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)

March 2011

User:Suicidalangel

Has expressed desire through a trusted member of the community to return, have unblocked account and SA account as it is no longer breaking any rules. -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 21:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Kempy

Verdict	Not vandalism
Action taken	None required

[Editing (maybe?)] So much dramaz on here of late, and not a Kempy in sight. Six of the best for the bugger, and the D hat in the corner of the room plox. ~ Kempy

^{“YaketyYak” | ◆◆◆ | CAPD |}

13:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Not Vandalism? Not entirely sure what went wrong but seems like a minor unintentional mistake. --Thadeous Oakley Talk

14:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we'll go with that. Where were you when I needed legal representation last year? ~ Kempy ^{“YaketyYak” | ◆◆◆ | CAPD |} 14:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

What the I don't even? Not Vandalism. And now stop crapping up my A/VB unless there is actually vandalism. -- Spiderzed ▋ 14:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Sowwy.

~ Kempy ^{“YaketyYak” | ◆◆◆ | CAPD |} 15:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I have an idea of your intent but I'll just go with the above, unless there is something you want to confess...~ _{15:04, 22 March 2011}

Yes. I confess, I'm a mong. ~ Kempy ^{“YaketyYak” | ◆◆◆ | CAPD |} 15:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Not vandalism --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 15:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

~~Vandalism~~ - a/vb isn't just a bandwagon you can jump on whenever there is a big drama fest going on. Sorry kemp, but you shouldn't be fucking about making cases about yourself. -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 02:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

No no, this wasn't like that last time, where I saw an interweb fad and hopped on too late, missed all the funz, etc... This was me being a blatant nosey parker and checking the missus' booboo. (Yes, 'booboo'. Behave lads!) Only reason I brought it up myself was to clarify it was a mistake, and nowt else. Just chose to do so in medium of tongue-in-cheekery. Won't happen again sir, dib dib dib. ~ Kempy ^{“YaketyYak” | ◆◆◆ | CAPD |} 02:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, alright, that's fine then, but please use the talk page of an active sysop next time, this honestly isn't the place, not that you'll be scolded for it this time. -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 02:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

User:SA

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Perma

Ban avoidance.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Done -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 23:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Awkward; he's avoiding a voluntary ban, not a real one. Just realised this.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

SA was on voluntary ban, as shown here. Give him at least the time to file his unban request, you jerks. -- Spiderzed ▋ 23:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Then he can email us. If he seriously wants to come back, rather than make one appearance because of another meatpuppet drama extravaganza, then obviously we will be happy to unban him. -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 23:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Can't wait! --

Thadeous Oakley

Talk 23:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't want to come back.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Whether he wants to come back, or not, he (apparently) did. If a user isn't banned by a legitimate A/VD escalation, what right to you think we have to stop them contributing? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:30 22 March 2011 (BST)

The misconduct case -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:46 22 March 2011 (BST)

Reluctantly agrees. Though I'd prefer him going to through the official channels to get his main account unblocked, nothing is really stopping him from editing bar his own self-requested perma-ban which is kinda silly. Also, if this is vandalism, his main account should be getting an escalation which frankly seems even sillier. --Thadeous Oakley Talk

12:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

We don't seem to escalate permabanned accounts for using sockpuppets to avoid the ban? -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 13:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Eh, not sure. But avoiding a self-requested ban gets you banned? Eh, maybe you're right maybe not but it's awkward indeed. --Thadeous Oakley Talk

13:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

So, on which grounds exactly is SA kept banned now when his actions makes it clear that he wants to edit (as Boxy pointed out), and when his ban was based on self-request rather than vandalism? Just reminding everyone that messing around with incorrectly applied bans is serious business that can result in straight bans for the op misapplying it, and it gets worse the longer it is misapplied. That's a sword I'd rather not have dangling over my head when I'm not 100.000% sure that the ban is perfectly correctly dealt. -- Spiderzed ▋ 15:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Lucky I'm so 100% sure about it then! SA contacted someone to ask to return, and now both accounts are no longer banned. Now that wasn't hard, was it! -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 21:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Ashley Valentine 2

