Revision as of 13:27, 10 January 2010

Administration Services

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

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

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

Guidelines for Vandalism Reporting

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

A link to the pages in question.

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

The user name of the Vandal.

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

A signed datestamp.

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

Please report at the top.

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

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

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

Before Submitting a Report

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

Vandalism Report Space

Administration Notice

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

Administration Notice

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

Administration Notice

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

Spambots

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

There were a bunch of spambit-looking account creations on the 17th, these are the live ones at present.

HaroldBeaman (contribs | logs | block | del userpage | IP Check)
HallieKetcham7 (contribs | logs | block | del userpage | IP Check)
AlexanderNoyes7 (contribs | logs | block | del userpage | IP Check)--C h e e s e 17:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Damn I legit missed these, thanks. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 03:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Blocked a large surge of bots -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 01:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
YasminLashbrook (contribs | logs | block | del userpage | IP Check) --VVV^RPMBG 06:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
LoganDos626 (contribs | logs | block | del userpage | IP Check) --VVV^RPMBG 06:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Both done DANCEDANCEREVO LUTION 09:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

January 2010

J3D (2)

Verdict	{{{1}}}
Action taken	{{{2}}}

Racism. Again-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 12:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It's called a talk page yo. x o x o 12:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

And again.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 13:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Fuck i forgot to request a seperate case. Also theres one on boxys talk you should grab, and probably about a trillion others from the past 3 years elsewhere...should be enough for a perma. x o x o 13:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism - Talk pages have nothing to do with it. Cyberbob Talk 13:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

LeoMcDermott (2)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Vandalizing his own V/B--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 19:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism - Clear as day.

19:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Assume good faith. Anyone told him not to blank other users comments? BEcause I don't think he knows any wiki editing rules. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 19:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism - not blanking other people's comments on an admin page is something that no one should need to be specifically told about. Warned along with the previous case, all in one escalation though -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 20:20 5 January 2010 (BST)

Fair. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 20:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

User:DanceDanceRevolution (2)

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

There is a limit to what being a sysops and/or an involved party lets you get away with. He is simply abusing the right to comment on the main page at this point, we can't get a policy straight on the topic, so lets make some fucking precedence on it instead. My comment had more to do with the case than most of what he said, which amounted to bitching and trolling at and with cb, I confirmed that there hasn't been any mention of DDR's personal info that could lead to someone finding him IRL.

You're power tripping again DDR.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 13:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

SA said:

I'd rule vandalism if I wasn't such a noob and hadn't fucked up.

And you'd be able to post 'your almighty opinion' too. But you can't. moving it to the talk page is not A/VBable, nor is butthurt banter between the accusee and the victim of a case, even more so if they are both sysops. Of course, you could have moved said banter, but you'd rather go past 'compansating' and just throw your own on there. Can. Not. Happen. --

13:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And you offered an opinion which you call "confirmation" despite it being nothing but opinion with no evidence to back it up. Not relevant. Opinion. Talk page. --

13:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"The administration asks that you use the talk page for further discussion. Free-for-all commenting can lead to a less respectful environment."

Fuck off with your "irrelevant" horseshit.

"you're fuckin kidding right? This whole case is a product of fucking butthurt (you could have just deleted the info yourself you fucking pitiful excuse for a user) and you spend the best hours of last night crying to me over A/A. Butthurt my ass. Get back to fucking your gayfl buddies. Oh no! Better run for the hills! DDR used something from CB's IRL life that he was told personally by CB!!! =O --DanceDanceRevolution (go go aussies!!!!!) 01:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)"

Nothing. But. Irrelevance.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 13:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Please explain how Bob's post that that was a reply to was just as relevant. Nah, he doesn't get a case because he isn't game/present to enforce a simple rule; you have a problem with this? A/PD again. I has to sleep now. Let kangaroo court judge again. --

13:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Who started it? Who's showing hypocrisy and hiding behind a thin veil of "involved" and a badge? Oh, and by the way, didn't know you were back Grim. Nice to see the same 'ole kangaroo court accusations.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 13:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Related to hypocrisy, please see below. --

13:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Basically, to demonstrate that SA is entirely wrong about my intentions, I have talk page'd the entirety of what SA complained about with no remorse as it rightfully should have been on the talk page in the first place (both CB and I got carried away which I'm sure Bob will concur), while he responds by insisting that his unrelated and (even by policy standard) talk-page-material input should be put on the main page. And yet it's me that's power tripping and using bias against users. Double standard to the infinite. --

13:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Basically, you're only moving everything NOW to save face. If I hadn't made such a fuss over it, you'd have never done it, and it'd have sat there until someone else moved it. I have not insisted past the point of you moving everything, only to the point in which you still had all of your shit on the main page. Plz be getting the facts straight, and plz to be not worrying about your image at this point, as I'm pretty sure everyone's already formed their opinions.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 13:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Bloody hell you did move it. All the same, my retaliations were in response to me thinking it was still there and believing you to follow by your normal routines, not to have it on the page because it was more important than yours. Also, remember this conversation?

"hurr sa is so bad, at least he isn't bullying people with his 'cratship.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 02:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm calling it like I see it. Tell me I'm wrong about you. And if I was a bully with my position I wouldn't have promoted him and then waited for him to stuff up to start bullying him. --DanceDanceRevolution (go go aussies!!!!!) 02:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

etc."

Yeah, more proof that you're just a hypocrite.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 14:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ha. But look at it from anyone's perspective bar your own. You say what I have added to my case is irrelevant, but you don't move it yourself, something that at that start of this, I said you should have moved to talk if you wanted. But no. That would mean what you want on the main VB case couldn't stay. So you leave it there and put a case against me. Sorry that I actually fixed this shitstorm to the right and logical conclusions and left your crappy argument into the dust. --

23:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The reason this started was because you moved mine yet left yours. If you want me to "fix" things, show me a behavior that would have let me do it without you reverting it, and using the "involved party" argument. There's only so much I can do against you, oh master of arguments.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 23:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'll repeat it for the third time; I've been saying from the start that if you bothered doing it I wouldn't have undid it. But then again. you'd need to actually do that for me to prove that I wouldn't, so I guess by your refusal to help out, my argument is void, huh. Tevs. You don't look for uniformity any more than I, and I achieve it and you are still complaining. So I'm the butthurt one without his opinion on the main page. Whatever. --

23:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, I didn't move yours because judging by the conversation and how you were all emotional (olol) over it, I thought you'd just be a dick and revert my move.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 23:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but I said otherwise a couple of times. And then I moved it happily :/ And then if you HAD have moved it and I HAD have reverted it, this case would have some grounds. --

23:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to stay out of this one. Cyberbob Talk 14:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Which is good, because you're kind of an involved party. :P -- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 23:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Not vandalism - move it to the talk page. Continued behaviour like this may result in a soft warning in the future, though -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 20:22 5 January 2010 (BST)

Since this isn't really going anywhere, I've asked Ross and Miss on each of their respective talk-pages to rule on this case. So that it, you know, can be concluded. --Thadeous Oakley 13:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, consider the case just withdrawn altogether, seems to be the easier route, neh? But in light of this, I'm going to revive my old policy and put that up.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 15:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Not Vandalism? I think. Next time can we be a bit more clear? A couple of diffs are always helpful. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 15:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The diffs weren't needed at the time because at that point the offending edits were still on the main page. :/ -- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 15:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Going with not vandalism this time, though I'd like to see the edits in question (I must have missed them when they were there). 15:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Everything after "moved from main"-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 17:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

User:LeoMcDermott

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

blanked and then replaced the zerging page with a personal rant.--~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 07:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism - He would have seen Zerging was encyclopaedic (or as close as it gets on UDWiki) before he wiped it and crapped it up. --

09:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism - Seems to be on a crusade, judging by his stalking here and replacing this with his own text. Slap it down quick-like. 19:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Warned -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 20:17 5 January 2010 (BST)

