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)

September 2009

Jack Heins

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

Suspected alt of permabanned user AnonSantlerville. Anonsantlerville's works have been long creditted to a player called Jack Heins in the past, at leased by his enemy the Dead Bunnies, though I believe Callista Griffin has confirmed Jack as Anon once on IRC before. Either way, Checkuser logs reveal both IP's are in the same city in very much the same area and with the same internet provider. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 03:12, 28 September 2009 (BST)

In the same "general area", you say? Hmmmm, in-ter-es-ting. Cyberbob Talk 03:19, 28 September 2009 (BST)

Don't get bitchey at me, boy, I didn't know Finis spent months of his life telling the wiki that Jed, Nallan and DDR were all confirmed to be alts of a "Buzz Killington" now, hmm? Furthermore, this is a totally different case at hand because the suspected original has already been permabanned so there is a possible and serious infraction at hand. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 03:23, 28 September 2009 (BST)

Hack Vanderbrock

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Edited this page, that while it was in the main namespace, was still a page created for a character. The edit was to misrepresent the page owners POV. The page has since been moved to a user sub-page, it was originally at The Demon of Razgriz when edited -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:55 27 September 2009 (BST)

Warned. Cyberbob Talk 16:02, 27 September 2009 (BST)

Vandalism --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 16:02, 27 September 2009 (BST)

Interesting. an edit conflict didn't come up; it just threw my "vandalism" below Cyberbob's entry. Lame. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 16:03, 27 September 2009 (BST)

The wiki's been doing weird things lately with edit conflict-type situations. Cyberbob Talk 16:04, 27 September 2009 (BST)

User:LAZURMAN III

Verdict	Vandal Spree
Action taken	Permaban

You ask a sysop direct, you send someone to the offical IRC channel.... and you still have to defeat a vandal on your own. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:05, 25 September 2009 (BST)

See the talk page Cyberbob Talk 21:52, 25 September 2009 (BST)

Done. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 16:12, 25 September 2009 (BST)

Sergeant Bobbo

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

I need clarification by another sysop on this image. I'm all for paint-drawn penises, but this crosses my line between the funny/playful and the detailed/groutesque. I obviously don't mind it being sent to A/D, I just want this image to be discussed. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 16:12, 23 September 2009 (BST)

See the talk page Cyberbob Talk 16:33, 23 September 2009 (BST)

Crosses the line for me. Vandalism Cyberbob Talk 16:21, 23 September 2009 (BST)

Seconded. Vandalism -- C h e e s e 18:27, 23 September 2009 (BST)

Three sysops is enough. Warned and image deleted. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 01:44, 24 September 2009 (BST)

LAZURMAN!

Verdict	Vandal Alt
Action taken	Permaban

Silly front page spammage. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 15:34, 18 September 2009 (BST)

3page, banned. Cyberbob Talk 15:35, 18 September 2009 (BST)

Efficiency, thy name is bob. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 15:36, 18 September 2009 (BST)

User:Thurgood

Verdict	Vandal Alt
Action taken	Permaban

The spammer is back. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 02:30, 17 September 2009 (BST)

Permabanned --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:03, 18 September 2009 (BST)

User:Yonnua Koponen and User:BobBoberton

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

I've tried to be nice, I have. I've explained things slowly on Talk:Suggestions, I've helped newbies, I found DDR his precedents. I turn down an open and shut Misconduct case to demonstrate this new outlook of moving the wiki forward.

I try and work on a project in my user space and I'm assaulted by idiots. I went to the time of having the talk page protected so this could stay with a certain group of users until it's workable. I even spent time coding a notice for the top of the page with the relevant policy in it.

But, no....

Can anyone tell me how they've managed to read the project, picked up.... well the most pointless piece of minutiae there.... and manage to miss THE HUGE FUCKING NOTICE THAT STATES DON'T EDIT THIS PAGE UNLESS ASKED OR I WILL TAKE YOU TO A/VB?

I mean, is it deliberate? Would they prefer thousands of misconduct cases? Are they bored? Is that it?

Both of them, editing a user page without permission. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:20, 16 September 2009 (BST)

Shit, sorry. i seem to have missed that. I am desperately sorry, Iscariot, and hope you will accept my deepest apologies on the matter. Truth be told, I haven't really been that with it as of late. Once again, sorry.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:10, 16 September 2009 (BST)

Alright, now that I've gone back and looked at the page, I can kind of see why I did it, but it's still pretty blaring. I redirected in to it from Cyberbob's talk, after your edit, so I ended up not seeing the name, which I really should've looked at. I thought that the template at the top was a Discussion template. I can't seem to find an example now, but I recall a similar template being attached to discussions before. Anyway, I then skimmed through it, and saw cyberbob's comments at the bottom, mistakingly thinking that that was where I should comment. Once again, I accept that I made a horrific mistake, and am very sorry.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:21, 16 September 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism - A good-faith mistake with a good-faith purpose- to help with something that was, at heart, very much like a policy discussion, enough to mistaken it as such. If they persisted then I would have ruled vandalism, but I think you really should have just removed the comments and warned them not to do it again on their talk pages before going to A/VB. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 16:03, 16 September 2009 (BST)