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	warned

Editing another user's comment on an administration page. Oidar 12:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This is easier. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 12:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism Enough with this shit already. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 12:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It's my comment he edited and I really don't care. It's a single word that is still there, he left an explanation and it's a joke. Worth a vandalism case? nope. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 13:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Soft warning - referenced the change in the reply, which looks more like a mistake by someone not knowing exactly what the guidelines are for editting texts of others. Still, it is something you shouldn't do. -- Spiderzed ▋ 13:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism - even jokingly. similar precedent, for what it's worth -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 13:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Elsewhere on the wiki, then fine. We can drop this case if Karloth doesn't care. But on an Administration page? Vandalism. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 14:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism --Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 14:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Wahndalism - oh look, user is butthurt by being done for editing someone else's user page without permision... one of thier friends does the same to their page... they report it to A/VB (and subsequently say they have a "change of heart"). They even up the stakes by changing a signed comment on A/VB, just to ensure maximum drama. Someone call the wahmbulance. Go have your fun elsewhere (but then, I guess it's not as fun when you're not breaking any rules) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:11 22 March 2011 (BST)

Boxy, could please you tell whether your upholding your ruling in the case below? Just asking for clarification and I'd like to end this sooner rather than later. --Thadeous Oakley Talk

12:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Somebody close this? I'd do it myself, but eh, someone else his turn for ending the "fun". --Thadeous Oakley Talk 12:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Warned for shitting up admin pages with impersonation type edits -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:37 22 March 2011 (BST)

Thanks. --Thadeous Oakley Talk

12:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Karloth_vois

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	48 hour ban

Edited another users User page without permission. As here, here and here. And he didn't even sign his post, the scoundrel. --Ash^{| T | яя |} 11:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

:/ --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 12:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed the formatting for you, lazy ~~bastard~~ blighter! --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 12:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Censored your obscene language. --Ash^{| T | яя |} 12:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Wahandalism -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:20 21 March 2011 (BST)

Vandalism I'm just hoping the more we escalate you, the faster these stupid cases stop coming. BTW, Karloth is up for a 48 hour ban. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 12:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

*sigh* Vandalism. No, I'm not happy to escalate someone, but yes, it might be the only thing that puts a stop to this A/VB spamming. -- Spiderzed ▋ 13:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Case dropped by accuser. If it would still be pursued, I'd clearly stand by my old vote, but as of now, Not Vandalism. -- Spiderzed ▋ 19:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 13:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 14:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Plaintiff dropped the case. Defendant should be free of all charges. Not vandalism. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 20:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism --Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 14:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, I consider this remark he added to my profile to be a statement of intent, and am happy with his contribution, so i fully withdraw all grounds this case stands on. Thank you for your time, gentlemen. --Ash^{| T | яя |} 15:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm leaning on ignoring this. The fact that he edited your page without permission in the first place was vandalism, the fact that you're okay with it now doesn't change this. We've had this discussion about mock and "joke" vandalism before. It's just confusing for the sysops team, wastes our time and clutters up the A/VB page with stupid cases like these. I uphold my ruling. --

Thadeous Oakley

Talk 19:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

And I went by Ash's case dropping. The rummers should understand now that actual bannings are at stake with Karl's escalation level, so the matter should be resolved either way. -- Spiderzed ▋ 19:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Confusing for the sysops team? This isn't quantum physics -- it is my page, and I've decided that I don't think it's vandalism. Are you doing that serious business thing we talked about before again? D: --Ash^{| T | яя |} 19:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You can't even understand why you got escalated in the case below. Please refrain from editing until you have a clue. @Spiderzed, they have gotten more then enough (soft) warnings already, in case of Karl 2 warns and one ban. I respect your decision but I do not feel inclined to give them yet another freebie. --

Thadeous Oakley

Talk 19:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I've never been softwarned/banned before, just FYI MrSeriousPantsGame --Ash^{| T | яя |} 19:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm tired of the whole "edit each others pages for shits and make VB cases". Consider my ruling to be Double Vandalism.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

For the doops that are, for some reason, changing their ruling based on a 'withdrawal of a case' (which has never meant anything on a/vb, if a case is vandalism it's vandalism), it doesn't really mean anything. These guys do this every year, and it's always vandalism whether they say it's with permission or not*. Actually check the precedents labelled below, they were under the exact same circumstances. The "Oh no Karl gonna get banned for 2 days the fun will b over and he won't be able to join in better withdraw" is a very sad reaction indeed, even sadder that people justify it by changing rulings. -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 21:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

* note: Unless they have a specific list on their page saying which users can edit or not, is what I remember the old cases concluding with. -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 21:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not withdrawing because it'd stop Karl getting banned. I think he is a scoundrel and a cur, and deserves everything that is coming to him. --Ash^{| T | яя |} 22:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This entire thing is absurd. Ash, leader of Red Rum, was brought here for editing a rummer's page calling him a "dee-dee head". Add to this that the user hasn't complained (probably doesn't care) and, quick, call the admin team! It's a vandalism emergency! It's not even us having a laugh with the wiki (which, yeah, we've done in the past), it's random people reporting frivolous bullshit and admins encouraging it (and then getting grumpy when their workload is increased by the frivolous bullshit). Good precedent would be:

DevilAsh warned for bringing a frivolous case
Myself warned (banned for 48 hours) for editing a userpage
Michaelson warned for raising a frivolous case
Oidan warned for bringing a frivolous case
Thaddeous warned for not chucking the whole lot out in the first place and continually wasting everyone's time.

