222222">[[User:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime"> Spiderzed</span>]][[User talk:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime">▋</span>]]</span>''' 22:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Proxy use is good enough for me. I concur. --[[User:Rosslessness|<span style="color: MidnightBlue ">R</span><span style="color: Navy">o</span><span style="color: DarkBlue">s</span><span style="color: MediumBlue">s</span><span style="color: RoyalBlue"></span>]][[User_Talk:Rosslessness|<span style="color: RoyalBlue">l</span><span style="color: CornflowerBlue">e</span><span style="color: SkyBlue">s</span><span style="color: LightskyBlue">s</span>]][[User:Rosslessness/Safehouse_Hatred|<span style="color: LightBlue">n</span><span style="color: PowderBlue">e</span>]][[Monroeville Many|<span style="color: PaleTurquoise">s</span>]][[Location Page Building Toolkit|<span style="color: PaleTurquoise">s</span>]]  23:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
'''Permbanned''' <small>-- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] 11:15, 26 February 2015 (BST)</small>


==Archives==
==Archives==
{{VBarchivenav}}
{{VBarchivenav}}

Latest revision as of 04:12, 3 October 2024

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. To lodge a request for de-escalation, please visit A/DE. You are as responsible for keeping track of your history as the sysops are; In case of a sysop wrongly punishing you due to an outdated history, they might not be punished for their actions.

October 2024

User:Axe Hack

Verdict Incomplete
Action taken None Yet

Submitted a fake vandalism report. Unbelievable. Disappears for 4 years and he's already causing trouble. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 08:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Don't see how I can rule vandalism on this considering that the alleged edit hadn't occurred prior to its reporting. Basically, there's no edit. Therefore, not vandalisim. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
The response time on this wiki just isn't what it used to be. :( --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 02:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
That's because edits must first be translated into Gaelic by some guy who only works from 2-4pm on a Tuesday, then sent out via carrier pigeon one letter at a time. (One letter, not letter.) --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

User:Tesy

Verdict Vandal alt
Action taken Banned

The March vandal is back with a new alt, and continuing what they started last month. -- Spiderzed▋ 16:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I did the thing. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

User:EpicWikiGuy

Verdict Vandal alt
Action taken Banned

Vandalized the SoC's page on his third edit as a user by replacing URLs with NSFW links. Many of his edits since then appear to be boring varieties of defacement, including owned pages (and he also took a moment to create a group impersonation page), so it's clear he isn't acting in good faith. —Aichon— 19:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Banned. Can't seem to rollback User:DangerReport/The Harraway Building but I'll circle back on that later. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
They have undone their own edit on the Harraway Building, so there is nothing to rollback. -- Spiderzed▋ 12:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Huh. I guess that makes sense. Never tried to rollback multiple edits where the net difference is zero before. Wiki can't handle an edit with no changes made, so it just errors. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 15:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

User:A helpful little gn0me

Verdict Vandal alt
Action taken Banned

Obvious ban evasion alt of the one below. The bad impersonation of AHLG is just the cherry on top. I recommend to check-user and issue an IP ban, also check if there is VPN abuse involved. -- Spiderzed▋ 13:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Got him. We have all mysteriously lost checkuser privileges ("no such special page"). So gotta use your imagination a bit. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 15:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Scrotum

Verdict 3EV
Action taken Permabanned

Repeatedly vandalized the pages of Fort Feral Zombies and FPDF (among others). A note on the user talk page to cease the behaviour has already been left by me, but it was ignored. Scrotum qualifies for an immediate permaban as an 3EV, as they have made more than three edits of which none was constructive. -- Spiderzed▋ 18:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Pretty sure this is the same guy as https://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Special:Contributions/Thetruth, based on the similarity in edit history. Seems like clear cut vandalism. -- Dislycan (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Could be. Anyways, banned. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

October 2023

User:Matahashi

Verdict Vandalism
Action taken Warned

Repeatedly and consistently blanking Soldiers of Confusedmen or removing content from the page despite multiple requests to, y'know, not mess with a group page they don't own. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ We're going to destroy everything, and you can't stop us ☉ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 21:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I never once blanked the page, only corrected false information which isnt vandalism. Specifically says on vandalism page that unwanted edits are not vandalism so long as they are in good faith. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matahashi (talk • contribs) 17:53, 12 October 2023‎ .