Behold the precedent you've just ignored. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 16:24, 16 September 2009 (BST)

Some retard coming onto a group page and claiming to be the leader of a strike and directly claiming responsibility for its success (and hence representing the group misleadingly) does not equal users trying give community input onto a page which has the talk page protected and should be in A/PD anyway. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 16:29, 16 September 2009 (BST)

It's not a group page, it's a user page. Have you read the policy, that I linked that states clearly that I can do whatever I want in my user space as those pages are my sole property? Your opinion of where I should put my projects is your own concern, the fact remains that my user page has been edited against my wishes, precedent shows this to be clear vandalism. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 17:32, 16 September 2009 (BST)

Nubis thought he was dealing with a group page, check the warning he gave the user. You linked no policy, because no policy says that editing a user subpage is clear-cut vandalism, it only states that the user has total control over what appears on their user subpages. You have the control, so delete it already, don't run to A/VB to punish people for trying to help out. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 17:46, 16 September 2009 (BST)

moved to talk page. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 10:37, 19 September 2009 (BST)

I'd also like to point out that that case was ruled on unanimously by Nubis, who at that time may well have been DCC.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:46, 16 September 2009 (BST)

Not vandalism - unwanted edits to owned pages are not automatically vandalism. Both of these were done in a good faith attempt to improve the page, and wiki as a whole. I notice that this is another example of Iscariot using namespace pages in other than the traditional sense. He is treating this User: page as a User_talk: page. It is not vandalism for someone to leave a constructive comment on such a page. The User: page ownership protection is there to make it clear that POV content is acceptable, and not to be removed simply because others don't like it. Not to enforce elitist rules about who may and may not contribute in a constructive manner to active discussions (unless a clear pattern is established, making it harrassment) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 21:50 16 September 2009 (BST)

User:DCC

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

For starting a promotions bid for an account that he admits he has stolen, with the sole intent of continuing his latest bout of drama -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 21:41 15 September 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism - It's just a bid, assuming good faith, he's probably just trying the "hero" thing he and Karek managed to pull off early this year. If he tries again, then I'll push for vandalism. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 01:47, 16 September 2009 (BST)

See the talk page Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:22, 25 September 2009 (BST)

User:WanYao

Verdict	Requested Ban
Action taken	Monthly Ban

Requesting a 30 day self-imposed ban. --WanYao 12:53, 15 September 2009 (BST)

Done. Cyberbob Talk 13:35, 15 September 2009 (BST)

Protection of Wan's pages, including his talk page, still needs doing. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 16:24, 15 September 2009 (BST)

We protect talk-pages during self-bans?--

Thadeous Oakley

23:47, 15 September 2009 (BST)

No (unless they ask), only vandals, to stop people antagonizing/provoking. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 00:00, 16 September 2009 (BST)

Yes, we do. The scheduling criteria states only banned users, not vandals. The Protection is there to prevent Wan's pages being trolled by people he doesn't like leaving him no ability to reply without breaking his requested ban. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 00:07, 16 September 2009 (BST)

That's not the point of of that scheduled protection, it might however be reason to protect the main talk page, if Wan were to have any crazy enemies trolling around, which he doesn't. There's no reason to be paranoid. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 00:19, 16 September 2009 (BST)

User:A11an0n

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Another case of impersonation... --Obi^{+ Talk!|TZH|MDK} 21:45, 11 September 2009 (BST)

Vandalism - Warned. Cyberbob Talk 02:32, 12 September 2009 (BST)

User:Dhavid_Grohl

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Impersonation? -- C h e e s e 20:41, 11 September 2009 (BST)

Vandalism - Yup, looks like it to me.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:26, 11 September 2009 (BST)

DCC (2)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

hacked my account. seriously what the fuck goons. – Nubis ^NWO 19:39, 10 September 2009 (BST)

YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT! SINCE WHEN IS FUCKING HACKING VANDALISM? NOT MY FAULT YOUR FUCKING PASSWORD WAS DHPDSUX YOU STUPID ASS --

#99 ^DCC 19:41, 10 September 2009 (BST)

i thought we were pals. et tu brut? – Nubis ^NWO 19:43, 10 September 2009 (BST)

We were "pals" until you broke up with me. Then I decided to make your life fucking hell. Good luck getting out from under all this shit! FUCK OFF! --

#99 ^DCC 19:45, 10 September 2009 (BST)

that's it. i'm going sober from now on. alcohol kills lives – Nubis ^NWO 19:47, 10 September 2009 (BST)

This is goon "humour"... ***yawn*** --WanYao 03:58, 11 September 2009 (BST)

spoken like a true neckbearded recluse. what's mom making you for dinner tonight? – Nubis ^NWO 22:26, 13 September 2009 (BST)