User:DanceDanceRevolution

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Maliciously posted a site that contains my real name and contained (thankfully I was still able to delete it) a photo of myself, then went onto maliciously posting my real name on the wiki itself. Regardless of the outcome of this case I want A/A deleted and recreated with the information in question removed to delete it both from the page and its history. Posting personal information that can be used to actually identify someone like that without their permission is just not on, especially when it's being used as part of an argument because then it's actively being used to hurt. Cyberbob Talk 14:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal information is an A/SD crit, not a vandalism criterea. If I had A/VB'd people for calling me charlie against my will then J3D would have been finally permabanned. You should have just always reverted the edits but the battle for the last word is too great for you, isn't it? --

15:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You'll notice that I tried experimenting with rollback on my talk page - it doesn't wipe the edit in question from the page history. As for the other thing, show me when Jed ever posted your photo or your name to try and "win" an argument with you. That's the bad faith - if you'd just posted it in a more friendly banter-ish context then I wouldn't be bringing you here because that's just a matter of stupidity rather than outright malice. Cyberbob Talk 15:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I never attempted to "win" any petty argument, just to demonstrate a very valid point of not just idiocy, but also using uncalled-for IRL references to start up shit (as demonstrated here, not to mention calls like this that have been going on for +2 years) and any other method is obviously lost on your as demonstrated with 12 months of "banter-ish" behaviour. What you have, my friend, is a case of the butthurt because you were found out by Read or such, who, like anyone on the internet, was bothered searching your email via google. Great security there. Also, nice work on the wikipedia:Streisand_effect. --

15:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

User:J3D

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

Posting irrelevant crap in an A/VB case where he is uninvolved. Again. Cyberbob Talk 09:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Even my jed-vandetta sense isn't tingling on this one... Not Vandalism... Meh... Izzy referred to him via jed's own group... etc. --

01:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That is the most tenuous connection ever. Ever. Cyberbob Talk 01:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh. I never ruled based on that connection, the whole case is mediocre at best, but at leased that sort of helped justify said ruling. --

01:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Not --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 10:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Not vandalism - but skating a thin line, as per usual -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 20:23 5 January 2010 (BST)

So do i get my post restored? Or should i just report bob for removing someone else's post for their own reasons even though it was declared not vb? x o x o 12:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Iscariot

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

I consider this an attack policy that serves nothing and is absolutely frivolous/stupid considering the fact that there are about 7 ZL cases pending on several admin pages including A/A and A/VB, making this was drama for drama's sake. --

02:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Vandalism Cyberbob Talk 06:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Why, oh why, am I not surprised by the actions of the Southern Cross Club yet again?

Apart from the fact there has never been an escalation given for any policy, see Jorm's paradox policy. They find me guilty of bad faith for one contribution even though both are aware and have been for some time that Zombie Lord is abusing Developing Suggestions due to his repeated statement that he's never going to take anything to the main system. He gets to continually abuse that page and attack other users in one of the main systems in this community and there is not one case for this, I propose a new cycling policy, that I'd yet to hear any objection to from other users or these two when mentioned before on talk pages and T:S and I get escalated.

Regardless that this will fix the problem now that Zombie Lord is browbeating users into leaving his suggestions unopposed through the use of unlimited arbitration rulings and is trying to systematically make T:S into his own personal user space and bury the legitimate use of the page by other users under the mass of multiple versions of his own 'work'.

For months Zombie Lord has acted in bad faith on that page and neither of these sysops even though they aware of this bad faith usage make a single case against him, I attempt to create a new cycling criteria to prevent this mass attack on the page, that has to be approved by the users of the system being abused and there's an instant case.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration is the place for such disagreements, not suggestion policy. That's not the place to take disagreements with single users. Still, not vandalism, just, because it's still just a talk page -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 07:15 2 January 2010 (BST)

Talk page? He tried to use policy to forbid a user he has daily disagreements with from using the suggestions system with unrealistic demands that were both unsavoury and uncalled for. The fact he used the right place to do it (which was by coincidence a talk page) is as bad as using A/PD. --

08:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You linked it, it's a category talk page. Would you like a diagram? Also, unsavoury? How exactly? Unless you are inventing a new meaning for this word. I am attempting to stop someone who is abusing their right to edit that page from filling it with pointless volume. DS is specifically for refining and feedback on ideas before taking them into the main system. Zombie Lord has repeatedly said he has no intention in putting any of his suggestions into the system as per the entire point of DS. Stopping him from continuing bad faith edits by using the established method to enact a cycling policy does not equal unsavoury, at least in the English language.

