Revision as of 06:32, 1 September 2008

Administration Services

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

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

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

Guidelines for Vandalism Reporting

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

A link to the pages in question.

Preferably bolded for visibility. If the Vandalism is occurring over a sufficiently large number of pages, instead include a time range of the vandalism attempt, or alternatively, a link to the first vandalised page. This allows us to quickly find the damage so we can quickly assess the situation.

The user name of the Vandal.

This allows us to more easily identify the culprit, and to check details.

A signed datestamp.

For accountability purposes, we ask that you record in your request your user name and the time you lodged the report.

Please report at the top.

There's conflict with where to post and a lot of the reports are missed. If it's placed at the top of the page it's probably going to be seen and dealt with.

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

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

Before Submitting a Report

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

Vandalism Report Space

Administration Notice

Talk with the user before reporting or accusing someone of vandalism for small edits. In most cases it's simply a case of a new user that doesn't know how this wiki works. Sometimes assuming good faith and speaking with others can avoid a lot of drama, and can even help newbies feel part of this community.

Administration Notice

If you are not a System Operator, the user who made the vandal report, the user being reported, or directly involved in the case, the administration asks that you use the talk page for further discussion. Free-for-all commenting can lead to a less respectful environment.

Administration Notice

Warned users can remove one entry of their warning history every one month and 250 edits after their last warning. Remember to ask a sysop to remove them in due time. You are as responsible for keeping track of your history as the sysops are; In case of a sysop wrongly punishing you due to an outdated history, he might not be punished for his actions.

e

Vandal Banning Archive

2006	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2007	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2008	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2009	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2010	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2011	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2012	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Q3			Q4
2013	Q1			Q2			Q3			Q4
Years	2014		2015		2016		2017		2018		2019
	2020

User:Chairman Davis

Warned for page clearing. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 22:30, 30 September 2008 (BST)

User:Schizoidgull

These two edits. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 20:37, 30 September 2008 (BST)

Warned -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 22:30, 30 September 2008 (BST)

User:Zeug

Yet another deletion workaround for his page under deletions voting, United Zombies of Malton. That page is still under deletions voting... The new page which an Arbitration case (which is a completely seperate entity from the Deletions request) said could be created is called "Urban Dead Zombie Portal" -- aka UDZP -- not UZM. Deletions voting is not finished. Therefore IMO this is a deletion workround. --WanYao 15:06, 29 September 2008 (BST)

Seriously... The right thing to do here was to allow this process to finish. The United Zombies of Malton is still up for deletions. Period. Until such time as that process is finished, changing the UZM redirect to a new page -- with a totally different name and acronym -- seems in pretty bad faith to me... --WanYao 17:45, 29 September 2008 (BST)

Seriously... Is this the best you got wan? The UZM redirect isn't up for deletion, the United Zombies of Malton is, and I've already changed my vote for the page I wrote to Speedy Delete. As for the relation between the UZM redirect shortcut and the Urban Dead Zombie Portal I revised wan's edit and pointed him to Talk:UZM where he really should get into the habit of discussing edits before he acts like a wannabe mod on this wiki. The Urban Dead Zombie Portal is a page for the Urbandead Zombies of Malton (UZM) external website portal on uzm-urbandead.com. UZM is what it's about. As for bad faith this user is obviously annoyed that he can't argue himself out of a wet paper bag with me and is chasing any opportunity to annoy and disrupt. Hilariously all his argument adds up to is a plea to not redirect until the completely superfluous deletion vote is tallied next week. Even if the Keep's win the day the page is going to be deleted as per Krazy's arbitration! I'd like to nominate wan's vandal escalation as not only pointlessly time wasting but blatant bad faith misuse of the wiki admin. Cheers --Zeug 19:18, 29 September 2008 (BST)

The UZM redirect is clearly associated with the page under consideration for deletion. The new page does not have the abbreviation "UZM", it's not even close. Therefore, I consider Zeug's edits to be a deletion workaround, and that's why this case is here. If the United Zombies of Malton is deleted, speedily or otherwise, then UZM -- as its associated redirect -- ought to be deleted as well. And a new, appropriately named redirect created for the new page. Very simple, very straightforward, really. No sophistical "logic" necessary. Meanwhile, this case is either Vandalism, or Not Vandalism, no?... Everything else is, frankly, drama... 'Nuff said, rule away. --WanYao 20:00, 29 September 2008 (BST)

No one wants to touch this, and understandably so. WITHDRAWN. --WanYao 23:09, 2 October 2008 (BST)