Wut? =/ This just gets even more retarded. Particularly since you were unbanned from the same IP as DCC then posted with a new IP a couple of minutes later. And judging by the time length between the posts, that would give enough time to swap to a proxy and back again. I'm quite willing to call bullshit on this especially since you say i haven't touched this shit in years. If so, why come back now? What prompted that? And sorry if I seem a bit distrusting, I get a bit paranoid when I've been drinking. -- C h e e s e 21:02, 10 September 2009 (BST)

That's not the drink, it's a result of having to deal with goons -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 21:34 10 September 2009 (BST)

Ok. I've investigated this using the checkuser logs and various IP hunter thingys and the only Nubis IP prior to this mess I found from 22nd November 2007 (incase someone else wants to check) matches with the location of the IP that was used today to post this case. The DCC IP's originate from a place several US states away from this location. However, I'm still not entirely convinced as this doesn't explain the unbanning from the DCC IP and it just in general smells funny to me. I may be wrong, I may be right but in either case this definitely needs sorted. -- C h e e s e 21:31, 10 September 2009 (BST)

unbanning from the DCC IP moment of weakness...--

#99 ^DCC 02:35, 11 September 2009 (BST)

If Nubis has indeed been inactive since 2007, then I believe we have a policy that states what should be done in relation to the sysop status. As for this case, I have posted a bunch of evidence here that shows all of the actions that DCC took while in control of Nubis's account (not counting impersonation). Effectively, the easiest solution would be to keep Nubis demoted due to inactivity and perma-ban DCC and is IP for impersonation and hacking. That follows the idea of looking for the good in the case, and stops any potential problems from occurring in the future. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 22:50, 10 September 2009 (BST)

Nubis was active in 2008 - he changed his user page to the DHPD page and pissed people off. I had a week ban in April. I would think one of the Mensa applicant Sysops at the time would have noticed if his name came up when they banned me.... That puts a hole in the theory right there.--

#99 ^DCC 22:50, 13 September 2009 (BST)

^Agreed. It's obvious that DCC is still using Nubis's account, in an attempt to cause as much shit as he can.--

Thadeous Oakley

23:37, 10 September 2009 (BST)

Whoa. Cyberbob Talk 01:58, 11 September 2009 (BST)

It's interesting to see Nubis didn't use the {{verdict}} template... Very oldschool, eh? eh? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 03:27, 11 September 2009 (BST)

The new-school nubis hated that stupid template too though.--

#99 ^DCC 22:53, 13 September 2009 (BST)

eh perma them both and get this over with.--x o x o 03:27, 11 September 2009 (BST)

Vandalism - either DCC hacked Nubis' account, or he's been given control of it, and is stirring drama. Either way, it's bad faith -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:53 11 September 2009 (BST)

Vandalism - It seems like a lot of work but I'd like to see DCC escalated as per all the vandal escalations discovered recently- a permaban if need be, but one step at a time for now. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 17:05, 11 September 2009 (BST)

I blanked a talk page and made a ridiculous claim that you are all supporting. But it's ok DDR you take out your impotent fury on me. there there baby ... does that make you feel like a big man? --

#99 ^DCC 18:56, 11 September 2009 (BST)

As one of many other things, you also reduced your vandal escalations against the rules. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 19:15, 11 September 2009 (BST)

I have no fury to channel. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 04:24, 12 September 2009 (BST)

The stikes done by Nubis have been undone, and a new warning added to A/VD -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:04 12 September 2009 (BST)

Whoa, whoa, whoa. If this case doesn't start to entail all of his previous vandalism counts and such done whilst supposedly under the control of Nubis' account, I won't know what you guys are thinking. I'd like to have DCC brought forward for all the counts of multi-voting and other infractions (ruled on and punished seperately), and a punishment apply as per the guideline's vandal escalation system. If need be, I'll put forward a seperate case. I'm busy right now so I'll come back later with links, depending on how the sysops view this proposal by the time I return. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 04:24, 12 September 2009 (BST)

That second sentence is one of the most awkward things I've ever read. Just saying. Cyberbob Talk 05:14, 12 September 2009 (BST)

The question, though, is do you agree that DCC should be escalated for multivoting? I submit these two cases for now... --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 14:15, 12 September 2009 (BST)

Yes I do, but only once. I also think her current escalations should be re-struck as she has met the requirements for having it done for each and every one of them. The identity of the person that did the striking is irrelevant - yes it is Misconduct on Nubis' part but it changes nothing about the number of edits DCC made. Cyberbob Talk 14:41, 12 September 2009 (BST)

It's only misconduct if I didn't have the edits as proven by the lovely Iscariot's A/M case against Nubs. --

#99 ^DCC 17:23, 12 September 2009 (BST)

According to DCC's vandal data and your contributions, you wouldn't have had the edits required by the time that you de-escalated them on yourself. You could have had one de-escalation, which would have occured after the time you de-escalated them. However, since the two de-escalations came when you were impersonating Nubis, it should be considered vandalism, which makes the de-escalation null and void, and should actually increase your warnings. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 21:20, 25 September 2009 (BST)

You're wrong and you're posting 13 days after the fact to boot. Good effort. Cyberbob Talk 21:55, 25 September 2009 (BST)