And uncalled for? The majority of those involved in the suggestions system have tried to reason, debate and explain things to him. Many have said or intimated that the page would work better without his involvement, it was certainly called for.

Months of bad faith contributions by Zombie Lord and you've done nothing to attempt to stop him, what business does a user who has no intention of putting his ideas on the main system have with placing ideas on a page designed for feedback or refinement? Do tell me, because I have no idea. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 08:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Dare I say "that's just like, your opinion, man"? ZL has done less bad faith contributions on this wiki in 09 than you but that's my opinion and I don't flaunt it around forcing it on people. 3000 characters in the last couple of hours Iscariot, you've really fought your way out of this one. A/M coming up soon? --

10:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

While I still have my powers, not fucking vandalism. As box and this. Making attack policies are okay ddr, remember?-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 08:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If you think that the difference between that and this is small enough to warrant precedent then you are deluded. --

08:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

So when does badging other sysops that disagree with your attempt to escalate me stop being good faith and start becoming harassment? --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 08:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Badgering? LoL, I don't think you want to go there -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:02 2 January 2010 (BST)

Lold --

10:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

See the talk page Cyberbob Talk 09:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Not Vandalism Welcome to the world of arbitration. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 11:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Not Vandalism - Serious attempt to stop a genuine problem, though not handled overly brilliantly. 14:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Penguinpyro

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

We take a break from your regularly scheduled ZL drama to bring you a user who puts on his own page that he's the "Head recruiter and publicist for AZS".

I'm betting he doesn't have permission to be editing the group page of a group based on wiping out his survivor group. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Warned --

01:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Zombie Lord (4)

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

I don't want to get too involved here, so I'll leave at whatever ruling comes out here. Anyway, I am bringing him for spamming up admin pages, the page in question Admin/arbitration. Note that the case made by Lelouch against Zombie Lord isn't involved here, at least not directly. This is about the 3 separate cases Zombie Lord made against, in order, Verance, against Bobboberton and against Lelouch. If you read the cases you'll see that all 3 of them are worded almost identically and that they all resolve around the same thing; Zombie Lord request that the users I named above are no longer to be allowed to give their comments on his (Zombie L's) suggestions on Developing Suggestions.

These cases are pretty much the same and there is no reason these 3 cases should all be treated separately, in fact, that would be insane. Now, Linkthewindow and I have repeatedly asked Zombie Lord to merge said cases, which he did, only to unmerge them later on and apparently refusing to merge them again. This seems to be an attempt to stir up as much work/drama as possible. I am not sure if this is Vandalism, I'll leave it up to the Sops, but I will urge them to merge said cases. --Thadeous Oakley 22:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism - Obvious troll is obvious. -- C h e e s e 22:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You should be brought up on Vandalism for disrupting ongoing cases.--

| T | BALLS! | 22:54 1 January 2010(UTC)

Clearly my decision to split the cases proved correct, as the Boberton case has been finished already due to it. Now if LeDouche will stop dragging his feet we can finish this up. User:Krazy_Monkey should be brought up on Misconduct or Vandalism for his interference and this Warning should be struck.--

| T | BALLS! | 23:04 1 January 2010(UTC)

That would be misconduct, you're free to bring Cheese up there yourself. See A/M. Better hurry though, if all these 4 vandal cases against you end up ruled vandalism (which I doubt though)) you're looking at an 48hour ban. *snarks* --

Thadeous Oakley

23:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

For reference, this is how it looked before Cheese went through with the troll-buster.--Thadeous Oakley 23:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Not Vandalism - People use A/A for a playground worse than this. Also, see: User:Amazing. Warning struck until further vote. Jeez, Cheese. --

01:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Not Vandalism - Meh. Cyberbob Talk 06:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Not vandalism - why don't you keep your nose out of it, Thad, unless he accepts you as arbitrator -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 07:11 2 January 2010 (BST)

Don't tell me what I can and can't do especially since it's well within my rights. I don't care about the drama surrounding DS anyway, but I did find it stupid to have 3 cases about the same subject. --

