UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning
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
|
August
User:Dragonshardz (5)
| Verdict | Incomplete |
|---|---|
| Action taken | None Yet |
Directly ignored the exact wording of his warning he was given today by editing the same page again in someone else's userspace.
The edit is a difference of +11,362 characters (increasing Audioattack's page size by 30%), most of that content being from the Goons overriding the original page with trolling, drastically changing the original intent of Audioattack's creation of the archive in his userspace.
A wily attempt at loopholing his way into disrupting the page, but something I consider vandalism. THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 09:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
User:Igotmadenoughtomakeanewaccount (2)
| Verdict | Incomplete |
|---|---|
| Action taken | None Yet |
After being warned just a few days ago about his editing of owned pages, he's continued his pattern of doing so:
- Blanking Bob's talk page
- Deleting my comment from a page that isn't his
- Editing a group page that isn't his, and then doing so again after being told not to do so
And this isn't an issue of him being ignorant of the rules, given that he clearly understands them just fine. Pretty obviously Vandalism at this point. —Aichon— 03:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Vandalism THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 08:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
User:Aichon
| Verdict | Incomplete |
|---|---|
| Action taken | None Yet |
UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/List of Arbitrators
We're having an issue here with my name on the Arbitrators template. I've been trying to sort it via edit messages but ummm its not working out. My justification for my edits is as follows
1. I took on the moniker A HUGE GAPING VAGINA THE SIZE OF A HALLWAY 7 years ago and was known as that. I'm ok with retaining that name because LCpl Mendoza is some pubbie tier shit.
2. I edited myself back onto the arbitrators list in alphabetical order, using that name, with the only addition being the WIKI LAW tag.
3. I have no clue why this is a big deal and am assuming passive/aggressive bullshit is at hand hence this A/VB request.
I'd like for my edits to be held up. While the name I've chosen to represent myself as is unconventional, it is my choice and how I choose to identify myself as. Please back up my request to ensure my entry is no longer vandalized. The entry should read "A HUGE GAPING VAGINA THE SIZE OF A HALLWAY WIKI LAW or at least incorporate the Japanese translation from my sig. --
►
アー・ヒュージ・ゲイピング・バジャイナ◄ スナック ストロング 
16:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- By custom on lists lke the one of Arbitrators or the one on Project Welcome, users are listed by a name which is either identical to or extremely close to their actual account name (changing a capital, as with boxy, or spacing, as with Anime Sucks) so that they are readily identifiable by those who are unfamiliar with their "customary names", e.g. new users or those who don't venture frequently into the Administrative parts of the wiki. (Also, templates are allowed as part of signatures, but I can't find a single example of a template being used in someone's customary name, so I'm gonna say that's a no-go.)
- I have reverted to Aichon's version and protected the page to prevent further edit warring; if there is a (slightly modified, e.g. "L Cpl Mendoza" or "lcpl mendoza") version of the name you prefer, let me know below. Not vandalism. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 17:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- That makes sense. Thank you for the quick reply and decision. You can unprotect the page by the way, I don't do edit wars. That's why I came here to resolve the issue.--
►
アー・ヒュージ・ゲイピング・バジャイナ◄ スナック ストロング 
17:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- That makes sense. Thank you for the quick reply and decision. You can unprotect the page by the way, I don't do edit wars. That's why I came here to resolve the issue.--
For later reference, here are my relevant edits: first and second
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he simply forgot his activity from a few years ago, but a quick check through the page's history shows that the last time he was on the list, he actually wasn't listed as "A HUGE GAPING VAGINA THE SIZE OF A HALLWAY" like he suggests above. Instead, he was listed as "LCpl Mendoza" for nearly a full year (April 2011 to March 2012) after he engaged in a very similar edit war with a few other users. Oh, and he only made one attempt to "sort it via edit messages" before creating this case, which I responded to with an explanation for why I was reverting it. I'm happy to talk things over, but I'm not going to leave things in a broken state while we do so.
Anyway, given that he's said he won't edit war any further, I'll go ahead and unprotect the page in just a moment. —Aichon— 19:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
User:Dragonshardz (4)
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Warned |
Triggered nerd got more triggered and vandalised one of my pages. I hate nazis too btw - I just don't expect to change shit online.