User:Humpty dumpty

Verdict	Vandal alt
Action taken	Permaban

Confirmed alt of Fantastic. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 03:07, 9 September 2009 (BST)

User:Fantastic

Verdict	Vandal Alt
Action taken	Permaban

Blanked DDR's talk page--Orange Talk 02:52, 9 September 2009 (BST)

Banned, assuming it's an alt related to the below occurances. If those think that it isn't, feel free to override the ban. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:56, 9 September 2009 (BST)

Don't be such a goddamn pansy. Cyberbob Talk 02:58, 9 September 2009 (BST)

Hmm? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 03:03, 9 September 2009 (BST)

User:Rebel without a clue

Verdict	Vandal alt
Action taken	Permaban

3page. Banned. Cyberbob Talk 01:42, 9 September 2009 (BST)

Signature Vandalism

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Permabanned

Several new user accounts vandalising signatures. All permabanned for the vandalism. Checkuser reveals different IPs for each. -- Rooster Dragon 01:59, 8 September 2009 (BST)

Block the IPs as well - it makes it so they have to find unique proxies for each new account they make. It's not much but any extra work we can make them do helps. Cyberbob Talk 05:35, 8 September 2009 (BST)

Two More

Sup dog!!! (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)}

Also nabbed these two with suspicious account creation times and edits, sharing an IP that locates to the same location as one of the vandal accounts below. -- Rooster Dragon 02:39, 8 September 2009 (BST)

User:Nil gold

Seems to be an alt of Laffertaf, Boisy idaho and Tasty bat--Orange Talk 01:57, 8 September 2009 (BST)

Permabanned as a suspicious alt of the below. Only contribution was a comment on my talk page. --

Rooster Dragon

01:59, 8 September 2009 (BST)

User:Laffertaf

Hit Cyberbob's signature, as below.--SirArgo ^Talk 01:47, 8 September 2009 (BST)

And DDR's.--SirArgo ^Talk 01:47, 8 September 2009 (BST)

Permabanned as the rest. --

Rooster Dragon

01:59, 8 September 2009 (BST)

Boisy idaho

Wiping Cyberbob's sig

twice.

5 times.

--~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 01:28, 8 September 2009 (BST)

P.S. I got a feeling this is the same guy. Be on the watchout.--~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 01:29, 8 September 2009 (BST)

Permabanned for vandalism, and another account User:Huges for working around the ban. Checkuser turns up different IPs, so likely a proxy. --

Rooster Dragon

01:43, 8 September 2009 (BST)

User:Tasty bat

Very long vandalisms. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 01:18, 8 September 2009 (BST)

And again. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW}

01:20, 8 September 2009 (BST)

Permabanned as likely alt of the above. --

Rooster Dragon

01:59, 8 September 2009 (BST)

User:The_3pwv_...

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Permaban

Reported, for being the 3pwv. I thought I would just remind people of the correct procedure. Its likely that the mods have gotten sloppy. The 3pwv ... 18:58, 7 September 2009 (BST)

Or we're all busy. Permaban. If anymore crop up peeps, just pop them under this one as {{vndl|name here}} rather than making a brand new header for no reason. -- C h e e s e 20:38, 7 September 2009 (BST)

User:Nallan

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Soft Warning

For submitting the below case. Usually I don't do this but I suspect this is just a product of J3D requiring Nallan to submit it rather than himself to temporarily salvage his image for the relevant case further down. I request a soft warning. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:21, 6 September 2009 (BST)

You 'suspect' therefore you submit for VB, very unlike you I hope you pull this or something....you can't put someone up for VB on suspicion, it's entirely what Bob did and you voted Misconduct for.--CyberRead240 14:40, 6 September 2009 (BST)

Big difference in the cases, but nice try. That A/VB was clearly petty and was more "shitting up" an admin page than Bob's comment. Vandalism. --– Nubis ^NWO 19:44, 6 September 2009 (BST)

You don't see me putting J3D up do you? Hence I'm not a) acting on a suspicion (which would be putting J3D up based on the 'suspicion' he's using nick to meatpuppet cases), I'm acting, rather, on the case below being petty and, b) I'm not ruling soley on this case, hence not acting on a 'suspicion'. There's a mountain of difference between this and that which you cite. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 03:33, 7 September 2009 (BST)

Contrary to what you might think, I am capable of independent thought - amazing as it may seem to you, DDR.--Nallan (Talk) 04:30, 7 September 2009 (BST)

Thought, maybe. Actions? Well... ;D --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 04:42, 7 September 2009 (BST)

It's not so much me requesting him, more of a hive mind.--x o x o 07:42, 9 September 2009 (BST)

I'd be soft warning him, again, rather than ruling vandalism here -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:30 8 September 2009 (BST)

Consider this a soft warning to not submit petty cases. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 11:30, 22 September 2009 (BST)

Cyberbob (3)

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

Shitting up admin pages.--Nallan (Talk) 06:47, 6 September 2009 (BST)

This case is a supreme irony and possibly vandalism in of itself. Cyberbob Talk 06:52, 6 September 2009 (BST)