User:Schizoidgull

Here you can see he wiped the Spam and Dupe vote portion of this suggestion and removed many of the Keep peoples sigs.--SirArgo ^Talk 03:56, 29 September 2008 (BST)

Warned - even though he has few contributions showing (none of which are particularly helpful), he has been around since June, and made at least one suggestion (referred to on his talk page), so it's clear that he's had quite a few missing from the recent history wipe, therefore no perma -- boxy ^{talk • i} 13:23 29 September 2008 (BST)

User:Halo3rulez12

Impersonation of me. --Funt Solo ^QT 02:21, 26 September 2008 (BST)

Not vandalism - it looks to simply be a newbie unfamiliar with the intricacies of editing the wiki. A message on his talk page would be more welcoming and helpful than a vandalism report -- boxy ^{talk • i} 09:42 26 September 2008 (BST)

I took your advice and left him a message. --Funt Solo ^QT

15:19, 26 September 2008 (BST)

User:Wind Angel

Permabanned as an alt of Izumi Orimoto. IP check matches IP of her account, Illusionist (Sysops: See Checkuser history for details). Plus her exchange with Stephen_Colbert_DFA was kind of a givaway. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 16:16, 24 September 2008 (BST)

User:Zeug: Case number 3452

Circumventing a page protection by creating a second copy of the disputed page United Zombies of Malton despite the fact that the original has been protected due to an edit war and nominated for deletion. -- C h e e s e 19:38, 22 September 2008 (BST)

Vandalism - Creating a new page to get around a cooldown protection due to an ongoing edit war (which would merely have perpetuated that edit war) is obviously terrible faith. Warned --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 01:17, 23 September 2008 (BST)

User:Zeug

This edit. Moron had been told clearly that he was unwelcome to post on my namespace and should not do so anymore. As per precedent regarding page ownership, request conviction for vandalism. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 15:33, 22 September 2008 (BST)

Can you provide a link to the precedent to which you are referring? As in a case where the page owner revoked the right of the offending user to reply on their page and this wish was broken and then ruled as vandalism. I have no idea when or where I'm searching for it. -- C h e e s e 18:31, 22 September 2008 (BST)

We have very clearly punished users for breaches of page specific rules before, but I can't be bothered to find the actual case given that the edit history has been wiped. So instead you get the process which it is all based around.

The page in question is in my namespace, it is my main talk page. There is no disputing this.

The rules of my page were placed long before Zeug's comment. They have not been changed retroactively to implicate him. There is no disputing this.

I clearly removed Zeug's right to reply in my comment. He was aware of this as his posted in direct response to this post. There is no disputing this.

Accordingly we have a situation where I have created rules for a page in my namespace, specifically named another user as being subject to them and this user has broken them. I have brought the matter to the next logical conclusion, A/VB, and reported vandalsim. Now it seems I have to explain the whole thing.

On community pages we have a system of user consensus to establish non-policy rules for the governance of that page. A good example would be the suggestions guidelines, which are not to be found in any policy but have instead come about due to agreement by members of the community in order that the page runs according to the wishes of the owning party (in this case the community).

As my talk page belongs only to me, and not the community, I need no such consensus with anyone else to decide equivalent rules. As the community can decide and post rules for the suggestions page, I can do so for my own personal pages.

I claim this right under this specific policy document. Particularly this section:

"It has been explicitly noted that User: and User talk: pages are the sole property of that particular user...As such, Users are free to do whatever they wish to their user pages"

As the policy states it is under my ownership, and that I am allowed to do whatever I wish with my pages (with the noted exception of instances mentioned further down in the document such as impersonation) I claim the same rights afforded to community pages.

Therefore, the rules were clear and obvious before Zeug posted. He clearly was in contravention of them. He should now be issued the next stage of escalation available.

Failure to do so indicates that non-policy rules count for nothing within the process of this wiki and mean that anyone ever convicted under rule ten of the suggestions system is able to appeal their ruling and bring ruling sysops for misconduct under moderation principles.

