UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive1
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
|
Spambots
Spambots are to be reported on this page. New reports should be added to the top. Reports may be purged after one week.
- Blocked a large surge of bots -- AHLGTG 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 DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 09:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
July 2010
User:Jerrel Yokotory and User:Drawde
| Verdict | Not Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | {{{2}}} |
Jerrel Yokotory (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Drawde (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Both of them commented on the below vandal report, which goes against the notice at the top that says, "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." --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 16:44, 31 July 2010 (BST)
Not Vandalism - In cases where this behavior is ongoing and unwarranted (i.e. they add nothing worthwhile to the case on a regular basis), we do slap them with a Vandalism, but both of their comments were small and they're not regular violators of that request at the top of the page. I see no reason to slap them with a Vandalism. —Aichon— 22:01, 31 July 2010 (BST)
Not Vandalism - As Aichon, and while we're quoting the top of the page, "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." I feel doing so would have been a better method to take than this case.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:26, 31 July 2010 (BST)
NV -- boxy talk • teh rulz 01:12 1 August 2010 (BST)
User:DCC
DCC (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Not Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | {{{2}}} |
Checkuser shows he's still using Nubis's account. -- Cheese 23:02, 29 July 2010 (BST)
Is that actually enough to vandalban someone? I always thought that he had to use it to sockpuppet or generally cause mayhem to be taken here, but I could be (and almost definitely am) wrong. That point of clarification would certainly be good for me to see.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:49, 29 July 2010 (BST)
- Given the fucktastic nature of that old chestnut, I'd say possible Vandalism if the account sharing continues, and definitely if it happens on any of the admin or voting pages.
00:06, 30 July 2010 (BST)
Not Vandalism unless the alts are being abused. Having alt accounts on here is perfectly acceptable. If sockpuppetry is going on, then we'll talk. —Aichon— 02:02, 30 July 2010 (BST)
Still waiting for DCC to be permabanned for all the multi abuse he did with both accounts, but since the sysops only saw fit to slap him with a warning rather than escalating him properly, it's a closed case and there's nothing technically wrong with what he's doing now, as Aichon. God knows why you're going anal on it now Cheese, we had our chance. Not Vandalism. --
05:12, 30 July 2010 (BST)
- If that's the situation, then Not Vandalism it is.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 10:20, 30 July 2010 (BST)
- My paraphrasing of it may be a little bit off since it's an old case, but the facts are here and here and here. Actually, after skimming through the last two in particular, I think my paraphrasing was mostly right. -- 10:29, 30 July 2010 (BST)
- Wow, I used to be a real dick.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 10:36, 30 July 2010 (BST)
- My paraphrasing of it may be a little bit off since it's an old case, but the facts are here and here and here. Actually, after skimming through the last two in particular, I think my paraphrasing was mostly right. -- 10:29, 30 July 2010 (BST)
NV -- boxy talk • teh rulz 01:14 1 August 2010 (BST)
User:F-u-c-k you f-u-c-k me
F-u-c-k you f-u-c-k me (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Permban |
Messing with developing suggestions, and adding crap to the Fashion page. See contributions. Here and here to give examples. He also made a suggestion about being able to "fuck" other survivors but immediately removed it himself. --
Thadeous Oakley 10:16, 28 July 2010 (BST)
- Pretty clear case of Vandalism, at least in terms of messing with signatures as he did on DS. I'm inclined to think permaban, but since I have a history of making wrong calls on permabans, I'll wait for another 'op to chime in. —Aichon— 10:30, 28 July 2010 (BST)
- Vandalism - and nothing but, unsurprising given the name -- boxy talk • teh rulz 10:34 28 July 2010 (BST)
User:Colette Hart
Colette Hart (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Not Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | {{{2}}} |
Edited another user's userpage. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 05:11, 20 July 2010 (BST)
- Looks like he discovered his mistake and reverted his edit. Case can be dropped, I presume? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 05:35, 20 July 2010 (BST)
- Ya. He wasn't trying to hurt the user in any way, and offered the template on talk instead, I don't see why we should have to warn him. -- 05:43, 20 July 2010 (BST)
User:Kaka
Kaka (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Permaban |
For removing names from the Philosophe Knight's Kill List once on the 14th and then three times today.