Not only was the comment irrelevant, frivolous and inflammatory... but after I moved it to the Talk page, which seemed to be the appropriate thing to do with such completely counterproductive "commentary", cyberbob actually undid that edit. IMNSHO definately an edit not in the interest of improving the wiki and certainly shitting up the admin page. --WanYao 07:06, 6 September 2009 (BST)

You know what? Can a 3rd party file an Arbitration case... To force two other parties to stop shitting up Admin pages and just generally being asshats? Seriously. In best interests of the wiki, Cyberbob not file any further vandalism cases against the 2 Cool clique, and that the 2 Cool clique should not file any more fucking Vandalism or Misconduct cases against Cyberbob. Leave the filing of such cases up to others. Because at this point I don't think either party can be trusted to be objective about this. I don't care if they are, in fact, attempting to be as objective as possible -- they will never have the appearance of objectivity, and I believe that they will never have the reality of objectivity, either. And in the meantime this feud is needlessly shitting up the Admin pages and causing pointless drama.

So... Do we have a deal? You guys want to step up and take the opportunity to start acting like adults? And voluntarily accept this restriction? --WanYao 08:55, 6 September 2009 (BST)

See talk page

Not vandalism, it was a case brought against him -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:51 6 September 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:38, 6 September 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism --– Nubis ^NWO 19:42, 6 September 2009 (BST)

Cyberbob240 (2)

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None Required

For repeatedly submitting petty cases to A/VB. This report is specifically motivated by the report against J3D below -- which just the latest in a string of mostly petty cases made against j3d and his group of friends. While some of the actions/reprots are certainly legitimate, taken as a whole they represent an obviously personal agenda. And the utter frivolity of last case in particular takes it to point of, if not out-and-out harassment, definately a case of bad faith shitting up an admin page. --WanYao 06:37, 6 September 2009 (BST)

hahaha Cyberbob Talk 06:41, 6 September 2009 (BST)

See talk page

I can see a soft warning coming on soon, but not vandalism yet -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:50 6 September 2009 (BST)

Soft Warning - I see little difference with what Bob does to J3D as what the latter does to us sysops. While J3D does it out of bitterness (or 'for the lulz' as he would probably claim), I don't approve of Bob using contentious and borderline cases via the A/VB system to push out the users that he has personal conflicts with. Without solid evidence towards long term harassment (which I'm not obliged to find myself because I don't think it exists thus far), there is nothing here that requires more than a soft warning at this point. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:16, 6 September 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism Bob has every right to post a case on any edit that he sees as "bad faith". How can you claim that users can submit A/M cases whenever they want (even on things not using sysop powers) but Bob can't report anything that he sees as bad faith? Perhaps, if the "guidelines" on A/VB said that you have to post on the user's talk page before making a case these things wouldn't happen. But since that isn't really part of the policy you can't punish him for making cases unti you are ready to bring a harassment case against him. And with these two more than likely both would go down for it.--– Nubis ^NWO 19:40, 6 September 2009 (BST)

"Bob has every right to post a case on any edit that he sees as "bad faith"." Except when I post a case, it's vandalism. Is that right? Double standard much?--Nallan (Talk) 22:23, 6 September 2009 (BST)

I'll type this slow so you can understand. Your case is that he shat up a page by posting hahah on it while you are shitting up the page by posting something that can not be seen as a bad faith edit. Your edit is clearly just to cause drama because there are TONS of other pages that bob posted hahaha on that you didn't report. So get off the fucking cross.--– Nubis ^NWO 23:47, 7 September 2009 (BST)

Not to mention the fact that I was also posting on my own case. Cyberbob Talk 00:48, 8 September 2009 (BST)

J3D (2)

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	Non required

I don't think anybody could reasonably argue that the use of the word "negress" in this way is anything but racist. Cyberbob Talk 06:28, 6 September 2009 (BST)

Actually i will argue. Negress is the female version of negro, akin to jewess. While some people may find those words offensive they are not intrinsically racist like one might argue "nigger" is. --x o x o 06:31, 6 September 2009 (BST)

I know exactly what it is the female version of. The fact that you used a racial term as an insult is all that is relevant here - oh and by the way the word "jewess" is pretty fucking racist. Cyberbob Talk 06:33, 6 September 2009 (BST)

Some find it racist, some don't. It is not even close to universally accepted as racist as "nigger". And i wasn't calling hungnut that as an insult, merely a term of endearment.--x o x o 06:35, 6 September 2009 (BST)

Hmmmmno don't think that's going to fly. Cyberbob Talk 06:37, 6 September 2009 (BST)

In Hagnats language, Negro, or Negress, means close friend and can also mean "person of Individual Skin Colour". In his country that word is used as the polite way of describing someone who is dear to them, regardless of colour. It is "Negra" that means black person.--CyberRead240 06:38, 6 September 2009 (BST)

here is an example of the word Negro being used as the colour Black as well, another common use in the Spanish language--CyberRead240 06:48, 6 September 2009 (BST)