If this is not ruled as vandalism it will lead to a situation where users have their talk pages protected to avoid situations like this and thus reduce community interaction, ultimately damaging the core purpose of this wiki. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 09:52, 25 September 2008 (BST)

This same situation has been ruled time and time again as not vandalism, despite your bullshit claim to precedent. You can put that notice up, and henceforth delete anything and everything that Zeug posts on your talk page, no problem (as long as you don't misrepresent him in doing so selectively), or you can go to arbitration and get a ruling there that he is not to post to your page. However, without an arbitration case, where good reason is required to allow such an imposition, your talk page should still remain available to all users to contact you about wiki issues. That is it's purpose, it's only reason for existing, after all -- boxy ^{talk • i} 12:54 25 September 2008 (BST)

Oh, and no, active users should not be allowed to have their talk pages protected, for the same reason. Others need to be able to contact a user, and without a talk page, there is no reliable way to do that on a wiki -- boxy ^{talk • i} 12:57 25 September 2008 (BST)

Not vandalism - Never has been vandalism. Get an arbies ruling saying no or just delete the comment. You are far too fucking litigious here and its getting on my nerves. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 01:12, 23 September 2008 (BST)

You'll notice how little I care about your opinion of my behavior on this wiki. Feel free to try and invent a ruling that you can convict me under. You should be fucking thankful I let most of what I see slide, although I am debating whether or not there's a point to putting half the active sysops up for misconduct as per policy. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 09:52, 25 September 2008 (BST)

We have VB'ed people for spamming admin pages before. -- C h e e s e 21:00, 29 September 2008 (BST)

User:Zeug

This edit. Now this is a strange one and will set precedent for the future. I'm probably going to put this under impersonation.

Simply put Extinction set up this page back in 2007, and as they are cheating scumbags, no-one noticed it until I did yesterday. The page is for a zombie 'super alliance', and on the membership it lists the RRF, Militant Order of Barhah and Hambargar Halparz. Not one of those groups ever agreed to be part of that alliance. Moloch (Papa of the RRF) removed the RRF and Bisfan (leader of the Halparz and representative of MoB) removed MoB and the Halparz. Zeug reverted these edits.

The page implies that the aforementioned groups agreed to join and support the alliance. This is impersonation of their wishes and standing in the community.

Also, since they are listed as members of the group, why do they not get editing privileges to remove their names? Page ownership rules clearly show that members of a group may make edits, if the above groups are members as Zeug claims, why can't they edit it?

I'd like each confirmed group (three so far) added against their wishes to count as a separate charge of impersonation. With the precedent that any entry on a group or suburb page that lists groups as allied or friendly be impersonation unless accurate according to the leadership of the mentioned groups. This precedent would not affect the rights of a group page owner to create KOS/Enemy/Shit lists and mention other groups in them.

This case is another example of Extinction having delusions of adequacy again. I doubt that the majority of the groups there would even deal with them at all. Failure to rule accordingly in this case will open the door to huge amounts of drama. Can you imagine the shitfest when The Dead create an alliance to devastate DH, and list DHPD as founder members?

-- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:14, 21 September 2008 (BST)

Well, it doesnt appear to actually be a group. Its a browser covering a bunch of different groups forums and such, not an alliance, despite the categorisation. Its not actually vandalism as a result, however i am adding a notice explicitely spelling that out onn the page itself and im removing the group categories. If those are readded i will treat this as an alliance page and retroactively change this ruling to vandalism. For now though, its not vandalism. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 12:50, 21 September 2008 (BST)

K, thats all done. Ill keep my eye on it from here. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 12:54, 21 September 2008 (BST)

This is a case for arbitration. As far as I can see, Extinction have no case for claiming that the RRF, Haparz, MoB (or pretty much any of the other groups) are participating, or "covered" by their web tool, given that it is simply an inclusion of their wiki pages, and dedicated "shoutboxs" that were set up by extinction themselves and is open to all. Given that it is not a group page, the leadership of these groups should be free to remove any inclusion of themselves on the wiki page. If a group doesn't want their name to be associated with an external web tool, they have the right to remove it from the page. Not vandalism, take it to arbitration, please -- boxy ^{talk • i} 14:16 21 September 2008 (BST)

User:House of Usher

Wiped Grim's talk page.--SirArgo ^Talk 18:11, 19 September 2008 (BST)

Blocked for a day. It looks like some of his edits were purged so I didn't make it a perma. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 18:14, 19 September 2008 (BST)

He wiped my talk page and changed my user page to calling me an asshole and to find him in game. Who is he? --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 19:31, 19 September 2008 (BST)

Vandalise this close to a history wipe and its your own damned fault if you get a nasty punishment. I have upgraded this to permaban. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 23:58, 19 September 2008 (BST)

Using the unfortunate timing of vandalism close to a history wipe is not an excuse to give an instant permaban when the user has a clear vandal data history, and contributions back to July 07. I've unblocked, and will warn this user -- boxy ^{talk • i} 16:26 20 September 2008 (BST)