I think the real issue here is that Matahashi is clearly a FckFaceMgee alt, since they took over where FckFace left off. This is not about unwanted edits, it about point of view and semantics. The Soldiers of Crossmen want to play with us, it is their intention to draw us into a friendly game of tug of war. We oblige and consider them to be friends. Whether or not they want to label us as friends or frenemies or enemies or whatever should not prevent us from expressing our point of view.ZPatriot (talk)
The fckfacemgee that got banned below me was just an imposter, only 2es in the name instead of 3 from the proper character. if this is not about unwanted edits than the case is closed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matahashi (talk • contribs) 23:45, 12 October 2023‎.
Also hadnt bothered to check the page before answering this one, Im satisfied with what it is now if that helps you sleep at night. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matahashi (talk • contribs) 00:30, 13 October 2023‎.
Even if you haven't blanked the page - going by character numbers, it looked like you had - you've been consistently removing/changing content on the page in a way that doesn't meet the bar of a good faith edit and attempting to assert ownership of, effectively, formatting. Continuing to edit the page after about the 5th time you were asked to stop seems like vandalism to me, thus the report. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ We're going to destroy everything, and you can't stop us ☉ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 18:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

While an unwanted edit by itself doesn't equal vandalism, all vandalism is unwanted. Generally a group page is "owned" by the creator, and non-owners shouldn't be editing the page except with permission (e.g., group member) or for maintenance (e.g., updating categories); to do otherwise might be considered vandalism. I can't verify the Matahashi = FckFaceMgee claim because CheckUser doesn't seem to be working for me. Can another Sysop confirm? For the time being, please don't continue to edit the page Matahashi, as it's clearly not constructive. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Also not enabled for me anymore either. In either case I consider this standard vandalism. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 11:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
So are you goobers going to process this or what? --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ We're going to destroy everything, and you can't stop us ☉ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 05:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Uh, I blame DDR. Consider this a warning. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

May 2023

User:FckFaceMgee

Verdict Incomplete
Action taken None Yet

Blanking the page and again. Obviously bad faith edits meant to vandalize the page. Also, considering the username, it seems to be a troll account.

Edit: Just did it again.

4th time.

5th time.

6th time.

7th time.

8th time.

9th time.

10th time.

--Please make a Free Offline Version of Urban Dead (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry this took so long. Permabanned DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 10:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

December 2021

User:‎Meathshield 1

Verdict Vandalism
Action taken Banned

Similar MO to the wild wild etc crazy, though used a proxy. Banned. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 14:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


October 2021

User:Kim Jung Undead

Verdict Vandalism
Action taken Warned

Noting that KJU's IP address is shared by two other users previously searched in the checkuser log, including User:Dragnshardz, who has been permabanned.