See bob, clearly not offencive, quite different to the word "nigger" --x o x o 06:40, 6 September 2009 (BST)

Yeah, if you had used "nigger" I would understand why you would be taken to a/vb. But negress? Why I'd be delighted to be called a negress!--Nallan (Talk) 06:42, 6 September 2009 (BST)

Shut the fuck up you filthy "negress" --x o x o 06:43, 6 September 2009 (BST)

See talk page

It does look like a "term of endearment" type comment for mine... I'm pretty sure that Hagnat wouldn't take offense at it -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:43 6 September 2009 (BST)

Retain vote #4 has some interesting comments from Bob... -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:37 6 September 2009 (BST)

You gonna report him for that or just sit there jackin off? --x o x o 03:34, 11 September 2009 (BST)

Following you're own argument, none of us "think" it's vandalism, so why bother? You're welcome to do it yourself if you consider if vandalism. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 17:18, 11 September 2009 (BST)

You know full well i don't, but the cases where i was escalated for use of the words "nigger" and "african american" are no where near as bad as that, and since you thought they were vandalism i can only assume...well....sysop bias...--x o x o 00:05, 12 September 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism - I'm not going to vote vandalism to every joking use (or variation) of the word "nigger", and pulling him up for every one of its uses like a nazi isn't looking good for you Bob, particularly after Boxy's link above demonstrating how you use it to demonstrate petty personal examples yourself. I know the contexts of that and this are different, but unlike his two last escalations where J3D spouted it out in bold on a highly viewed admin page (rather than actually voting as is A/PM's use), or the below example where Read defamed Australian Indigenous tribesmen as being offensive, uncultured thieves, this is just a racist joke in its smallest form. Poor form, simply ignore it as such. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:03, 6 September 2009 (BST)

User:J3D

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	24hr ban

For creating a metric shitton of stupid personal cases against people over the past year. This has been ruled Not Vandalism before based on a supposed inability to prove a pattern, but I feel the torrent of cases we have seen from him over the last few days finish the job more than sufficiently. I can link to them all if I must but I'd say that pretty much everyone in a position to rule on this knows about the cases I'm referring to. Cyberbob Talk 04:43, 5 September 2009 (BST)

Link or GTFO cyberbob. I don't want nubis' overactive imagination ruling on this case i want some solid links, don't be a lazy sod and get hunting *jabs cyberbob with stick*--x o x o 04:45, 5 September 2009 (BST)

This, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this are what I was able to come up with from a quick skim. Also countless attempts to threaten sysops with misconduct cases over completely useless bullshit (example). Cyberbob Talk 17:20, 5 September 2009 (BST)

See the talk page Cyberbob Talk 02:26, 6 September 2009 (BST)

eh. escalate me for this if y'all want, can't say i care at all. Didn't have time to thoroughly look at all links (just gave em a quick skim ;) ) but it seems while they are minor, they are also valid concerns (excluding drunk ddr one). People should be allowed to bring cases if they believe they are vandalism, even if nobody else does. Warning me or banning me or wahtever won't change that attitude.--x o x o 04:02, 6 September 2009 (BST)

Indeed they should - for the most part. Sometimes it gets to the point where it becomes obvious that the only reason a person thinks that something is vandalism is because they personally dislike the other person. I've been guilty of this myself on occasion but I've tried not to make a habit of it - whereas you practically get off on it. Cyberbob Talk 06:31, 6 September 2009 (BST)

Not practically. And maybe i just hold you and nubis to a higher standard than a user who has been here a month, some might consider that a good thing...--x o x o 06:32, 6 September 2009 (BST)

Not practically, but actually? Also lolbullshit. Cyberbob Talk 06:34, 6 September 2009 (BST)

Yeah i came on the keyboard last time i made a misconduct case, so fucking hot.--x o x o 06:36, 6 September 2009 (BST)

See talk page

I'm not going to vandal ban people for misconduct cases (barring complete nonsense), it is like the court of appeal, and users need to be free to appeal sysop decisions there, even if it becomes extremely tiring... however this rash of VB cases, back and forth is likely to end in soft warnings, or more, very soon -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:41 6 September 2009 (BST)

Vandalism - I support the questioning of our sysops via A/VB and A/M completely, but J3D has persisted in a manor which has simply served as taking up our time with cases that are not only petty, but he doesn't even bother bringing them in an appropriate or workable manor. Here he spends more time defending himself for bringing said case, whilst here he just leaps on one legitimate case with a stupid, one-sentence reason which doesn't give the background to the misconduct in question. Approaching a case with language like this is also nothing to be proud of. Cases like this deflate the misconduct in question entirely. And here is a demonstration of him going through with cases before actually reading the simple details, as was this. I like users that question our actions, but J3D seems to just want to be the first one to put forward the case without any care for its result... At leased Iscariot tried... --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:36, 6 September 2009 (BST)

I'd vote this Vandalism, too, for the reasons that DDR gave. However, since I seem to be a personal favorite I think that makes me less objective and will withhold my vote for now.--– Nubis ^NWO 19:35, 6 September 2009 (BST)