Better precedent would be to throw the whole thing out (and put a NPOV note on Thaddeous' page pointing out that he is a dee-dee head)

To sum up? Nobody cares and it's not even us fooling around, it's just excessively beauracratic crap that's not remotely worth the time spent on it. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 00:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

We're the ones dealing with the crap, not you, so pretty sure no one will care about this stuff being not worth time spent on it until those spending the time on it complain. -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 01:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Pretty sure he's allowed to have an issue with the time wastage when his time is being wasted on a frivolous case defending himself from something about as not in bad faith as is possible for a questionable edit. --Karek^maps?! 05:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he should stop wasting his time making edits that break rules in ways he's been warned before. oh lordy -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 06:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You're judging far too objectively. It's not that you should be *lax* with the rules, it's that you should use them in a manner that is pro-wiki instead of pro-tight-rules-MEIN-FURHUR. I mean, Karl actually hasn't made an edit that broke the rules -- lets not forget that -- he wrote something on my page which I accepted as an edit. I wrote something on a users page that has been set up purely to pretend to be members of other groups (including but not limited to the following: editing his name into the RR leadership, including his name in the list of BoSs members and adding people to their KoS list ages after they've disappeared. It was wrong, but worth an A/VB case? Not quite. And then the next case? Doesn't really need an explanation, really: it was just escalation for the sake of escalation.

It all comes back to the 'enforce the rules as more of guidelines' point I'm trying to make. Nicksomeoneorother that has continually got away with actual, honest bad faith edits since November has been let off with a warning for two different reported cases of vandalism whereas these three complete and utter minor infractions that aren't really worth your time and effort are now verging on another warning for myself and a 48 hour ban for Karl. It is bad wiki policy, and bad wiki precedent that you guys have let this devolve so far already, and continuing along this path will never manage to get you lot out of the 'SRS BSN' category that's been lump-labeled to sysops on this site ever since the beginning of time.

TL;DR DDR, you are not a dee dee head, DDR. Stop acting like one. :( --Ash^{| T | яя |} 09:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Good god. You get a first warning for editing Nicks user page in return for him editing your group page. Get over it. Both of you got your warning for that. He wasn't let off. And then your actions turn it into a (probable) escalation for Karl. You reported him for "vandalising" your page. Bet the IRC logs show some great lols about it too. Meh. And then you decide to lulz it up more by editing his posts here.
Just keep digging. I'm sure it's entertaining for the peanut gallery -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:58 22 March 2011 (BST)

Not that I want to shit on your parade or anything, but Karl doesn't really use IRC. --Ash^{| T | яя |} 14:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

48 Hour Ban This has gone on long enough. Case closed -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 19:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Ashley Valentine

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Edited another users User page without permission. As here and here --^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 22:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I want you to know I actually had his permission as he sent brain waves that measured 8.9 on the Richter Scale in my direction. --Ash^{| T | яя |} 22:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Moved legitimate discussion to the talk page

I withdraw this case?--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 22:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Not Vandalism for now, until the user in question has reacted. Maybe he sees it as a testimonial, since it is clear that it is signed by someone else? If not, we can still grab Ash and break his fingers. -- Spiderzed ▋ 22:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Spiderzed for that kind remark, I also want to take whoever moved the "crap to the talk page" to A/VB as it was actually very serious discussion that could effect the outcome of this case. Any advise would be appreciated. --Ash^{| T | яя |} 22:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Soft Warning Contacting him about the vandal case below is a good thing, but you follow it up with another "lulzy" joke. Don't edit user pages you have no right to. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You loved mine and Karl's arbitration, and now you love this. I promise not to edit other peoples user pages without permission -- does this include talk pages too, or? --Ash^{| T | яя |} 22:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously talk pages are always okay. --

Thadeous Oakley

Talk 23:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless there is an explicite restraining order by A/A, but we hadn't any of those in a while. -- Spiderzed ▋ 23:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Not Vandalism A/VB iz srs bznss. Come back if when there is actual vandalism afoot. ~ _{22:59, 20 March 2011}