Either we ban KJU as a vandal alt, consider them a "main" and warn them for the Dragonshardz impersonation, or, if we believe and honour their claim that they're JISOR, we associate the vandalism with JISOR/Audioattack's account and go from there. Or we do something else. Happy to have a chat over what the other sysops think. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 02:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Have any of these accounts been warned or otherwise notified about using multiple accounts to vandalize / circumvent bans? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, yes, JISOR/Audioattack has in the past, but not for this specific Dragnshardz vandalism which is what I assume you mean. Here's how it is right now: Kim Jung Undead has the same IP to 3ER account Dragnshardz, whose banning did not incur any warning for the perpetrator as we didn't know who made Dragnshardz at the time. Kim Jung Undead is claiming, on undeletions, and without hard evidence, that they are also JISOR, who is on A/VD under their original account Audioattack (UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Data#User:Audioattack). JISOR has a history of making throwaway accounts excessively so if these were all the same person I wouldn't be surprised, but there's no hard proof from the IP history.
So what we do here depends on who you think should be considered the 'main' in all this. Someone needs a warning for the original vandalism with a 3ER alt. Do we accept KJU is Audioattack without the proof and ban them all accordingly? Or do we warn KJU as the main because we don't know with certainty that they are Audioattack? That's kinda where I'm at with this. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 01:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't accept that KJU is JISOR/Audioattack without the IP link, so just warn KJU on using Dragnshardz for vandalism? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
As the party affected by the attempted impersonation, warning KJU for the attempt seems just and reasonable, especially since there's no direct proof they're JISOR/Audioattack. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ We're going to destroy everything, and you can't stop us ☉ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 07:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
This edit seems to back up that KJU is the same person that tried to impersonate me. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ We're going to destroy everything, and you can't stop us ☉ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 07:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I found all the old edits on the JISOR account, among others - From what I understand you can only link my to myself via IP, so regardless of how you want to warn or ban or bake a cake I will just proxy a new account and go from there :) Thanks anyhow though! Kim Jung Undead (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Hey doofuses, did you forget to do anything with this report for months? C'mon. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ We're going to destroy everything, and you can't stop us ☉ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 07:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Apologies. I must have lost interest once it was apparent this wouldn't end in some sort of big brain Harvey Specter play. I have warned Kim Jung Undead for vandalism with the prior edits as the alt Dragnshardz. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION

User:Wild wild crazy

Verdict Vandalism
Action taken Warned

Vandalized The Dead. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ We're going to destroy everything, and you can't stop us ☉ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 04:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I have warned them. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
This is probably them again http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Special:Contributions/Wild_Wild_Wild_Crazy. Vandalized The Globetrotters. --K 16:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Looked like it to me. Blocked and warned the original user. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 15:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Some more vandalism to the Malton Globetrotters and the Dead. I've filed this all under User:Wild Crazy as this seems to be the oldest "Wild Crazy" .--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

You will never guess the contrib history of 4x Wild Crazy -- Spiderzed▋ 17:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Blocked accordingly. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
How are we not already at perma? http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Special:Contributions/Wild_Wild_Wild_Wild_Wild_Crazy --K 23:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Because there are no gods. No masters. Kim Jung Undead (talk) 23:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
It's getting there. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

See User:Crazy Wild, blocked. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Several more alt accounts have been created. Technically, we need a perma ban vote with 2/3 sysops to agree to perma ban the main account, unless the main account accrues 12 months worth of bans. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 13:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Unless this was you DDR, and I need to ban you? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 13:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Eh, or the vandal got on a boat and sailed away... --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 13:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
I support permaban of DDR. --K 15:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Lol... I probably should have explained myself there. I made the next set of expected accounts to park and idle them. Hopefully it will break the cycle of stupidity. I dunno. It's just so crazy it might work..... right? DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 21:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
It's just this technically makes you a vandal alt creator on five counts. So, 2 warnings, 24 hour ban, a 48 hour ban, and a week = I should ban you for 10 days. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
My babies did no such vandalising. They were innocent when you smote them down! DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 01:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Not vandalism but possible ban evasion. Wild crazy made the zerg group page. http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Special:Contributions/A_Meatshielder --K 18:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