User:Wind Angel

If that's not a sock-puppet of "she who must not be named", I'll vote for Obama. --Stephen Colbert DFA 21:56, 18 September 2008 (BST)

I have had my eye on that account for some time now, but there is unfortunately nothing conclusive to link it, so ive done nothing but keep watching. Please dont report suspected socks here unless you have proof. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 03:56, 19 September 2008 (BST)

User:Red mafiya

Wiped a nice chunk of this page. It could be nothing but I'm a) too tired, and b) working at 7 in the morning and need bed so I'll leave it to someone else to decide. -- C h e e s e 00:25, 17 September 2008 (BST)

Judging from what was cleared and from the only other edit available, this looks to be vandalism. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 00:50, 17 September 2008 (BST)

Ah this fellow again. Yes its Vandalism, and yes you should have banned him for it. Im banning him for 48 hours in accordance with escalations. Yes i know there was a history, wipe, but he's been inactive ever since then. Let it be a lesson not to reoffend so soon after a history wipe. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 03:51, 17 September 2008 (BST)

User:Ryannx25, User:Wast0id and User:MCD24

Vandalised the Dead Dudes page here and here.He also has vandalized the Millen Hills page here and the Lamport Hills page here in order to smear the name of Dead Dudes. He is bringing an in-game vendetta into the wiki and is just deleting large amounts of text and sometimes listing himself as group leader, declaring the rightful leaders as enemies and other malicious lies.Basically, he is angry with the group in the game, and thinks it is humorous to vandalize the wiki page. He has gloated several times in-game about "fixing" the Dead Dudes wiki page.He may also use alts to do so.Sorry if I did any of this wrong,as I had hoped never to have to do this sort of thing, but I feel my (and Dead Dudes) hand has been forced--User:Wast0id 21:32, 15 September 2008 (BST)

Both you and User:Ryannx25 are in trouble here. You are both Warned, (But User:Ryannx25 came close to perma, and i would have if it werent for his first contrib). I had a little look through the lovely contribs, and your vandalism of a page created for his/her character was also appalling. Tit for tat vandalism is not the answer, and some of us sysops look deeper than the average case and find out all your dirty little secrets, so keep your hands clean and instead of resorting to petty revenge vandalism, clean it up and ask them to stop. If they dont, bring it here instead of starting a vandal war, or you will BOTH be in trouble. I am also covering, in this vandalism case, everyone inviolved, so User:MCD24 can join you with a warning for this contribution to the same page you vandalised. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 23:27, 16 September 2008 (BST)

Understood. Although I must say the templates I used should be removed if using them is considered vandalism (Also I had thought the Neice page was created by MCD, as Ryannx25 has another page for his character). I should have looked at the history and seen that MCD had changed his page rather than creating it.I didn't. That's my mistake and I apologize for it. But regardless, lesson learned (by me anyway as you won't ever have a spot of trouble from me ever again). I won't be speaking to Ryannx25 about this as he has proven to be completely irrational and unwilling to listen to reason when it comes to his feud with our group, but I won't ever touch another page on this wiki that has anything to do with him,his alts/proxys,or groups, as I really want nothing to do with him in any way.---User:Wast0id 20:37, 16 September 2008 (CST)

User:Aidcrist

Went on a spree. Banned, reverted by myself and a few others who started before i saw him. Blocked his proxy too. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 12:01, 15 September 2008 (BST)

User:J2DaGangsta

Well...this isn't really a vandal report...it's more of a request. You see...J2DaGangsta is my old account, but I forgot the password and came up with Axe Hack. This has been on my mind ever since I got Axe Hack, and now I finally get around to this...Can you please block my old username? I would hate it if someone hacked into it and I get blamed for it. The password isn't alpha-numerical if I remember correctly, so it's pretty easy to hack. Thanks! --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 21:39, 12 September 2008 (BST)

I think the chances of it being hacked are pretty small but just to put your mind at ease, I shall block it. The account has made two edits, both of them to the user namespace (assuming the rest have been wiped by the recent purge) way back in 2006. -- C h e e s e 22:04, 12 September 2008 (BST)

Nah. It's made more. The rest were deleted when I put that group page I made with that username up for delete. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 22:05, 12 September 2008 (BST)

User:Doudomida

Vandalised the Malton Uprising page here, and here. You know, I remember when C4NT was a name associated with class... --WanYao 10:53, 10 September 2008 (BST)

Warned --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 10:57, 10 September 2008 (BST)