Vandalism - you know not to edit other people's user pages, especially not those who you are currently in disagreement with due to edits to your group page -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:08 21 March 2011 (BST)

Defendant is an old user and should already know editing other user's pages without permission is Vandalism. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 02:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism. And I can't believe I said 'precedonks' in that old case. -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 02:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism - Ergh.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 14:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Warned --Thadeous Oakley Talk 18:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

WAAAIIIIIT. Hold your horses there, sonny. I just figured: I'm accused of vandalism on a page owned by a certain user. The certain user didn't report the supposed heinous aforementioned act. That means that this case can't stand because it would set a precedent that would allow people to subjectively view what vandalism is and what vandalism isn't on pages that have nothing to do with them. Think about the future cases, damnit! --Ash^{| T | яя |} 19:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I mean, it's a given you're going to nab me on the other count (even though it is a pretty stupid count, if I do say so myself) but this one could set a pretty bad precedent that will, most certainly, get abused in the future. Jus' sayin'. --Ash^{| T | яя |} 19:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC) ... And it kinda was dropped by the accuser. --Ash^{| T | яя |} 19:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Twice--

^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 20:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but we don't have an adversarial system on the wiki; once a case is brought, accusers and complainants are irrelevant. It's merely a matter for the sysops to consider if it's vandalism. There's no "dropping cases", and the precedent's been there for quite some time. An initial complainant pulling back can influence sysop decision, but it doesn't have to.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This precedent enough for you? Gold Blade removed a large chunk of stuff from my talk page, Cyberbob reported it, and as such, Gold Blade was banned. However, the banning was immediately reversed when I signed on a few hours later and said, "I didn't care." As you can see, the initial complainant was Cyberbob, not me. The way I see it, if Nick decides to let Ash off the hook, well, then the Warning would have to be retracted. If he doesn't then the Warning stays. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 21:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Lol no it's not precedent enough for anyone who remembers how it's been done for the last 3 years, not a case 5 years ago. -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 21:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Well excuse me for being an old sonuvabitch... -_- --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 21:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you prefer recent precedents? How about this case involving impersonation (ruled soft warning by Yonnua Koponen), this case involving playing around on Admin pages (ruled soft warning by Vapor, Spiderzed, Rosslessness), and this case involving playing around on Admin pages (ruled soft warning by Rosslessness, Spiderzed, Yonnua Koponen, Vapor, and Misanthropy). I guess it all depends on who you are, and who you know, much like it has always been. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 23:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

? This discussion about whether or not cases can be dropped, not about soft warnings. --

Thadeous Oakley

Talk 23:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Akule! Of course, when we asked for precedents, we probably wanted relevant ones, but w/e.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

LOLD -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 06:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

lol --

Thadeous Oakley

Talk 23:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Eh. It still applies to the case, especially the first one. In that case, someone impersonated another player, yet got soft warned, where in this case, User:Ashley Valentine, puts a single line of text, and gets warned. The other two examples are more for the case above this one (and if you like, I will be happy to move them up to that one). Is it too hard to ask for consistency? Or is it another case of who you are/who you know? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 23:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Zakarus117 was a newb though, whereas these guys know that you can be warned for it. You can even see that, as I brought that case, I initially thought it was straight out vandalism, because I thought he knew about it beforehand. Ross then disagreed and explained that he was more of a newb.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

[1]--

^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 21:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Nickizdaboss574

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Edited Red Rum page without permission. String 'em up! ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Not Vandlaism -is being handled through his talk page by Ash so no need for escalation unless it turns into an edit war. ~ _{22:23, 20 March 2011}

Vandalism. User has been here for several months and should know better than to crappify a high-profile section as the leadership list. -- Spiderzed ▋ 22:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism --Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Subsection!