It looks like the same person to me. Any other sysops want to weigh in on a perma on the main account? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Fine by me. As close to a 3-edit vandal as can be, without 100% being one. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 01:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
This probably him again. http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Special:Contributions/Lactose. Judging by the edit to meatshielders. --K 13:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
AHLG, what's your take on this? Same crap, slightly changed MO (annoying the dead by playing dumb rather than outright vandalising) and the IP addresses are very similar to the other ones from Wild Crazy yet not the same (checkuser IP logs have them if you want to look). Are you happy to lump Lactose with Wild Crazy? DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 22:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The IPs have all switched around slightly between each alt. I've been banning them based on the similar behaviour, the similarities in the IPs and the fact that they all come from location "X". I would ban Lactose and move up to a third month ban on Wild Crazy (currently just on a 1 month). --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Do it. That triggers a perma vote anyway. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 01:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Done! --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Wow. Just....wow. If I had a nickel for every time someone got this insanely butthurt, I'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ We're going to destroy everything, and you can't stop us ☉ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 20:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Add this one. Main account escalated. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Clayton Carmine

Verdict Not Vandalism
Action taken None

Continues to make unsubstantiated edits to User:DangerReport/Darvall Heights
If you look at the history, he even did a same day revert of Bob's changes
http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ADangerReport%2FDarvall_Heights&diff=2406996&oldid=2406921
Clearly he is just being a sore loser and making bad faith edits as a poor attempt to troll.
I mean at least wait a day or two for the situation on the ground to actually change before just auto stomping reasonable intel updates. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ZPatriot (talk • contribs) 21:53, 12 October 2021.

I'm not yet demoted but going to refrain from ruling. That said, I wanted to drop in and reiterate what I've said before, which is that "the suburb danger statuses are the part of the wiki most designed to be corrected/adjusted with extreme frequency by interested users. In addition, the boundaries of what constitutes what status are vague and arguable on purpose. I doubt I'd ever accept an A/VB case based on a danger status dispute, unless it's a user clearly lying and manipulating the status in order to e.g. lure players or alter their behavior." Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 22:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
That is literally what's happening. Its in Clayton's interest to have the suburb look like an active combat zone to attract people there. They are not making changes based on an actual evaluation of the status on the ground, it's a knee jerk reaction to my modification. They are simply using the wiki as a combative tool, showing their preferred status. The situation on the ground in Darvall is no different then any of the other ghost suburbs. These edits are in bad faith, 100% ZPatriot (talk) 06:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Isn't what is happening at all so please don't put words in my mouth. Apologies for not taking your word on the state of Darvall Heights when all you had to add was "appears abandoned" as your reasonable intel update, yet we have survivors in the area and zombies sleeping in ruins around the suburb. Since this is such a sticky subject for you I'll give it a day before updating changes made to Darvall Heights Danger Report, even though the situation on the ground could change in a shorter span of time. Clayton Carmine (talk) 00:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
All I ask is that you take the time to evaluate the situation before making the change. There had been little to no activity in the area for a couple days and I did a scout around and everything was still trashed, no humans to be found, and most of our people had gotten board and wandered outward. I literally said "The Heights appear abandoned for the moment." in my summary. Since you didn't bother to put any comments on your changes, all we are left with is projection, so not sure how you can expect anything other then that to occur. ZPatriot (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

This is a better fit for A/A. As I can't verify what's actually happening in this suburb, I can't say if anyone is fabricating the danger level. I'd recommend providing evidence when updating the level, or relying on the external military reports as they are more neutral. Otherwise, the edit warring will go nowhere. NV. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Not Vandalism - But it's closer to vandalism than it should be. Normally we don't rule on this kind of stuff at all because it's not the sysop's job to rule on grey areas created by interpreting the danger zones, but having quickly scouted Darvall, I would say there's essentially nothing that should classify it as Very Dangerous, let alone fighting someone in an edit war to keep it that way. That is unless the suburb went from "zombie-infested and/or massive hostile zombie mobs" to "devoid of significant survivor or zombie populations" in the two days between the edit dispute and my inspection. It's possible I guess. I'm also concerned by Clayton's reverting of Bob's report that was sourced by the EMRP and should be the most neutral and technically correct status at the time.