User:Jack's_Inflamed_Sense_Of_Rejection/FirstWorldProblems
-- King AudioAttack (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- According to WIKI LAW you're supposed to take shit up with me first before you run screaming to the sysops and make an A/VB case. Nerd. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉
☉ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 21:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Like when sniper came here crying about his blanked userpage. got it. Don't be so butthurt, make cornholioo work for it at least. Besides, I thought we agreed to leave each others pages alone after last time.. -- HAIL King AudioAttack (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Offering my services as an Arbitrator of WIKI LAW pls see my page for credentials -- ►
アー・ヒュージ・ゲイピング・バジャイナ◄ スナック ストロング 21:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Vandalism THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 02:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Dif link for clarification THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 02:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Vandalism. —Aichon— 02:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I went ahead and Warned him. —Aichon— 19:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
User:Pyropardus
| Verdict | Not Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | None |
New account with 5 edits to 3 pages [[1]]. One of which blanked User:Pardus's page, who has not been active in 8 years. The other edits were to his group page that has also not been edited in 8 years. This is a dangerous precedent to allow, as then anyone could make an account with a variation on an inactive user's name, and then proceed to edit their user page and associated group page. --
LABIA on the INTERNET Dunell Hills Corpseman 
#24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| TMG 02:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I think this wasn't flagged as vandalism immediately because of what you're saying — the assumption they're the same person, which I'm not convinced by. I can say that Pardus' last edit was in 2010, which is before the checkuser cutoff, so it's impossible to IP-confirm their identity. I've messaged Pyropardus asking for evidence they're the same person, and would love comment from other sysops in the meantime. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 04:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, I've been private messaged by the new Pyropardus, who says they're the same person, and this seems to be an example of not knowing to leave other userpages alone. I've reverted the edit to the userpage since there's no readily available way to prove it, but I'm leaving the MCWU page to the "new" user since it wasn't a major group and nobody's coming out of the woodwork to claim they're the original. Currently voting not vandalism as the edits were made in good faith. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 05:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- That is my new account, so you can go fuck yourself. Pardus (talk) 05:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- This is enough confirmation from me. Cycling this one as not vandalism. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 05:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for clearing this up pyropardus. Lol at all the reverts and undos though. I'm glad I didn't get involved with that. --
LABIA on the INTERNET Dunell Hills Corpseman 
#24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| TMG 08:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
User:Igotmadenoughtomakeanewaccount
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Warned |
Warned for this. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- I endorse this warning. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 17:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- They undid AHLG's warning, so I rolled back that edit. I assume I did the right thing? stelar Talk|MCM|EBD|Scourge 05:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
User:Cornholiooo
| Verdict | Vandal Alt |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Permabanned |
Ban Evasion. THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 22:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
July
User:Jack's Inflamed Sense Of Rejection (2)
- Jack's Inflamed Sense Of Rejection (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Vandaism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | 24 hour ban |
Vandalised RadicalWhig's userspace.
Claimed mistake at first but now is goading people by claiming he was ‘returning the favour’ - [2]
Semi relevant precedent: UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Suicidalangel/2009#4th_November THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 01:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'm Radical Whig and I approve of this message :) --
FoD PK Praise Rando!01:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- I never claimed any mistake, only that it was not my userspace to make the vandalism obvious. If you don't see the sarcasm let me be clear - no mistake was made, I expected the outcome to be this. I honestly thought this would be the first of the two cases but it seems like dragonshardz was triggered more easily. Next time I will make the case against myself if this helps. Hail King AudioAttack (talk) 08:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- Whatever you say, smoothbrains :) -- FoD PK Praise Rando!09:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- I think im gonna keep saying stuff as long as you're paying attention. Btw. If im a cheater, for talking with another cheater - what does that make you, when DoX was caught cheating in Shintolin? The plot thickens, I thought you guys were angels.. I mean, it must be as valid as your fabricated "kicked" message? (im still waiting for the log..) Hail King AudioAttack (talk) 11:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- lol :)-- FoD PK Praise Rando!02:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- lol :)--