Just thought I'd throw in another part to this, I read his contributions and noticed he added himself to BoSs's page aeons after they disappeared and also added people to their KoS list. While I'm fine talking to him on his talk (and user) page, I really can't account for crap he pulls on other people's pages. --Ash^{| T | яя |} 23:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism - this is the second group he has unilaterally claimed leadership of, with no indication that he even contacted them -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:06 21 March 2011 (BST)

Defendant, a user for several months, is not a part of the group, and as such, this is clearly Vandalism. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 02:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

If he's not part of the group, vandalism. -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 02:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Warned --Thadeous Oakley Talk 09:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Rosslessness

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Soft warning

This. See the case against TripleU. --VVV^RPMBG 23:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Minor Vandalism - Recommend a soft warning. Most ridiculously minor offence of minor offences, but an offence nonetheless.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 00:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Minor offense. As Yon, soft warning should be issued. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 01:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Sneaky bastards. Soft warning. ~ _{01:56, 19 March 2011}

Vandalism Really should have known better. Also see below. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 11:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism. See Trips. -- Spiderzed ▋ 12:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Not vandalism - remove any adds using this format, and send it to arbies if they complain -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 07:29 20 March 2011 (BST)

soft warning - I more or less agree with boxy besides the use of arbies. -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 13:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Warned Softly --Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I've made 500 edits since this happened, can I have this struck? --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 23:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Lady Clitoria

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Soft Warning

This. See the below case. --VVV^RPMBG 23:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Minor Vandalism - Recommend a soft warning. Most ridiculously minor offence of minor offences, but an offence nonetheless.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 00:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Minor offense. As Yon, soft warning should be issued. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 01:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Soft warning. ~ _{01:56, 19 March 2011}

Vandalism See below. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 11:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism. See Trips. -- Spiderzed ▋ 12:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Not vandalism - remove any adds using this format, and send it to arbies if they complain -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 07:29 20 March 2011 (BST)

soft warning - arbies is only viable at the moment because there is no actual rule in place regarding this. once one is established (hopefully sooner rather than later), it should be as clear cut as possible -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 13:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Warned Softly --Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

User:TripleU

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Soft Warning

Attempting to provide a false timestamp on the recruitment page. This is against the spirit and arguably the letter of the page's rules:

Category:Recruitment#Format_for_Posting_Adverts says:

The advert must have a timestamp (five tildes - ~~~~~) or a signature with an attached timestamp. This can be placed either on this page or on your adverts page.

The edits were purposely harmful to the wiki:

The intent of the edits was to game the system to help the respective editors and their groupies.
The content of the edits was to destroy the ability of the wiki to determine the activity of the groups and present this valuable reference information to anyone browsing the page.

I therefore believe that all three users acted in bad faith and should each receive an escalation. --VVV^RPMBG 23:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism. Has happened a few times by newbs/casual users, and has in virtually all cases been resolved by simple ad deletion and wrist-slapping. But with all three of those, I'm sure they knew what they were doing. And personally, I'm a bit disappointed as someone who has to keep up several ads all by himself regularly. -- Spiderzed ▋ 00:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

On a related note, I took down all ads that were still illegal (i.e. SFHNAS and super-1337 whatever). Be ensured that I keep a very, very close eye on any re-installation of those. -- Spiderzed ▋ 00:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Minor Vandalism - Recommend a soft warning. Most ridiculously minor offence of minor offences, but an offence nonetheless.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 00:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

And was revenant ever done for his on Hard Knock Life, because I can't find a case and I'm too tired to try really hard.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 00:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't Revenant, it was Speels. And it was resolved off-site by me as a regular user asking HKL's leader about it, and then simply re-coding and removing the ad without any administrative red tape. Regardless, it was never entered on A/VB, so it never became a matter for A/VB. -- Spiderzed ▋ 00:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I think he means as per this convo in which I'm really sure nothing was done, because I presume Aichon wouldn't have wanted to take action (lest A/VB) when there wasn't a clear consensus at the time over whether it was allowed or not. -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 00:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I was talking about what Spiderzed was talking about. :P And it was Revenant, and since when does it being reverted make it not vandalism?--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 01:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You... you serious? Since when does it being reverted make it vandalism? -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 01:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Stand corrected about the actual includer (which I couldn't remember over the half year since I've been involved). Still, the matter was resolved outside of A/VB, and any other administrative process for that matter. Not sure what the outcome would have been if it had been taken there back in the day. -- Spiderzed ▋ 01:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

My point was that if reverting it would be acceptable then, then just revert it now. But, having read the discussion DDR linked to, Rev clearly didn't know it was bad at the time, so probably not vandalisms in his case.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 14:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Just because something can be resolved outside of A/VB doesn't necessarily mean that it wouldn't be deemed as vandalism when it's brought up as a proper case. Take group members messing with each others userspace page, which is clear-cut vandalism when brought up as case, but as long as it goes unreported, most likely won't be ruled on. - In that particular case, I felt that using A/VB would have been overblown, since I could simply contact the HKL guy and get that out of the way. In a different case, I might have preferred to get it cleared up in a more official way and to see an escalation applied along the way for good measure. -- Spiderzed ▋ 15:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