TLDR; It's not fair to assume every one of Clayton's reverts in the past were based on a bad faith interpretations of Extremely Dangerous, especially since not all of them were to change the status to Extremely Dangerous anyway. I think that kind of history would be required to call this behaviour vandalism. But it definitely felt closer to bad-faith than the typical dispute. I think if the status isn't clear cut, your idea of waiting a little longer before changing it may be good Clayton. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 06:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

March 2021

User:Fistbump Jackson

Verdict Not Vandalism
Action taken None

Well I guess we're seeing how this plays out. Has redirected his talk page to a category page despite the notice provided after the discussion below. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 12:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Well if you want to pull the trigger, go ahead, but I won't look. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I was warned against redirecting to groups and users. Not categories. Check the history. Furthermore, I asked to be pointed to a specific rule or any kind of precedent and received none. Fistbump Jackson (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
If the rule and/or precedent is “hi I’m DDR/Bob Moncrief and I rule by fiat” then cool but I’d like you to at least say that. Fistbump Jackson (talk)|
Based on the below case, most active sysops made clear their position was that any redirect of a user talk page produces an unreasonable barrier to contacting that user. Vandalism. revised, see below Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 13:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
well good job linking me to the discussion! i didn’t know this page, or that discussion, even existed until yesterday Fistbump Jackson (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Are you planning to redirect your talk page again? Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 14:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
It seems based on subsequent edits like FJ is planning not to do so again. I'm happy to revise to not vandalism with soft warning already served. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 13:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Easy. Concluded as Not Vandalism. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 02:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Dragnshardz

Verdict 3eV Impersonation
Action taken Perma

Based on IP data & edits, a clear attempt at impersonating User:Dragonshardz. I've blocked the user based on IP data which indicates they are absolutely not the same user, about to revert the edits (which are all userspace & talk page messages, hence the 3eV), but would love a sysop to double-check me before I block the IP and delete the user/talk/sig pages. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 17:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Yep, all good. Deleted. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 23:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
As the party they were trying to affect: lmao, owned, idiot. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ We're going to destroy everything, and you can't stop us ☉ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 23:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Dragonshardz

Verdict Not Vandalism
Action taken None

Has repeatedly replaced their user talk page with a redirect to a group talk page, including after being told that that is not allowed as users need to be contactable on their talk pages. Has also done so on another user's talk page after that redirect was reverted by me DDR as well.

I'm not bring Fistbump to A/VB since they only made the redirect once and Dragonshardz did so the second time, but will keep monitoring. How do people feel about me protecting the talk pages in non-redirected state while the case is carried out to prevent an unnecessary edit war? (nvm, see below) (And for reference Dragonshardz currently has two warnings from previous cases, so this would be a 24 hour ban.) Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 18:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, nevermind on the protecting talk page issue. I'm looking back through precedent and think protecting the page would be self-defeating; I'll continue to revert the redirects, if needed, until this case is concluded. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 19:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Per the Specific Case Editing Guidelines, my talk page belongs solely to me, and I can do whatever the hell I damn well please on it. I logically cannot be vandalizing my own property, and the person who would be able to accuse me of "vandalizing" Fistbump's Talk page is Fistbump. Not you. There is no policy on the wiki that requires my Talk page to be "usable to contact" me, or that I cannot redirect it to another Talk page as I wish. In short, go soak your head. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ We're going to destroy everything, and you can't stop us ☉ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 19:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Also, every time you revert my edit to my talk page, I get notified that I have a "new message" which is something I clearly do not want, as evidenced by the redirect existing, the change summaries, and my request to RadicalWhig to please not mess with my talk page. He's able to abide by that, why can't you? Or do you simply want to harass me with constant notifications of blank text? --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ We're going to destroy everything, and you can't stop us ☉ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 19:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
To the sysop team: I'm currently collating the relevant precedent to link here. (Also making a longer version in my userspace.) I can't find anything specific about redirects, but there is widespread precedent that User Talk pages must be usable by both sysops and the general community to contact the user, and obstructions to its usability for this are not allowed. Feel free to hold on ruling til I get that together, hopefully in about an hour. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 21:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, here it is: There has long been a guiding principle to rulings that user talk pages must be usable to contact that user by both the sysops and the userbase at large, with the sole exception of banned users, whose talk pages are protected. The user talk page is the first stop for anyone discussing edits elsewhere on the wiki. There are innumerable examples of "take this to the admin talk page or your talk page" if you go back through the A/VB and other admin archives. The user talk page is the place to have discussion, including discussion the user in question doesn't like.

