UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2010 10

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

User:Mtumbe Ngoube

Mtumbe Ngoube (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

For this edit, in which he deleted the only link which shows that Rofl is the author of the guide PKer tips. This appears to be a premeditated act meant to conceal the true identity of the author, in order to make it easier to delete the guide by claiming authorship before it up for deletion.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 16:10, 21 October 2010 (BST)

I'm going to assume good faith for now, whilst I ask him to show connection between the old user and the new user. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 16:50, 21 October 2010 (BST)

As Ross.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 17:04, 21 October 2010 (BST)
I hadn't really considered this possibility. Sorry to take it here, I should have asked the user first.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 15:14, 22 October 2010 (BST)
Edit summary, FTW -- boxy talkteh rulz 13:10 24 October 2010 (BST)

IsMtumbe.png Seems they are the same person, so Not Vandalism. Makes the deletion vote interesting now. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 21:10, 23 October 2010 (BST)

Not really, since it's a scheduled... -- LEMON #1 05:03, 24 October 2010 (BST)
Just because a page falls under a scheduled deletion, doesn't mean that we are bound to delete it. This is a community page (even if others haven't edited it), and if the community thinks it should remain on the wiki, they are free to vote keep, and expect the sysops to leave it be. If the author wants to distance himself from his creation, he can remove any reference to his name -- boxy talkteh rulz 13:10 24 October 2010 (BST)
Mostly incorrect, Crit 7's have preference over anything in a vast majority of cases, examples like these, no matter how trivial. -- LEMON #1 13:35, 24 October 2010 (BST)
Those were pages in the User's namespace. Ownership rights are greater there. This guide, however, is a community page, and they should only be crit 7ed if they are of little, or no use to the community. Given that the community is voting on it, it is easy to determine in this case -- boxy talkteh rulz 21:42 24 October 2010 (BST)
Ah, I see your point, but I still believe that if the user has the controlling right to be able to blank the page and not have it reverted (as he does now) then it might as well be an inarguable crit 7. -- LEMON #1

Darma and Lois Millard

Darma (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss) Lois Millard (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

More importantly the shared IP. It's either a proxy, in which case it needs banning, or they're the same person, in which case we may need to log it, and also flare signals are sent off since one of the edits from this IP was a vote in a crat election. They haven't both voted, so it would be a good issue to clear up. Proxy or alt?--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:47, 4 October 2010 (BST)

Sigh. Both are on the up and up, no proxies so no bans. No vandalism has been committed, and Lois is as upstanding as they get. They never lynch children, babies—no matter what they do they are whitewashed in advance 22:49, 4 October 2010 (BST)
Well yeah, but are they the same person?--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:50, 4 October 2010 (BST)
They are the same person. Check Lois' RG forums sig -- Spiderzed 22:54, 4 October 2010 (BST)
Board requires me to be logged in, but I trust you. :P --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:08, 4 October 2010 (BST)
Edit conflictedAsking on talk page, but contribs are leaning me towards alt. What's the practice in these cases?--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:50, 4 October 2010 (BST)
To do nothing, in a case like this. If Lois uses the Darma account as a second vote, or to vandalise, that's the only time that multiple accounts are looked at. They never lynch children, babies—no matter what they do they are whitewashed in advance 22:53, 4 October 2010 (BST)
Yeah, but I'm wondering if a note is necessary? I think practice is for there to be one somewhere, but usually it's VD, and I'd guess she doesn't have any.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:54, 4 October 2010 (BST)
A note is only standard practice on A/VD to show the vandal alts of those who use them, not to list any and all alt accounts. They never lynch children, babies—no matter what they do they are whitewashed in advance 22:55, 4 October 2010 (BST)
Is it UHUB then? I'm tired and can't really recall.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:00, 4 October 2010 (BST)
UHUB? They never lynch children, babies—no matter what they do they are whitewashed in advance 23:01, 4 October 2010 (BST)
User hub. There are a few like that on there, but I don't know really. I think she already has her name on there, so it would probably be great if she added it but not mandatory. :P Not a clue. This is here if we need it, so there's a note somewhere.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:07, 4 October 2010 (BST)
Also, I didn't add the template because this isn't strictly a vandalism case, it's an alts thingy.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:07, 4 October 2010 (BST)
In future, alt-based vandalism requires an actual act of vandalism first. Most user with multiple accounts don't want the connection to be known, and several of them exist. It's treading into misuse of checkuser to expose them without actual cause, so please don't do this again. They never lynch children, babies—no matter what they do they are whitewashed in advance 23:14, 4 October 2010 (BST)
Except pretending to be somebody else is actually impersonation which is vandalism, isn't it? So the "They don't want to know" argument is BS.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:19, 4 October 2010 (BST)
Only pretending to be an existing user is impersonation, which clearly isn't the case. They never lynch children, babies—no matter what they do they are whitewashed in advance 23:24, 4 October 2010 (BST)
Imagine I create multiple accounts. Every time I get in an discussion I get my alts to support myself in order to steer a discussion in my favor. I'm sure there are more ways abusing this without actually vandalism. --Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 23:27, 4 October 2010 (BST)
It's already in the actual rules (where's Box's sig when I need it) that voting and vandal alts are the only uses we punish this for. That's clear. This is unnecessary, and making a big deal about it is just pointless. Plus, if you beed to create a bunch of alts just to win an internent argument you need to find a better position in that argument in the first place. Case is closed, any sysop bringing another case like this without any actual infraction is going to A/M as a result, as no one can claim ignorance to how this operates now we've got this laid down. They never lynch children, babies—no matter what they do they are whitewashed in advance 23:31, 4 October 2010 (BST)