It's worth noting that after the first edit he was warned by a Knight that he did not have permission to edit the page, but he responded by removing the warning and doing those latest three edits mere minutes later. I was planning to offer a warning of my own, since I had dismissed his edit on the 14th as a newb mistake, but once I saw that he was deliberately disregarding the warning... —Aichon— 07:50, 17 July 2010 (BST)
Easy. Vandalism. --
08:38, 17 July 2010 (BST)
Vandalism --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 09:56, 17 July 2010 (BST)
Vandalisms, and with no contributive edits, Permaban. -- Cheese 10:42, 17 July 2010 (BST)
User:Craptalker
Craptalker (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Warned |
Defacing the MOB page. 00:41, 17 July 2010 (BST)
ffs... warned. --
02:34, 17 July 2010 (BST)
User:TripleU
TripleU (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Not Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | {{{2}}} |
For adding a non-suthor RE and then striking it out, as seen here. There was an old A/VB case that was exactly like this, but that was dropped. Times have changed, and you guys might think different. I'll let you psycho psyops decide what you wanna do, because I'm not taking part in this besides reporting. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 04:19, 16 July 2010 (BST)
- I've actually seen the incorrigible Ross do this one a few times, so I can tell you now that his one's not getting ruled as vandalism. I personally don't believe it to be, strike or no strike, as I've never found that rule condusive to good faith. Not Vandalism. 04:26, 16 July 2010 (BST)
I once thought of doing this for giggles, and figured if I was to do it I would accept the incoming warning for trying to game the system. However, the fact he could be warned for this but not warned for just leaving it on there and expecting someone else to strike it only proves the system is badly broken and really does need to be overhauled. I don't like people gaming the system, and I'd prefer the comment be moved to the talk page as a punishment, but that may be another discussion entirely in itself. I'd prefer the comment just be moved to talk regardless, but atm I'm going Not Vandalism. --
06:02, 16 July 2010 (BST)
- The system isn't badly broken. They're rules that depend on the good faith of the community to make them work. The system can handle a few people "gaming the system", but once everyone gets the idea that they can reply to any comment in the main voting area, it will become a broken mess. Restraint, people. Communities are built on it -- boxy talk • teh rulz 15:17 16 July 2010 (BST)
- Things like the Mayor of Malton and people like Iscariot have demonstrated to both of us that good faith and communal trust work shit on this wiki. The system doesn't work, and IMO you saying "it is okay to do it until lots of people do it and then it won't be ok" is one fucking thin ice field you're skating on. It's not just broken because it's broken, it's also broken cause we are treating it in a way where we leave ambiguity over the rule open to people willing to abuse it (and remember this is UDWiki there'll always be people). We either need to say yess this is wrong or we need to say no. ATM you seem to be saying "no but it will be yes if we say no too much", which is why having all non-author RE's forceably moved to talk is a better method, doesn't leave an annoying grey area where the spirit of the rule can be ruined, and can keep the original rights of the author intact. -- 15:40, 16 July 2010 (BST)
Not Vandalism - I thought it was actually kinda clever of him, but repeat abuse would be vandalism in my book, just as repeatedly replying to comments when you're not the author would eventually be vandalism. —Aichon— 09:06, 16 July 2010 (BST)
Not Vandalism - And closed.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 12:13, 16 July 2010 (BST)
User:LamboMagoo
LamboMagoo (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Not Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | {{{2}}} |
For putting useless info on club hannam description. Evidence=[1]-- Jerrel tlk (82nd!) (Project Unwelcome!). 04:05, 14 July 2010 (BST)
Edit is on a mainspace page, is not bad-faith, and, grammar aside, is just pretty run of the mill. Not Vandalism. 04:07, 14 July 2010 (BST)
- I've removed it since it seems like it's of a personal nature, is unsigned, and isn't actually discussing the location. That said, it doesn't look like it was meant in bad faith, nor is it an ongoing problem since he's a new user. Not Vandalism. —Aichon— 04:20, 14 July 2010 (BST)
- Fine. Not Vandalism since it's fixed now. Closed case-- Jerrel tlk (82nd!) (Project Unwelcome!). 04:24, 14 July 2010 (BST)
- Don't bold those words, you're not able to rule on cases - and even when edits are reverted, the case isn't over until it's ruled on. 2/9 sysops ruling isn't really enough to close a case. 04:27, 14 July 2010 (BST)
- Don't bold those words, you're not able to rule on cases - and even when edits are reverted, the case isn't over until it's ruled on. 2/9 sysops ruling isn't really enough to close a case.