While removing these ads should definitely be the case for any instance of using magic words, I really don't know whether it's something that should have an A/VB precedent created for it. Trying to game the system like that has always been dog but it's their ad that's going to be removed and I don't even think I'd bother calling it bad faith, just trying to weave around a rule to make things more convenient for themselves, not inhibit others business on the wiki. If I ruled vandalism it'd only be for a soft warning anyway, unless I'm convinced by further discussion that the recruitment page is still considered such serious business that people should have their ad removed and be escalated. -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 00:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Minor offense. As Yon, soft warning should be issued. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 01:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you please start making a habit of bolding your rulings? I know you usually never bold stuff for some reason like on A/DE, but here you really should. Especially on the more longer, opinion-split cases, your ruling could easily be overlooked or misinterpreted as regular input. While you're free to do as you please, I hope you take this in consideration for clarity's sake. --

Thadeous Oakley

Talk 12:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Soft warning.~ _{01:56, 19 March 2011}

I like how everyone is completely ignoring the fact that he reported himself for what has got to be one of the most petty excuses for a case of vandalism I have ever seen. It seems to be more of an attempt to create a precedent for this sort of thing in VB so that it can be trotted out in future against anyone else who tries this. In my opinion this would make the posting of this case bad faith in itself and worthy of an escalation. Just my thoughts. -- C h e e s e 11:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Who says we're ignoring it? It's mostly irrelevant. Report him if you think it's bad faith, personally I don't really care since the case in itself is a good discussion point but whether it should be here is subjective. -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 11:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless it's for the reason I suggested, then it's entirely relevant. ;p Either way, pretty sure there would have been a much better place for him to start a discussion rather than spamming up VB. -- C h e e s e 11:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

While I do agree with you, the idea of warning him for it would be pretty nasty since the case is at least getting a soft warning on the perpetrators, now I think about it. -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 11:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

What discussion (beyond punishment) exactly? It's simply against the rules, and pretty obvious at that, Period. --

Thadeous Oakley

Talk 11:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It's more the fact that there was no real need to bring it here at all. Triple U reporting himself just reeks of ulterior motives to me. -- C h e e s e 12:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it could probably have been resolved in a less drama-heavy way, as practically all other violations of this before. However, Trips felt strongly enough about it to bring it here, so it deserves to be judged as A/VB material. (And I'd get a much more fishy vibe if he had secretly snuck out the magic code and then ommitted to report himself.) -- Spiderzed ▋ 12:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Or just being honest and consistent, perhaps. Look at the dates; Lady Clitoria is the latest, at 2 March this month. Maybe Triple saw it and thought it was vandalism. Then he checked the other groups, found Ross and found that he did exactly the same almost a year ago in August. Makes sense to me. Maybe you're right, but I don't consider my theory that farfetched. --

Thadeous Oakley

Talk 12:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism While not the worst things you could do wrong, the fact that they intentionally game'd the system makes me believe a soft warning is to soft. This isn't some loophole, or mistake, the rules are very clear and it's pretty obvious they knew what they were doing and they should have known better. They took their chances, and now they should take their responsibility. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 11:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism - why the fuck would you bring this here? It is obviously against the rules of the page, and as such, any recruitment add using {{CURRENTMONTH}} can be removed without notice. And yet you did it yourself, and reported yourself. Just remove the offending adds, and if push comes to shove, go to arbies -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 07:28 20 March 2011 (BST)

We have a majority for Vandalism, but in this case it's split between a soft warning and a proper vandalism. I can't remember how a split works for punishment, but iirc it goes to the soft warning. Waiting for another op to confirm, as my ruling was a soft.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I was waiting for DDR, but eh, he mentioned he would have gone for a softy too, so whatever. My ruling was Vandalism, but consider this a confirmation. --

Thadeous Oakley

Talk 20:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

When votes are evenly split, it is a soft warning as last time seen here. I'll apply it as such. -- Spiderzed ▋ 20:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I wish it was the opposite... IMO soft warnings should carry an implicit vandalism ruling but a special note as a soft warning. Either way, still don't think this is vandalism so it's a different conversation altogether -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 21:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

User:KKK

Verdict	ban avoidance
Action taken	perma

Obvious Cornhole is obvious. Oidar 20:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism. ~

_{20:41, 15 March 2011}

I'm pretty sure we delete contributions of vandal alts like these, not protect them. By that I mean his talk page along with the crap images he uploaded. --