Thadeous Oakley

10:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Just because you can doesn't mean you should, hope this helps Cyberbob Talk 10:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I gave my reason, if you think I shouldn't have, go build a timemachine and revert the past. Or you know, rule not vandalism and close the case. I merely asked for sysops input, giving input is part of the job, if that input is not V then I'm perfectly fine with that but don't go harass me because I asked for your opinion. --

Thadeous Oakley

10:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

What a load of shit. Making A/VB cases has always been seen as an act with intentions, you can't try and pretend like that mysteriously doesn't apply to you - particularly given your *snerks* comment above. Cyberbob Talk 11:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps actual reading isn't your thing since I already pointed out my intentions; I didn't like the fact he made 3 cases about the same thing, I asked him to merge and he refused, I a/vb him, and I come here asking you if that counts as spamming up admin pages, you say no it isn't, I am perfectly fine with that, thanks in fact, I know it now for the future. BUT, don't tell I shouldn't have brought it here when I have done nothing wrong. --

Thadeous Oakley

12:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If you were really only after the sysops' opinion you would have asked us on our talk pages. Please don't try and absolve yourself of trying to involve yourself in this situation, it's not working very well and only makes you look dishonest as well as intrusive. Cyberbob Talk 12:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

...amIthatmisunderstood? I meant what I said about my intentions, sorry if I come over as a drama-whore if that's what you're saying I am. I was unaware that you think so low about me that you automatically assume bad-faith here. Jeez...--

Thadeous Oakley

19:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Lets put it this way. You added the fourth case about Zombie Lord in a couple of days. You didn't even give any links, making it harder for us to review the case than usual (don't ask; you'd be surprised). It was almost unanimously voted Not Vandalism (besides Cheese's stupid vote which's subsequent ghost-ruling was idiotic imo). What do we say to that? Think about the cases you bring and don't act so innocent if you're going to throw it at us, simple. --

14:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Zombie Lord (3)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warning

Spamming the hell out of DS with those inactive discussion templates: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Warned - both because of the really fucking obvious bad faith and because neither party in that Arby's case between him and Aichon should be touching those things until the case is over. I told him this in the case at the bottom of the page but clearly that didn't quite sink in. Cyberbob Talk 10:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Aichon isn't a party in the Arbies - it's Lelouch. Linkthewindow Talk 10:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. Cyberbob Talk 11:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, cause Boberton was in total good faith right? HAHAHA.--

| T | BALLS! | 10:58 1 January 2010(UTC)

When did I say anything about his edits? Cyberbob Talk 11:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, I know he gets a pass.--

| T | BALLS! | 11:04 1 January 2010(UTC)

Oh, you're talking about the case below. That was one (1) template, and he didn't include a snarky edit summary. Take him to Arbies for something like that. Cyberbob Talk 11:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Zombie Lord (2)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warning

The edit - I don't want to get dragged into this mess, but come on. He removed an entire suggestion before its week was up. —Aich on— 10:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Not vandalism. Just ask Cyberbob. You're making a frivolous case.--

| T | BALLS! | 10:34 1 January 2010(UTC)

Vandalism - Breaking the wiki to make a (shitty) point. Cyberbob Talk 10:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Aw, shit all of a sudden it IS vandalism to remove an entire suggestion just cause I feel like it? Damn, what, does this work on some rotating basis? Like every 5 minutes it goes back and forth?--

| T | BALLS! | 10:57 1 January 2010(UTC)

Verance's thing looked pretty obviously like a silly mistake (going by his edit summary he was meaning to put that inactive discussion template on it), especially given that he had moved the suggestion there one minute prior to the edit you brought here. Your edit on the other hand is pretty fucking clearly bad faith. Trying to split hairs won't work, sorry - no matter how witty you think you're being. Cyberbob Talk 11:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Not being witty. Just being right.--

| T | BALLS! | 11:03 1 January 2010(UTC)

Awesome. Let me know how that one works out for you. Cyberbob Talk 11:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Works out great, thanks.--

| T | BALLS! | 11:05 1 January 2010(UTC)

BTW, Verance removed the new suggestion (with changes) and put back the old one (without changes). Clearly he did not intend simply put a template on the new. But whatever.--

| T | BALLS! | 11:09 1 January 2010(UTC)