- Fine. Not Vandalism since it's fixed now. Closed case-- Jerrel tlk (82nd!) (Project Unwelcome!). 04:24, 14 July 2010 (BST)
Not Vandalism --
05:31, 14 July 2010 (BST)
User:Jerrel Yokotory
Jerrel Yokotory (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Warned |
For putting himself up for promotion again [2] for the third time (1, 2) without having a chance in hell of getting there, and having several users telling him scores of times how and exactly why. He's ignored us every time and this is way beyond what you can call a noob mistake.
I personally have told him why at leased twice in the last two years including here. More include here, and here. The second time he put himself up for promotion I gave him a stern cautioning here that if he does it again without change he may be put up for vandalism. I also told him the same on his second promotion bid in my against vote. Since absolutely nothing's changed and he's ignored all decently expressed facts on why he cannot be a sysop, as per the Woot precedent, I think he should be warned. --
05:41, 13 July 2010 (BST)
- I actually mentioned to Acorn earlier that this probably should be done, and since you've gone and beaten me to it, cool. Vandalism. Might also be worth lumping this in with his blanking of talk comments on the A/VB talk page, iunno if you want a separate case for that or not. 05:45, 13 July 2010 (BST)
- Ahh I wouldn't bother, that was just a silly noob mistake I'd be willing to overlook if we just explain to him. This, on the other hand is something I can't let go because he's been told so fucking many times it's beyond any sort of reasoning why he's still doing it all. If you really do think it should be added though, I'd prefer it just be lumped here. -- 05:48, 13 July 2010 (BST)
- Eh, fuck it. If he does it again after it being reverted, then go, if not, then he's learned that it's not on. 05:53, 13 July 2010 (BST)
- Eh, fuck it. If he does it again after it being reverted, then go, if not, then he's learned that it's not on.
- Ahh I wouldn't bother, that was just a silly noob mistake I'd be willing to overlook if we just explain to him. This, on the other hand is something I can't let go because he's been told so fucking many times it's beyond any sort of reasoning why he's still doing it all. If you really do think it should be added though, I'd prefer it just be lumped here. -- 05:48, 13 July 2010 (BST)
- Ha funny.. I try to do good...and what do I get?
Banned.
So I guess I'll be seeing you when my ban's up.
Then I can see how many more of you voted against me.
- Ha funny.. I try to do good...and what do I get?
- I'm tired of trying. No one likes my ideas, And I think all the sysops are against me.