I rule Not vandalism, due to the fact that J3D has been warned before for shitting up admin pages, and this latest one (the lame Misconduct one about Nubis banning himself) has been shown to have some support in concept. Unless other sysops vote, I'm call this a tie and NV next time I come through -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:27 8 September 2009 (BST)

A tie? You do realise I can vote, right? (Also surely the fact that he's been warned before is a point against him?) Cyberbob Talk 11:39, 8 September 2009 (BST)

Well vote if you're going to then, or get off the pot :p
He's been warned before for shitting up admin pages, and some of those you linked to have probably already been taken into account for previous warnings -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:45 8 September 2009 (BST)

Fine then - Vandalism. As for the cases, warnings don't just magically wipe the record clean and he was ruled Not Vandalism the last time a case actually about harassment (not just shitting up, sustained harassment) was made besides. Cyberbob Talk 11:48, 8 September 2009 (BST)

Bob show me some precedent of people voting on cases they haven't brought, if you don't i'll assume you don't have any and make more "petty cases" against you.--x o x o 07:44, 9 September 2009 (BST)

Precedent of people voting on cases they haven't brought? Really? Cyberbob Talk 08:02, 9 September 2009 (BST)

Wow you're cool. I'll take that to mean you don't have any.--x o x o 08:03, 9 September 2009 (BST)

You're not making sense. Why would I need to provide precedent of people voting on cases they didn't bring? Cyberbob Talk 08:39, 9 September 2009 (BST)

Yeah see that's why i said "wow you're cool" coz intentionally ignoring what you know someone means because theres a typo is, ya know, cool.--x o x o 13:33, 9 September 2009 (BST)

Ohh, you meant cases they did bring. Why didn't you just say so? I don't even need to cite precedence for that one (even though there's plenty), you silly billy. It's stated outright in the guidelines:

When a User May be Warned or Banned

Furthermore, system operators are specifically given the ability to both report and warn/ban a user.

See? There's really no need to get all angry, ding-dong! Cyberbob Talk 14:16, 9 September 2009 (BST)

I'm totally furious. And yeah you're wrong anyway. See i like ice cream AND pizza, but that doesn't mean i want them at the same time. You can report AND warn/ban a user, but not at the same time.--x o x o 14:57, 9 September 2009 (BST)

GTFO. There are multiple examples of sysops reporting and ruling on case on this page. Case closed, vandalism by majority vote -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:03 9 September 2009 (BST)

Oh Jed.. you're too awesome for this wiki... Cyberbob Talk 15:11, 9 September 2009 (BST)

I've been on this wiki for over 2 years, and outside of open and shut cases, or when the user is on a vandalism spree andneeds a ban to stop them i can't recall ever seeing a sysop ruling on a case they created. Certainly not in the instance where there is at least one op voting not vandal and one voting yes vandal. I would love to see some precedent here so that i don't have to create another misconduct case, but since you don't seem to be able to provide any bob i can only assume there is none...--x o x o 03:25, 11 September 2009 (BST)

User:Nallan

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

For uploading the pornographic image File:2cola100.jpeg. As not all the sysops have actually seen it, I only expect those who did to rule accordingly. It may have already been deleted but Nallan's intentions were clear and he should be warned as such. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 15:12, 4 September 2009 (BST)

I think it would be a better idea to upload a copy to give those sysops who haven't seen it an opportunity to make up their own minds on it, rather than having to just take it on faith. =/ We've had these "pr0n images" discussions before and most of the time they usually are judged not to be. -- C h e e s e 15:17, 4 September 2009 (BST)

Fair call. Problem is I don't have it, I would assume only Nallan has a copy. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 15:49, 4 September 2009 (BST)

discussion and where to find this image moved to talk by overzealous sysop --x o x o 04:44, 5 September 2009 (BST)

Google "coke bottle inserted in girl" or "bottle-in-ass". Those should give you an idea.--– Nubis ^NWO 19:32, 6 September 2009 (BST)

Warned -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:27 5 September 2009 (BST)

User:Sexylegsread

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Uploading a heavily racist image as a vehicle for the rules of posting on his talk page. Cyberbob Talk 09:47, 4 September 2009 (BST)

and you want to make a case against Jed using Administration as a medium for continuing a personal vendetta? You've sure been on your game this week. As far as this issue goes, it is my talk page and I can have what I want there, you don't know shit about my heritage or my situation so maybe you should have considered using more passive means of finding a solution to this if it so verily offended you, rather than bringing it here to only publicize this "heavily racist" image and fuel a personal battle. I won't be replying as not much needs to be said now, my talk page, my rules, if you have a problem with the image or its conents, there are/were plenty of other ways for you to deal with it without bringing it to this public forum.--CyberRead240 09:53, 4 September 2009 (BST)

Now I know why he wanted that warning struck... Vandalism, because of TOU's racism clause, jed's past racism-related escalations as precedence, etc. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:34, 4 September 2009 (BST)

All o you wanna bring me down. Y'all ain't stoppin me--CyberRead240 15:39, 4 September 2009 (BST)