- I think im gonna keep saying stuff as long as you're paying attention. Btw. If im a cheater, for talking with another cheater - what does that make you, when DoX was caught cheating in Shintolin? The plot thickens, I thought you guys were angels.. I mean, it must be as valid as your fabricated "kicked" message? (im still waiting for the log..) Hail King AudioAttack (talk) 11:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- Whatever you say, smoothbrains :) --
- I never claimed any mistake, only that it was not my userspace to make the vandalism obvious. If you don't see the sarcasm let me be clear - no mistake was made, I expected the outcome to be this. I honestly thought this would be the first of the two cases but it seems like dragonshardz was triggered more easily. Next time I will make the case against myself if this helps. Hail King AudioAttack (talk) 08:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Self-admitted vandalism. I'd have voted not vandalism, giving the benefit of the doubt, as you can see below, but JISOR managed "to make the vandalism obvious" by stating as much above. Also, please keep the name-calling clutter off of A/VB, y'all. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 12:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- Vandalism, which means a 24 hour ban at this point. Incidentally, I'd have voted vandalism regardless, since I thought that it was clearly not an effort made in good faith. Him admitting it merely seals the deal. —Aichon— 15:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I've updated his vandal data to reflect new accounts he's created since the last time I updated the data, and will institute 24 hour bans against all of them in a moment as well, that way he doesn't accidentally circumvent his ban. —Aichon— 16:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Vandalism let me know if anyone needs arbitratering, considering my Dave Grohl president. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 20:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Jack's Inflamed Sense Of Rejection
- Jack's Inflamed Sense Of Rejection (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Warning |
Impersonation of myself and others on his page here: User talk:Jack's Inflamed Sense Of Rejection/PileOfShit1. -- LABIA on the INTERNET Dunell Hills Corpseman #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| TMG 09:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yep, this isn't what was originally on the talk page, as is normal for a talk page archive. Definite impersonation vandalism. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 11:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- As one of those being impersonated, I also note he briefly vandalized RadicalWhig's userspace, and also currently has a mockery of the same user's userpage in his userspace. If this isn't all clearly malicious vandalism, I don't know what is. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ ☉ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 12:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- This revision on A/P also declares his malicious intent for all to see. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ ☉ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 12:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- ... focus on what I did and not what I wrote. And hey, stealing is not a crime here. Hail King AudioAttack (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- As one of those being impersonated, I also note he briefly vandalized RadicalWhig's userspace, and also currently has a mockery of the same user's userpage in his userspace. If this isn't all clearly malicious vandalism, I don't know what is. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉
RW is around, so if he isn’t okay with those edits, he knows to make a case. As for the impersonation, yeah, not cool. Vandalism, and I believe this will be a second warning as well based on the vandal data under Audioattack. —Aichon— 04:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yep, JISOR reverted the edit to RW's space within two minutes making clear that one was in error, so I'm happy to let the RW edit slide. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 12:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- I won't have a problem with more being added, I will have them removed in 30 days from now. All Hail King AudioAttack (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- As fun as it would be if I returned the favor and plastered JISOR's user page with obnoxiousness and reverted it immediately, I think this sets a dangerous precedent if he gets away with it. Then anyone could scrawl anything on anyone's page and get away scot free as long as they remember to revert it immediately. I think for the sake of the rest of the community, it is important to stamp down on this and rule it vandalism. As for the impersonation, yeah, it's a little creepy. I can't see a legitimate reason for doing it, and it also sets a dangerous precedent if it is accepted as not vandalism. So I think a second charge would be quite justified. -- FoD PK Praise Rando!16:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- I think you're missing something mate. You already plastered my pages with obnoxiousness, along with Dijon? I had fun returning the favor with this - and for the record I counted on two votes, anything else would be stupid.. :) Hail King AudioAttack (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Audioattack, I'm making a distinction between talk pages (public) and user pages (private property). Try to keep up when the adults are talking, okay sweety? :) -- FoD PK Praise Rando!00:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- Audioattack, I'm making a distinction between talk pages (public) and user pages (private property). Try to keep up when the adults are talking, okay sweety? :) --