Thadeous Oakley

Talk 21:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead then. I just protected it because it was created and that's a scheduled protection. I couldn't find it in policy that perma alt's talk pages are scheduled deletions but if there is precedent then go for it. ~

_{21:16, 15 March 2011}

Done. If you want precedent, there's a truck load, but you can start by checking out last months nazi vandals. --

Thadeous Oakley

Talk 21:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

User:DER FUHRER

Verdict	Ban Avoidance
Action taken	Perma

Slapped a 2 hour ban to stop the vandal spree. Likely a Cornhole alt. Obvious vandlism is vandalism. ~ _{20:19, 15 March 2011}

No perma for account used just for vandalisum?--

^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 20:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah just had to do a check to confirm. Also kind of in the middle of something else. ~

_{20:41, 15 March 2011}

User:Lawliet Yraola

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Impersonation. --VVV^RPMBG 23:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism - Warned. ~

23:45, 7 March 2011

Not Vandalism - Warning retracted. Should probs have checkusered before warning. -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 01:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, remember to link to case when A/VDing :( -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 01:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, fucking facepalm at myself. I've just read the discussion this case was involved in. Was said user trying to pass an alt account off as an enemy, and then accidentally signed as the wrong one?? Ugh, fail ddr. -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 01:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

(and you did checkuser him before issuing the warning anyways, so sorry about the above) -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 01:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the checkuser logs, it seems like Lawliet was purposefully speaking with a forked tongue. I'm really on the fence about this one, since it is at the same time an underhanded use of wiki alts and likely done in bad faith, but also futile (RRF doesn't go out of its way to kill mouthy harmanz or do favours for strangers), not one of the established clear-cut wiki alt abuses and something done by a newb. However, I think the bad faith part is the decisive one, and thus, Vandalism. -- Spiderzed ▋ 01:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It's really going to be a discussion point here. Had I realised she was deliberately masking her alts to deceive, I probably wouldn't have mentioned it and therefore I might be misconducted for this (which I won't mind). I don't know the extent of this entire thing so I can't tell what is the right thing to do just now especially since a case exactly like this hasn't come up at all that I can remember. -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 01:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

At least I won't drag either of you to misconduct. I could see Vapor's reasoning for acting swiftly to put a stop to this show, but also your reasoning for withdrawing the warning, as this could be a complicated topic. There was no clear-cut "right" approach in this one. -- Spiderzed ▋ 01:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Vap didn't do anything wrong. he used checkuser but I'm pretty sure he didn't check the IP which revealed the alts L is using. Hence, his view of the case was a textbook case of vandalism and there's nothing wrong with insta-ruling on that case. With a tie in votes, the end ruling is not vandalism so when contested the ruling should go down. Besides a possible checkuser breach of privacy by myself, everything here is dandy but perhaps wait for another ruling by an op before reinstating the warning, methinks? -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 01:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

One former op has already disagreed with my reasoning on the talk page, so you can bet that I wait a bit to the give the rest a chance to add their opinion. No need to jump the gun twice. -- Spiderzed ▋ 01:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not checkuser abuse, it's relevant to it not being impersonation. Any not Vandalism ruling would have required as much. --Karek^maps?! 01:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. My thoughts were the same until I realised it was a deliberate cover and not just some noob who was signing as say, a lost account or on their known alts behalf. Aware of cases like this, I was open to the idea of being put forward for wrongly revealing checkuser info. But in retrospect they pretty much shot themself in the foot by cocking up the signing and putting their accounts in this situation. -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 03:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You're covered on this stuff usually. When it's part of an active VB case and relevant to decisions, that kind of thing is a lot less sensitive than when it's pulled out of the blue in spite. Talking about checkuser info for a VB case concerning misuse of alts is par for the course, and I'd probably spit blood if I saw someone seriously take an op to A/M for doing their job properly based on an irrelevant "precedent". Anyway, with the case at hand, I'm inclined to agree with Vapor and Spider, as this seems a deliberate, albeit failed, attempt to misuse alts in a sockpuppet manner. Vandalism. Also keep an eye on account activity for the next few days maybe, if one alt is mostly a sock it should be banned as part of this escalation. No need to hit one now in case they end up being used right.

04:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah thourough checkusering after the warning was issued revealed what was going on and I'm fine withdrawing the impersonation ruling since its obvious it is not. However, like Spidey I believe its still a bad faith issue. Coupled with nefarious alt use, I'm still ruling vandlaism. ~ 03:37, 8 March 2011

Vandalism - while using a wiki alt is not encouraged, it is still allowed. However, when they are used to attempt decieve an enemy, that is bad faith. Seems clear that this is the intent here, so the alt should be banned, and the main account gets an escalation, and it's not a breach of privacy to reveal who owns the main account either -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:22 8 March 2011 (BST)

Vandalism --Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Tallying this after 5 rulings in, we are at a 4:1 majority for a warning (assuming DDR sticks with NV). Of the usual suspects on A/VB, only Ross and Thad are missing. Unless someone beats me to it or this gets surprisingly overturned, I will set the verdict and issue a proper warning in some hours. -- Spiderzed ▋ 16:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

So Lawliet Yraola has replied to the previous warning posted on their talk page and appears to be claiming that they are not using alts. It should be noted since it may affect actions taken. We're possibly in ban avoidance territory now. ~

16:13, 8 March 2011

Because of the confusing nature of the "impersonation" I don't think Vapor should have insta-warned especially since there was no direct threat to speak off, but beside that everything else has been said, so I'll leave it at that. --

Thadeous Oakley

Talk 16:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I should have used check user before issuing the warning rather than after. The insta-warning was because it appears to be clear-cut vandalism without looking deep into check-user results. ~

_{16:38, 8 March 2011}

I have nothing of any real value to comment. Hi Karek, good to see you. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 16:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm fence sitting with this one because I think alt abuse on this scale is sort of harmless in most ways except politically (that's assuming she isn't zerging ingame alongside this), so having acknowledged the views of either side, I'll probably just leave my ruling as Not Vandalism but Warn her as per the vote. As for the alt, I'd prefer it not banned because bar the act from the combined accounts (which I put as an action from her main account) it hasn't really vandalised, my personal preference is to just tell her the rules about alts and honesty and not vandalising, but I'd prefer we have a casual vote over it to see what should be done with it. I haven't banned the alt in the meantime. -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 22:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh...first I am a man....and second I am sorry about it...the account is not mine. The email is mine but the urbandead account is not. This account belongs to my cousin...so sorry for the big fuss...won't happen again...there is also one thing you should know...another account that uses my other email does not belong to me...this belong to my friend who I allowed to use my email to verify his account.....--The End

We're talking about IP addresses here. The accounts were accessed from the same computer. And why on earth would you let other people use your email address to begin with? -- C h e e s e 15:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Because my cousin doesn't have an email account....well my friend has one but forgot his pass...so I let him used mine...and my cousin and I use the same computer....we live in one house and use one computer....--The End

So, all of your group members we've so far seen, can't work out how to sign on the wiki in exactly the same way (despite being able to work out how to use a different display names to their wiki-user name), consistantly use elipses in a similar (incorrect) way, and all post using the same IP address (nothing to do with the email address)? What a coincidence -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:10 10 March 2011 (BST)

Huh...so you're calling me a liar...it's because they are lazy readers....I only tell them what I know...look I don't want to argue about this...so do whatever punishment you want to do...Intereo per poena quod Vereor mos hunt vos , pro EGO sum Terminus vos mos sentio Moestitia ut vos intereo of ultimate poena. Vos mos sentio Rabies of meus affectus. Tripudium mos nunquam fulsi super vos.

--The End

Actually, they are very careful readers. The...constant...misuse...of...ellipses...by...both...accounts is something that we've never seen before. It would seem strange that both accounts using the same IP address would make the same mistake and not draw suspicion. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 13:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

oh, and I'd have used Nos, instead of Mos. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 13:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Yay, spouting gibberish in order to... umm... I dunno, what exactly was the point of that again? To sum up, yes, I'm calling you a liar, and if you don't want to argue, then just STFU. Oh, and learn to sign -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:01 11 March 2011 (BST)

I knew you had a connection to Major David Zero. You really should learn to sign. By the way, have you ever heard of a group named Blackhawk Nation? -- † talk ? f.u. 13:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Completely ... different misuse of ellipses ... --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 15:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh. They had spaces. -- † talk ? f.u. 13:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, he was repeatedly omitting the clause "I am a zerg"--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 08:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2011 03

Contents

Guidelines for Vandalism Reporting

Before Submitting a Report

Vandalism Report Space

Spambots

March 2011

User:Suicidalangel

User:Kempy

User:SA

User:Ashley Valentine 2

User:Karloth_vois

User:Ashley Valentine

User:Nickizdaboss574

User:Rosslessness

User:Lady Clitoria

User:TripleU

User:KKK

User:DER FUHRER

User:Lawliet Yraola

Navigation menu

Page actions

Page actions

Personal tools

General

Search

Resources

Wiki

Toolbox