A user making their talk page unusable is not allowed.[1] Doing so is vandalism if it is intentional, but not if it is an honest coding mistake.[2] This includes to the extent that others may e.g. reduce image size in order to make a user's talk pages useable.[3] Users can request that their talk page be deleted, but cannot, for example, demand their talk pages remain deleted/uncreated by other users, as they are needed as a point of contact.[4] I don't believe a user has previously attempted to use redirecting to circumvent this, but it stands in clear comparison to the prior examples. (This is excerpted from a much longer text I just collated in my userspace if you want more details.) Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 21:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Neither precedent or principle are policy. Redirecting my talk page to another page doesn't make my talk page unusable. It encourages people not to use it. And again, logically, it is not possible to vandalize something that belongs to you. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ We're going to destroy everything, and you can't stop us ☉ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 22:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Precedent is a big part of how the wiki has operated since 2006. If you're opposed to that, I encourage you to craft a policy proposal that invalidates precedent and requires all policies to be explicit.
Redirecting your talk page significantly hinders a user's ability to edit or post on it. Also, you absolutely can vandalize your own user talk page, for example by posting something that violates TOS there.[5] Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 22:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Also the VERY FIRST CASE you link to in order to back up that your claim that my edits to my talk page are vandalism was ruled to not be vandalism. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ We're going to destroy everything, and you can't stop us ☉ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 22:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
It was ruled not vandalism because the user fixed it before it could become vandalism. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 22:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Either way it still isn't vandalism for me to redirect my talk page. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ We're going to destroy everything, and you can't stop us ☉ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 22:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
AND that case is about having text or other material outside the normal page area, which is not what a redirect does, so it's not even barely fucking related! --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ We're going to destroy everything, and you can't stop us ☉ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 22:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
It has the same effect of hindering a user's ability to post on your talk page. If anything, making a page a redirect makes it more difficult to do so, especially for those who have less familiarity with wiki operations like the (+) button. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 22:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
It requires them to click a single clearly visible link to go back to the talk page. It's not that hard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dragonshardz (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Not Vandalism - Dragonshardz wants to do something with their talk page and clearly believes they have the right to do it. I can't in good faith have them warned/banned right away for something they don't realise they can't do. However, Bob is right, user talk pages must be reasonably accessible for the function of the wiki. That essentially overrules talk page rules or any other personal touches one wants to add to their home page.

Some relevant precedent. A user cannot have their talk page protected for periods that they are actually active on the wiki, for the specific reason that it their obligation to be contactable if they are contributing to this wonderful website. Users like Finis Valorum thus needed to request talk page protections only when declaring they were to be absent from the wiki and their talk pages would have to be unprotected once they returned. Iscariot's talk page had stupid rules in an attempt to literally forbid admins from posting on his page "or he would misconduct them". It didn't work and as I recall he never bothered testing it cause even he knew it was dumb. He removed them a year or so later.

And there's also the general "function of the wiki" precedents that come into play here. Kind of. You can't do certain things on this wiki that make the function of the wiki more difficult for general users. same goes for random crap that breaks basic wiki functions. These examples aren't directly related obviously. But they are examples of the Sysop's mandate to ensure the wiki can run smoothly, as it's intended, at the base level.