- Actually, you’re right, at least I agree, and remember some examples where this was the case. Previous rulings offer precedent that if you try to fuck with someone and mistakenly break the rules, no matter how harmless, no matter how quickly it’s reverted, the action can be ruled vandalism or misconduct. TLDR; You fuck up while trolling someone, you take responsibility for screwing about and failing at it. one example I can recall. THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 00:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- I think you're missing something mate. You already plastered my pages with obnoxiousness, along with Dijon? I had fun returning the favor with this - and for the record I counted on two votes, anything else would be stupid.. :) Hail King AudioAttack (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- As fun as it would be if I returned the favor and plastered JISOR's user page with obnoxiousness and reverted it immediately, I think this sets a dangerous precedent if he gets away with it. Then anyone could scrawl anything on anyone's page and get away scot free as long as they remember to revert it immediately. I think for the sake of the rest of the community, it is important to stamp down on this and rule it vandalism. As for the impersonation, yeah, it's a little creepy. I can't see a legitimate reason for doing it, and it also sets a dangerous precedent if it is accepted as not vandalism. So I think a second charge would be quite justified. --
- I won't have a problem with more being added, I will have them removed in 30 days from now. All Hail King AudioAttack (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Warned. Also, I'll remove the offending "quotes" in just a moment. —Aichon— 15:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Rememberwhenpeopleplayedthis
| Verdict | vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | warned |
He's been deleting user comments from my talk page, restoring comments I removed from my talk page, and undoing my edits on ENVY, which is a group page that I own. Take a look at what this guy is doing on ENVY and my talk page". --Murderess (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Vandalism - Murderess contacted me via Discord to ask about this case and what to say, so she already hit the high points about why these are fairly open-and-shut cases (note my use of the plural). We give people some leeway to delete comments on their own talk pages, but deleting a page owner's comments on their own talk page is nearly always vandalism, and certainly is in this case. And Remember made it abundantly clear it wasn't an accident when they continued deleting/restoring content on the talk page, contrary to the specific efforts of that page's owner. Likewise, using the Undo button to undo edits made by a group's owner on their own group page is not something I can think of any valid excuse for, and given that it comes just a week after the activity on the talk page, it clearly wasn't a mere coincidence.
- Though this was reported as a single case of vandalism, I'm actually inclined to treat these as separate incidents of vandalism and thus issue two warnings, because the actions were on two separate pages and were over a week apart from each other. Thoughts from other 'sops? —Aichon— 22:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Definitely vandalism, although I'd say just one warning since there was only one message (that I can find, from JISOR) asking Remember to stop, and even that wasn't that clear that it was vandalism that was the concern. Any future edits like it and I'm down to warn again. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 22:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- I’m not a sysop and I know I do this a lot but I want to quickly signal that I don’t recall any precedent that two warnings has been done before (at least in a circumstance like this). Surely the fact no one reported Remember for the first edit would have been to him/her an implicit, though incorrect, indication that these kind of edits aren’t vandalism, hence enabling them to think that doing this a second time is ok. Wouldnt two warnings be a bit draconian? A ZOMBIE ANT 01:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree with the one warning. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- I will add this to the discussion : I asked him directly on my talk page to "stop messing with my page", which he pursued to edit out again. That was after a few back and forth. I didn't post that night, which was last week, because after reviewing the guidelines for half an hour I was ever so confused about where, what and how to post. I just dropped it hoping he would get bored and move on. Unfortunately, he has not and its why I made the effort today to seek guidance to post after he edited my group page. He afterwards claimed, in an effort to hide the griefing, that he was doing me a favor by taking out a double post but the reality is that I already had done so and that is exactly what he edited out. For any sysop that can "see" what happened, its quite clear the aim wasn't to be helpful but rather pursuing to annoy me further. --Murderess (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree with the one warning. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with vandalism, since it was on someone else's talk page and that's a no go, but I think both edits could be counted under the one warning as they have essentially been reported at the same time, versus on two separate occasions. stelar Talk|MCM|EBD|Scourge 04:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- The account is just acting sock puppet for The Dead, clearly carrying on tradition. I agree with one warning for the same reasons as Stelar - although I told him twice on separate occasions, not to edit without consent or proof. -- ∀UDIO∀TTACK (talk) 06:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Says the Sister Mary/Audioattack sockpuppet... Rememberwhenpeopleplayedthis (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- I’ve unbolded your ‘one warning’ phrase. Bolded phrases like that are rulings by sysops. Regular users can’t ‘rule’. A ZOMBIE ANT 06:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
This requires cycling. THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 11:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Archives
|
Vandal Banning Archive | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