Warned and image deleted -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:31 5 September 2009 (BST)

You should have left that up for longer to allow at least a 3rd sysop to vote. --x o x o 04:35, 5 September 2009 (BST)

Apparently making fun of your own race is racism these days. Fucking goody-goody politically over-correct society. It's more racist that they are stopping me from making fun of my own people.--CyberRead240 04:37, 5 September 2009 (BST)

I am a third sysop. Cyberbob Talk 04:38, 5 September 2009 (BST)

Made the case -> can't rule -> totally irrelevant.--x o x o 04:42, 5 September 2009 (BST)

Sysops are allowed to rule on cases they bring numbnuts. Try again. Cyberbob Talk 04:44, 5 September 2009 (BST)

Wow you really are bad with the links today bob...--x o x o 04:53, 5 September 2009 (BST)

Yeah true, we were all australian= sysop bias!! >=[ --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 05:00, 5 September 2009 (BST)

Cyberbob

Verdict	Not vandalism
Action taken	Arbies

editing my groups subpage without permission --x o x o 09:05, 3 September 2009 (BST)

I am removing myself from the "fanclub" listing, on which I was placed along with a rather insulting note - all without my permission. This has been fought out before many times over on A/VB and A/A; you cannot list someone as a member of something they do not want to be a part of. I am taking this to Arbitration. Cyberbob Talk 09:06, 3 September 2009 (BST)

well you did misspell babies as babbies on IRC so while insulting, it is the truth.--x o x o 09:08, 3 September 2009 (BST)

on a serious note i understand if you don't want to be on there but you could have contacted me via my talk or arbitration rather than lauching straight at a group page, you should know better bob yet time and time again you demonstrate you don't.--x o x o 09:10, 3 September 2009 (BST)

I did ask you to remove me on IRC but you didn't respond. Also way to go with the WanYao paraphrase - really lends you an air of credibility*. Cyberbob Talk 09:15, 3 September 2009 (BST)

thanks.--x o x o 09:18, 3 September 2009 (BST)

Once this case and the one on A/A have been resolved I will be bringing a case of my own against you for harassment via the long and sustained creation of numerous shitty vandal/misconduct cases against people. Cyberbob Talk 09:20, 3 September 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism - This has always been a case for A/A. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:16, 3 September 2009 (BST) - self-struck. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:28, 3 September 2009 (BST)

Involved party, invalid vote and please learn to spell vandalism before you rule next time thanks.--x o x o 09:18, 3 September 2009 (BST)

actually that shouldn't even be there yet.--x o x o 09:19, 3 September 2009 (BST)

Because I'm not too fussed on the other sysops' rulings in this case, I'll accept that. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:28, 3 September 2009 (BST)

Hmmm, fan club listing page that he didn't add himself to in the first place? A page that really isn't about anything in-game? And the actual name links to his user page? This edit is Not Vandalism, but this sort of issue should go to A/A to make sure there is a clear decision on whether or not people can be added to non-game related lists (and I am thinking about the Wiki Puritan list also here) that they do not want to be on. Not to mention, people should have the right to remove themselves from "fan lists" should they no longer be a fan. If it was reversed and 2 Cool removed him there wouldn't even be a case, now would there? You can't have it both ways. If this was something in-game (example kills) then the page should be protected until the issue is resolved. This is purely wiki and there is no bad faith in this edit.--– Nubis ^NWO 13:42, 3 September 2009 (BST)

hang on, while the rest of your post is jibba jabba, I don't get why the point "if 2 cool removed him there wouldn't even be a case" is even a valid point....why would they remove him if they put him there.......--CyberRead240 14:37, 3 September 2009 (BST)

Think he meant hypothetically if I put myself there and 2 Cool removed me, there wouldn't be a case. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 14:41, 3 September 2009 (BST)

Don't doubt 2 Cool. I reckon you could edit that page with a blank space and be VBd--CyberRead240 14:42, 3 September 2009 (BST)

I'm sure you'll succeed with one of your strawmen sooner or later. Better spam them all over the place to increase your chances. Cyberbob Talk 14:47, 3 September 2009 (BST)

Don't think this is relevant to my post.--CyberRead240 14:56, 3 September 2009 (BST)

Don't think your post was relevant to anything. Cyberbob Talk 15:18, 3 September 2009 (BST)

Speaking of which, Bob, wassuup? I don't get you. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 14:57, 3 September 2009 (BST)

That was a vehicle for the edit summary which is referring to the terrible stuff-up I made in the edit summaries of the unused image deletions I'd just made ('more than a month since last "deletion" instead of "edit"'). Cyberbob Talk 15:17, 3 September 2009 (BST)

You confuse me sometimes :'( I just get so scared... --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 15:23, 3 September 2009 (BST)

UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2009 09

Guidelines for Vandalism Reporting

Before Submitting a Report

Vandalism Report Space

Hack Vanderbrock

User:Yonnua Koponen and User:BobBoberton

Signature Vandalism

Two More

Archives

Navigation menu

Search