Im getting database errors every time i try to add the vandal data. ill try tomorrow. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 11:07, 10 September 2008 (BST)

Added. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 19:37, 10 September 2008 (BST)

Just so that there's a complete record of them, he also did this on the 8th, along with that other edit Wan Yao posted up there. It's not like he replaced the whole page with "Secruss is a dick" or something, and it seemed silly to make a wiki-drama fuss about it if I didn't have to, so I just left a comment on his talk page about the matter. But considering he responded with more extensive vandalism...yeah, thanks for officially reporting it and warning him. --Jen 19:55, 10 September 2008 (BST)

User:Sergeant Waffles

Vandalism --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 00:47, 9 September 2008 (BST)

Warned -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 01:02, 9 September 2008 (BST)

Because i was asked to check this out on my talk. Checkuser shows that this account shares the same IP as User:Private Mendoza. Early contribution here indicates a self described familiarity with the wiki, and is a pretty obvious attempt to stop from being hit by the project welcome crowd. Given this information, i am certain that this is a sock puppet of User:Private Mendoza and as a result this account has been permabanned and the warning is being shifted accordingly. That is all. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 03:18, 9 September 2008 (BST)

User:Barak

Vandalised another users page under alt account User:Epiklulz (Confirmed through checkuser). Alt banned, main Warned --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 08:53, 7 September 2008 (BST)

I'm here to vouch for Barak. He told me his account was hacked by his roommate, who did the vandalism out of malice, and I believe him. His main account is blocked at this time. Is this permanent? And is there a process for an appeals? I also note that the individual who did so much vandalism yesterday is only warned, yet "Barak's" sole act of vandalism (again, an act done by his roommate,) has resulted in a complete ban. Is this standard policy?

Thank you for your consideration. --Violet Begonia _{Dean MCM MOB} 02:25, 8 September 2008 (BST)

He hasnt been banned. His IP has been blocked as part of the altban due to a misclick (I did not unselect one aspect of it), ill rework the things to let him back in under his main, but that it. In any case, all evidence indicates the account is his, and until some evidence comes up that says otherwise, im going to go with it. In any case, a sob story about being hacked makes me even more suspicious because, quite simply, no one needs to hack his wiki account to do what has been done. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 02:57, 8 September 2008 (BST)

Especially considering the confession he gave me in a wiki email. Need to check that more often. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 03:11, 8 September 2008 (BST)

You misunderstand what happened Grim; I saved my password to the network and he got a hold of it. I agree that it would've been far too much effort to hack to do what he did, but being that he didn't have to do anything to *get* the password, he decided to use it. It was my fault for letting access be granted to my account so readily, and I apologize. Thank you for your help on this. I appreciate it.--Barak 03:11, 8 September 2008 (BST)

User:Christian O'Luggar

Warned for his vandal spree. Diff links can be found in his contribs. Some samples: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 06:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)

User:I like Chinese Food

This.

- User:Whitehouse 15:25, 6 September 2008 (BST)

Warned --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 16:17, 6 September 2008 (BST)

User:Machinggod

For getting butthurt and then blanking a user page. --WanYao 06:48, 6 September 2008 (BST)

Warned --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 16:17, 6 September 2008 (BST)

User:Lemonhater

User_talk:The_Quiet_One

I asked The Quiet One why he did it, and saw a puppet named "Lemonhater" had deleted an unrelated comment by someone else...odd.

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Quiet_One&diff=1267038&oldid=1267036

LemonHead7t7 *̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡|͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|]]| ̡̡̡ ̡ ̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡*̡͌l̡* ^{Talk/PDA/Red Rum/MOB} 03:31, 5 September 2008 (BST)

Hmmm. Sock puppet of User:Met Fan. Sock banned, main warned --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 03:35, 5 September 2008 (BST)

User:The Quiet One

[6] The Quiet One edited my User Page

LemonHead7t7 *̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡|͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|]]| ̡̡̡ ̡ ̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡*̡͌l̡* ^{Talk/PDA/Red Rum/MOB} 03:31, 5 September 2008 (BST)

While on the surface it looks like a newbie mistake, im fairly certain that this is a sock puppet based on the fact he's using an open proxy. As such, Warned for now, and the proxy banned. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 03:38, 5 September 2008 (BST)

Ok, idiot continued editing and checkuser linked him to User:Lemonhater and User:Met Fan. Permabanned as an alt of Met Fan, warning for this account transferred to Met Fan. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 07:29, 7 September 2008 (BST)

User:Jimjameson

Messed with the Streltsy group page. Permabanned as a result. -- C h e e s e 09:03, 2 September 2008 (BST)

