User:Yonnua Koponen/precedent
From The Urban Dead Wiki
Introduction
Initially, I thought it would be a good idea to create a policy detailing the different things considered vandalism. However, because that's obviously a stupid idea, because of wiki-lawyering and the vast possibilities of vandalism, a policy document would be innappropriate for the task. Hence, I'm now going to start an attempt to note down every precedent from A/VB in my user space, as a point of quick-reference for anyone who needs it. Let's begin.
NOTE:Currently, the precedents on this page are for cases from 2006. These cases occured in a vastly different environment to the current one.
February 2006 completed.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:07, 15 October 2009 (BST)
Edits concerning User pages
Grim S Vs Tranhanam0027
It was found in this case that leaving derogatory comments on a users page was vandalism. However, a softer punishment was considered.
Mall Tour 06 Vs Shaft121
It was found in this case that editting comments on your own user talk page was permissable, although frowned upon.
Grim s Vs Skeletor
It was found in this case that malicious edits to a user's main page were vandalism.
Edits concerning Group pages
Shambling Seagulls Vs. Dr Cox
It was found in this case that malicious edits that insult a group should not be made by a non-member of that group.
Mall Tour 06 Vs Shaft121
It was found in this case that making malicious edits to a group page is vandalism.
CPQD Vs Yorter
It was found in this case that editting group pages maliciously is vandalism.
Imperial War Machine Vs 3088
It was found in this case that editting a group's page without permission is vandalism.
Free Slavik Vs Kivals
It was found in this case that blanking your own group page is not vandalism.
Amazing Vs DarthRevan
It was found in this case that removing discussion from a group page belonging to or created by the remover is permissable, especially if the comments are old or malicious.
Ron Burgandy Vs Scinfaxi
It was found in this case that editting a group page maliciously was vandalism. It was also found that the victim could waive this vandalism.
BME Vs Banana Bear4, Sup34dog, Denzel Washington, and Movero
It was found in this case that pestering a group with malicious edits on the talk page was vandalism, and that posted deflammatory information in the NPOV section of a group page was vandalism. However, it was found that although removing comments from a group talk page by the group was frowned upon, it was not vandalism.
WCDZ Vs Hez
It was found in this case that posting irellevant external links on a group page was vandalism.
Edits concerning Templates
Caiger Mall Survivors Vs Angry midget pirates
It was found in this case that edits to template pages instead of adding the template to a page are not vandalism, providing they are made in good faith.
Impersonation
Jak Rhee Vs Tranhanam0027
It was found in this case that striking another users comment without reason is vandalism. Exceptions were considered for new users, but in the case of experienced wiki users, it was considered vandalism.
Mall Tour 06 Vs Shaft121
It was found in this case that editting comments on your own user talk page was permissable, although frowned upon.
Grim s Vs Hatchet Job
It was found in this case that editting a users comment to comply with NPOV was not vandalism.
Ron Burgandy Vs Scinfaxi
It was found in this case that editting another users comment to change its meaning was vandalism. It was also found that the victim could waive this vandalism.
Vandal Sprees
Yagoton Vs Oprah
It was found in this case that making a spree of malicious edits meant that both a warning and escalation could be applied. It was found that users not operating in good faith, and those who didn't use NPOV where relevant could be punished.
Recruitment Vs Huhgfww
It was found in this case that making many malicious edits would be found vandalism.
Main Page Vs Main pageher
It was found in this case that vandalising several important wiki pages was vandalism. [NOTE: This is believed to be the first vandal account of the infamous 3 page vandal.]
Zombie Skills Vs Bagend
It was found in this case that vandalising several information pages and a group page was vandalism.
BOW Vs Ippmat
It was found in this case that vandalising several information pages and a group page was vandalism. Further, it was found that creating new accounts for vandalism was unacceptable.
BOW Vs Quidlines
It was found in this case that vandalising several information pages and a group page was vandalism.
Bug Reports Vs Mediaaa
It was found in this case that vandalising several information pages and a group page was vandalism. It also became accepted to check that any 3 vandal edits made at once were the trademark of the 3 page vandal.
The People Vs Loserer, Journar, Preferseres, Logoutrr, Anjelic, Wikiman, Ennict, Grah, Cprwqtur, Taskkid, Banjo, Tootytoot, F11n, Linksys, Bowserfrun, Ugat, Lkhwlkjhd and Redo
It was found in this case that the mass vandalism of pages by a repeat vandal, with multiple accounts, warranted an IP ban.
General Vandalism
Brizth Vs Wikislasher
It was found in this case that performing a malicious edit in a similar manner to another recent vandal is only regarded as on the same level as if normal vandalism, at least if unproven to be abuse.
TheBigT Vs Samsurfer117
It was found in this case that making a vandal edit in error was not vandalism.
WCDZ Vs Hez
It was found in this case that posting irellevant external links on a page was vandalism.
Spam/Adbots
Lint Vs JohnTarabl
It was found in this case that spamming and advertising pages as a bot is grounds for immediate banning.
Lint Vs Pasoradika
It was found in this case that spamming and advertising pages as a bot is grounds for immediate banning.
Lint Vs Baskas
It was found in this case that spamming and advertising pages as a bot is grounds for immediate banning. It was also found that the IP of bots could be blocked in the case of repeated vandalism.
Admin pages
Amazing Vs DarthRevan
It was found in this case that constantly spamming an admin page (in this case VB) with malicious comments was ground for a warning or ban.