Vandalism - Bad faith removal of others' contents and talk comments. 17:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism - As the bob. --

01:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Warned--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 03:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You're a fucking idiot. Learn how to update A/VD please. Cyberbob Talk 06:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot about that. I intended to do it but it slipped my mind. My mistake, thanks for spotting it.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 13:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

See the talk page Cyberbob Talk 09:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Verance

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	warned

[9] Vandalism.--

| T | BALLS! | 07:25 1 January 2010(UTC)

Not Vandalism - Stop making these. Next time it'll be you up here for frivolous cases. Cyberbob Talk 10:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

So I can just go and remove an entire suggestion if I feel like it? Good to know.--

| T | BALLS! | 10:11 1 January 2010(UTC)

Vandalism - He's been on DS before and what he did is clear-cut considering the surrounding drama. --

01:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 07:09 2 January 2010 (BST)

Warned --

00:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

User:BobBoberton

Verdict	Not Vandalsim
Action taken	None required

[10] Obvious attempt at Trolling. Bad Faith edit.--

| T | BALLS! | 07:21 1 January 2010(UTC)

Not Vandalism - Stop making these. Next time it'll be you up here for frivolous cases. Cyberbob Talk 10:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Not Vandalism - You'll be the one up for vandalism if you continue making frivolous cases.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 11:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

yeah! Like Bob said right? yay for originality. Where did you get this parrot Bob?--

| T | BALLS! | 11:11 1 January 2010(UTC)

User:Zombie Lord

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	24 hour ban

Getting to be really quite ridiculous here. Related to the Arbitration case getting underway. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 02:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

He's also been told a few times why it's happening, and since he's reverting it so quickly, he obviously has it on his Watchlist or is refreshing RC every few minutes, so I doubt he's failed to see the comments. See: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], and [16]. —Aich on— 04:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is actually vandalism because it wasn't actually a signed comment he was removing. If the suggestions haven't been commented on in a week then they can be removed as per the suggestions page rules.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 04:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The Suggestion has not even been up two days yet, which is why I am removing the template. LeDouche and his gang have simply moved on to Phase 2 of their Troll War, that is, Arbitration and Vandal Banning attempts based on nothing in the hopes that my unpopularity will be enough to railroad through a banning. Yeah, it's pretty sad.--

| T | BALLS! | 04:44 1 January 2010(UTC)

See the talk page Cyberbob Talk 06:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Here you go then. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW}

07:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Not Vandalism, though neither party in the Arbitration case should be either adding or removing any of those templates until the case is finished. Don't do it again please. Cyberbob Talk 06:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, I didn't know he'd already been told not to mess with that stuff. Vandalism Cyberbob Talk 06:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism - Has been told that contentious edits are left as is during arbitration, and continues to disrupt the flow of the arbitration(s) he's involved in. Knows fine rightly what he's doing. 17:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism --

01:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Banned for 24 hours. Cyberbob Talk 06:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Talk:User_Hub&curid=99254&diff=1641101&oldid=1641097 And again.]--[[¯\(°_o)/¯|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> ¯\(°_o)/</span>]][[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkTurquoise">¯</span>]] 13:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 :Fuck i forgot to request a seperate case. Also theres one on boxys talk you should grab, and probably about a trillion others from the past 3 years elsewhere...should be enough for a perma. {{User:J3D/ciggy}} 13:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
+'''Vandalism''' - Talk pages have nothing to do with it. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 13:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 ===[[User:LeoMcDermott|LeoMcDermott (2)]]===

UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2010 01: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 13:27, 10 January 2010

Contents

Guidelines for Vandalism Reporting

Before Submitting a Report

Vandalism Report Space

Spambots

January 2010

J3D (2)

LeoMcDermott (2)

User:DanceDanceRevolution (2)

User:LeoMcDermott

User:DanceDanceRevolution

User:J3D

User:Iscariot

User:Penguinpyro

Zombie Lord (4)

Zombie Lord (3)

Zombie Lord (2)

User:Verance

User:BobBoberton

User:Zombie Lord

Navigation menu

Page actions

Page actions

Personal tools

General

Search

Resources

Wiki

Toolbox