User:Soldier

Impersonation. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor

It's a whacky way to organize comments on his talk page. He didn't alter the content of your post so it's not vandalism. It might be good to suggest a posting guideline for the page, though. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 22:07, 2 September 2008 (BST)

Is removing my signature, thus leaving doubt as to who posted it not impersonation? He has altered my post and now it is unclear who wrote it. Surely vandalism? --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 22:13, 2 September 2008 (BST)

Did you read the header? -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 22:14, 2 September 2008 (BST)

I did, ran into a conflict whilst making the following point. Precedent on A/VB clearly show that altering the heading of another, even on a talk page, for any reason, is an act of vandalism. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 22:17, 2 September 2008 (BST)

No, changing a header without good reason, make a fool of or anything that is clearly bad faith is. Otherwise I'd have to warn Grim for this. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 22:21, 2 September 2008 (BST)

Precedent case in question. Please note the ruling sysop's direct quote; "You can't edit someone else's comment. Adding that image made it seem like the original poster made that headline a link to that image.". Please note, no disclaimer for good faith or organising.

Swiers responds with "a lot of users change the headers that discussions get posted to on their talk page's. If we dug them all up, we should probably be banning several such users. What's the difference in this case?"

Ruling sysop responds with"This was reported. You dig up more cases I'll vote them Vandalism. The user didn't create that header and didn't have the right to make it redirect to a macro."

My post and header was changed to something I did not create. It creates the impression I posted in a way other than I did. Precedent backed. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 22:34, 2 September 2008 (BST)

That's not the same. The header was changed to a picture telling the user to get real friends. The change in this case is adding the (correct) name. Also, see here. Lastly, precedent isn't law, I'm not going to follow it blindly when the cases are clearly not the same. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 22:45, 2 September 2008 (BST)

I'm with Gnome on this one. Not Vandalism. No evidence of bad faith. Talk to the user rather than bringing every single insignificant injustice that you have suffered here straight away. -- C h e e s e 23:15, 2 September 2008 (BST)

User:Izumi Orimoto

User:Aquatechnic blocked on the 1st.
User:Constantina blocked just now --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 07:46, 2 September 2008 (BST)
User:Yours Truly banned. -The Grimch ^{U! E!} 07:56, 2 September 2008 (BST)
User:Grim's Nemesis Banned, and also doesnt realise that my nemesis position has been filled by Zaruthustra --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 08:03, 2 September 2008 (BST)

User:Skritz

Vandalized group page removing important data. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 05:35, 1 September 2008 (BST)

Yup, Warned --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 03:02, 2 September 2008 (BST)

User:Airborne88

Same reason as before. Grand spamming of the welcome newbie template on pages where the users are months, even years old and obviously inactive. Example links to get you started:

Gabriel_Ryder contributions, The welcoming. Overall lag time: 10 months
Wzpluis contributions, Welcome Posted twice six months ago, then vanished.
Jamie Cantwell3's contributions, Welcoming (AHLG deleted this for some obscure reason without making this case) User has hundreds of contributions going back to April.
Ishmael88 contributions, welcome date. Another obviously gone user. This one only three months.
Poggg's contribution, Welcome date. Another one gone for months before welcoming.

These are just a random sample of his "welcome run" earlier today. For complete list, please check here. The Jamie one appears to have been the only deleted one by the Gnome (Checking the logs), for which i am greatly curious. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 23:47, 31 August 2008 (BST)

Jamie Cantwell3 talk page was a A/D request. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 23:57, 31 August 2008 (BST)

Its still going on. He just welcomed User:Jeff_the_Baptist, who has been a member of this wiki since at least the 16th of November 2006. SWince this report has been ignored for two days i am exercising the rights granted to me under this part of A/G, specifically point 4. Warned --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 02:54, 2 September 2008 (BST)

Revision as of 06:27, 1 September 2008 (view source) Karek (talk \| contribs) No edit summary ← Older edit		Revision as of 06:32, 1 September 2008 (view source) Karek (talk \| contribs) No edit summary Newer edit →
Line 8:		Line 8:
	<!-- do not edit above this line -->		<!-- do not edit above this line -->

	{{UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2008 08}}		{{UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2008 09}}

UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive1: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 06:32, 1 September 2008

Guidelines for Vandalism Reporting

Before Submitting a Report

Vandalism Report Space

User:Zeug: Case number 3452

User:Ryannx25, User:Wast0id and User:MCD24

Navigation menu

Search