Basically, it's unfair to ban you for something you didn't know for sure that you couldn't do. But, like the predecent Bob posted above, now you do. That means if you continue with this edit war I'll vote vandalism next time. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 22:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Redirecting the page doesn't make it more difficult for general users to leave a message. There's a link right under the title of the page it redirects to that takes you back to my talk page without being redirected. I'm not doing anything that prevents people from editing my talk page, just encouraging them to not. It's absolutely ridiculous to state that it's possible for me to vandalize my own talk page. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ We're going to destroy everything, and you can't stop us ☉ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 22:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Vandalism isn't something that can only occur on some pages and not on others. It's literally just a bad faith edit. It can be done by anyone, anywhere. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 22:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
A redirect on a talk page which by WIKI LAW belongs to me is a bad faith edit based on what policy, exactly? --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ We're going to destroy everything, and you can't stop us ☉ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 23:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
The creation of that redirect was not vandalism. I said so above. The continuing to do so after being told it goes against the sysop's interpretation of past precedent & policy, is bad faith. Policy dictates sysops are allowed to interpret on a case-by-case basis to this degree. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 23:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
There is no policy that I cannot redirect my own talk page, nor is there precedent for this specific issue. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ We're going to destroy everything, and you can't stop us ☉ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 00:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Exactly. So the decision is 100% up to the interpretation by the sysops as explicitly stated in the guidelines, my reasoning of which is collated in the above links and examples provided by myself and Bob. You are welcome to your interpretation and it is entirely your choice to push it as hard as you are pushing it. I expect the result of that will be that by the end of this endeavour you will have helped create the precedent you seem so interested in us producing. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 00:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm only pushing it because Bob is a tedious fuck who decided that the best way to coerce me into doing what he wants is making a VB case. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ We're going to destroy everything, and you can't stop us ☉ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 01:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Y'all's argument is the same as telling someone that they cannot paint the inside of their owned home a specific color, and now that they have been told this, they will go to jail if they paint the inside of their house a specific color. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ We're going to destroy everything, and you can't stop us ☉ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 23:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
All I'm reading here is that you think I should have voted vandalism straight away because that fits the standards of real-life criminal justice more. This is not real life, your talk page is not your house. It's a wiki. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 23:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
My talk page is my talk page. Why is choosing to redirect it to a different talk page such a big fucking deal in the first place? --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ We're going to destroy everything, and you can't stop us ☉ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 00:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
It's not a big deal at all. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 00:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
If it's not a big deal, why bother making a VB case about it? Eh, Bob? --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ We're going to destroy everything, and you can't stop us ☉ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 01:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm very thankful for this actually as it was a great way to establish a precedent. Sorry you had to be the vector for it, but thanks! Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 01:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I didn't "have" to be the vector for it, you pretentious twat. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ We're going to destroy everything, and you can't stop us ☉ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 02:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
The user talk page is more like the mailbox on the front of your house (which is your userpage) — you own it but legally it has to be functional to receive mail there. And I live in a city where by ordinance our mailboxes have to be one of a specific set of colors (mine is dark green). Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 01:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
And in this case, you're the neighborhood Karen on the HOA making a big fuss about my shade of green being oh-so-slightly off. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ We're going to destroy everything, and you can't stop us ☉ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 02:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
There's no policy against being a Karen. ;) Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 14:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Nobody likes a Karen, Karen. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ We're going to destroy everything, and you can't stop us ☉ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 15:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I do! At worst I find them entertaining, at best a challenge to out-Karen. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 19:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
You find white women who call the cops on Black people for having a cookout entertaining. This explains an uncomfortable number of things about you. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ We're going to destroy everything, and you can't stop us ☉ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 00:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
That's not what a Karen is, that's called a racist. Or if that's your definition of Karen then I'm definitely not, I think rules-monger is a much more accurate appellation. Also I think this conversation would at this point be better held on a user talk page rather than on A/VB, so will continue on one if you like. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 01:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm a-ok with this. Would love at least one other sysop to agree with DDR (not vandalism but this is precedent that you cannot redirect your user talk page going forwards) before I officially withdraw the case. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 01:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Imagine spending hors of your free time to scroll back through 16 years worth of vandal banning data just to stick it to someone who doesn't operate their talk page in the way that you want. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ We're going to destroy everything, and you can't stop us ☉ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 02:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Ehh, it was only ~13 years and ctrl+f is my friend. But that kind of scrolling is what I signed up for when I applied for sysop. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 14:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Bob's argument rests on whether changing Dragonshardz's talk page to a redirect makes it impossible (or at least difficult) to contact Dragonshardz directly. However, it takes a single click on (Redirected from User talk:Dragonshardz) to go back onto their page and make a comment, so it's certainly still possible to contact them; it's just mildly annoying and not difficult. Any user is allowed make edits to Dragonshardz's talk page in this manner, and Dragonshardz can revert these talk page edits if they wish. Both of these users can make these edits back and forth endlessly, and neither of the user's edits would be vandalism. If Dragonshardz doesn't want a specific user from using their talk page, they can make an A/A case. They could also try to make an A/A case to block any and all users on the wiki from using their talk page, but I don't think an arbitrator would rule in their favour and I'm not sure how such a case would work mechanistically anyways.
  • I think a stronger argument is that the redirect could prevent an inexperienced user from directly contacting Dragonshardz, but that's speculative. They may or may not notice the redirect, or understand what a redirect is.
  • It matters where the redirect goes to and what is on the page. A point in Dragonshardz's favour is that the redirect directs people to Talk:The Dead, a group of which they are a member (so far as I understand). If the page contained elements that blocked the redirect message, or linked to the main page of an unrelated group (for example), I'd change my conclusion here.
  • It's best to not assume that Dragonshardz is being deliberately disruptive. Perhaps they prefer the redirect because "I get notified that I have a "new message" which is something I clearly do not want" (Dragonshardz).
  • Not vandalism. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 15:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm glad somebody gets it. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ We're going to destroy everything, and you can't stop us ☉ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 17:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I understand this — I disagree in that I do think the redirect click constitutes making it difficult to post on the user's talk page, but I'm cool with this ruling. Before we wrap and so I understand, if a user talk page redirected to, say, Talk:Main Page, would that be obstructive enough to count as vandalism? Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 19:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I probably wouldn't bother ruling it as such, unless it became common for people trying to reach Drangonshardz to post on Talk:Main Page by mistake. Call it a pointless redirect, in that case Tongue :P. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