The Rules. If folks create lots of alts to "win" an argument, we can out them since they're clearly acting in bad faith. That said, I agree with Mis' statements pretty much across the board, though I'd go further and say that it was actual, though mild, checkuser abuse (I'm not taking him to A/M over it, however). Lois' alt account should not have been outed unless something shady was going on since alt accounts are perfectly permissible when used for reasonable purposes, and by all accounts, Lois was not behaving irresponsibly with the accounts.

By Yonn's own admission, this is not a vandal case, so it has no reason to be here in the first place, and why Yonn felt it necessary to note this alt when we know of dozens of others is beyond me. I'll chalk it up to him being tired, but generally the only time a note is necessary is when an actual vandal case happens. Otherwise, they are allowed to have them, as long as they use them in good faith, and we don't mention it out of respect for their privacy. Aichon 00:03, 5 October 2010 (BST)

Right, Confirmed there the same person, case remains as a note in VB history they are the same person. Have a nice day. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 20:38, 5 October 2010 (BST)

User:Misanthropy

Misanthropy (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

This case is inevitable and I'm not nitpicking but I think it's gotta be brought here. Image:A BP.png needs evaluation as pornography/offensive content. -- LEMON #1 12:38, 4 October 2010 (BST)

In my defense, we've allowed graphic slash fiction before, and it was inevitable. They never lynch children, babies—no matter what they do they are whitewashed in advance 13:31, 4 October 2010 (BST)

Soft Warning - Borderline case. Any worse and it would be proper vandalisms, but for now a soft warning will do. Plus, he hasn't done anything like it before.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:52, 4 October 2010 (BST)

Soft Warning - As Yonn. Aichon 00:06, 5 October 2010 (BST)

Regardless of vandalism, I really think this should be deleted in the interests of good taste, it fits in the definition of hardcore imagery. Yeah, I know how prudish I'm sounding. -- LEMON #1 02:28, 5 October 2010 (BST)

Oh right, yeah. I'll get it now, was just waiting for a tad more of a consensus.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 07:17, 5 October 2010 (BST)
More on talk page.

Vandalism., but just. so Soft It terrifies me to think what having you as a crat will be like. (But then I could Say the Same thing about DDR) --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 20:40, 5 October 2010 (BST)

Yonn already deleted the image a few hours back, so I'm gonna go ahead and close the case, since it looks like it's wrapped. Aichon 07:27, 6 October 2010 (BST)

Vandal Banning Archive

2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Q3 Q4
2013 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Years 2014 2015 2016 2017
Personal tools
project wonderful
column-okay