As DDR RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 19:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Closed as not vandalism, although I will be removing the redirect according to the majority of sysop feedback. Same for Fistbump Jackson. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 04:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Bob Moncrief

Verdict Not Vandalism
Action taken None

Has repeatedly reverted edits to my talk page despite clear indications that I do not wish for the redirect on it to be removed. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ We're going to destroy everything, and you can't stop us ☉ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 20:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

My response is basically the outcome of the above vandalism case, so it should be dealt with before this one. Undoing the edits is a basic administrative action to undo vandalism (the redirect) and thus isn't vandalism. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 21:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Undoing my edits on my talk page is vandalism, regardless of it being a "basic administrative action to undo vandalism" - which my redirect is not. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ We're going to destroy everything, and you can't stop us ☉ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 22:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
An unwanted edit to a talk page, even repeated, is not vandalism, and a redirect is not a "message" so I didn't remove anything that isn't allowed (actually required, see above) to be removed. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 01:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Not vandalism DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 22:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

At best this is a good faith attempt to revert vandalism; at worst it's an edit war. Not vandalism. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 13:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Not vandalism As the Gnome RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 19:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Closed as not vandalism. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 04:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Archives

Vandal Banning Archive

2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Q3 Q4
2013 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Years 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
2020
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning&oldid=2436005"