- Whatever....It's a legit request, and none of you can give me a chance.-- Jerrel tlk (82nd!) (Project Unwelcome!). 06:14, 13 July 2010 (BST)
- You're not giving yourself a chance. If you had listened to the mountains of related information we'd given you, you'd understand this. -- 06:35, 13 July 2010 (BST)
- Whatever....It's a legit request, and none of you can give me a chance.-- Jerrel tlk (82nd!) (Project Unwelcome!). 06:14, 13 July 2010 (BST)
- You're not going to be banned for this, just officially warned (which is something you should learn about if you want to be a sysop, since we have rules dictating exactly what consequences are handed out and when). And we're not against you. From your comments here and in past nominations, it's obvious you want to help, but the key thing you should take away from this is that nothing is stopping you from helping right now and that almost every sysop was known for helping first and then later became a sysop. It doesn't work the other way around. —Aichon— 06:54, 13 July 2010 (BST)
- Yeah, I was actually wondering if this would come up this time, given the precedent in place, though I wasn't planning to bring it up. It's still Vandalism, however, since he's been told exactly how to deal with it correctly (and not just by DDR and not just on his talk page), has had every opportunity to act on it, and has yet to follow through on any of the criticism. As for the talk page stuff, I'd leave it be, so long as he doesn't erase it again. —Aichon— 06:54, 13 July 2010 (BST)
Vandalism --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 07:53, 13 July 2010 (BST)
That seems like enough support. Warned. --
08:02, 13 July 2010 (BST)
User:Jorm
Jorm (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Not Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | {{{2}}} |
Warned for vandalising mayor of malton page again. --
13:43, 6 July 2010 (BST)
- Actually, he just jumped the gun by a few hours. We had arranged the hand-off but not the exact time or fashion. Ask Mis; it's his page, & he can confirm. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 14:10, 7 July 2010 (BST)
- Fair enough, but I was under the assumption that it was Yon's page (not that that matters) -- 14:19, 7 July 2010 (BST)
- And now I look at it (drunk) there's still no reason he should have removed the entirety of the voting + content. Not that I'm trying to uphold the ban if the ops vote against it. If that happens, so be it. I'm just explaining my reasoning, etc. -- 14:20, 7 July 2010 (BST)
- Fair enough, but I was under the assumption that it was Yon's page (not that that matters) -- 14:19, 7 July 2010 (BST)
Not Vandalism - But only just. He had a deal going on so that's all cool. If he wants to do it again though, can he please post it on the Main page, and not delete anything else.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 14:22, 7 July 2010 (BST)
Slow down and let everyone rule on cases Not vandalism 15:28, 7 July 2010 (BST)
Even if Jorm had some sort of right to make such major changes to the election page (wiping all the votes), it seems that the edit was deliberately designed to look like vandalism to anyone not "in the know". Meh, I could go either way, depending on page rights -- boxy talk • teh rulz 15:37 7 July 2010 (BST)
With 2 NMs to 1 M, I've overturned the ruling for now. If it switches back the other way, then it can be un-overturned.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 15:38, 7 July 2010 (BST)
I'm pretty sure the Mayoral race counts as a community event, and therefore the page in question is a community page. Could be wrong though. --Thadeous Oakley 16:40, 7 July 2010 (BST)
I thought it was a self explanatory edit of vandalism but since it's been voted to have not been I'll apologise to jorm and be on my way. --
03:43, 8 July 2010 (BST)
User:DanceDanceRevolution
DanceDanceRevolution (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Not Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | {{{2}}} |
As below. 15:12, 5 July 2010 (BST)
Not vandalism Comment --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 15:14, 5 July 2010 (BST)
Not Vandalism - As Below.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 16:02, 5 July 2010 (BST)
Not Vandalism - As per what I said below. —Aichon— 10:32, 6 July 2010 (BST)
User:MoonShine
MoonShine (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Not Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | {{{2}}} |
Removing other users' comments on talk pages not belong to them. Regardless of whether you agree with the sentiment of the comments, this is a clear case of vandalism that has ample precedence. Ruling otherwise would be a blatant case of taking sides when this is clearly against the rules. 15:08, 5 July 2010 (BST)
Not Vandalism What a surprise. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 15:14, 5 July 2010 (BST)
Removing vandalism is actually an encouraged action on this wiki I believe, ample precedence against such an ethic is strongly requested though --
15:21, 5 July 2010 (BST)
- If it was actually vandalism and not just being pinned as such wrongly then you'd have been right. 15:23, 5 July 2010 (BST)
- I made you a picture. Isn't it beautiful? They were and still are considered vandalism and i removed them as such. Is that so terribly hard to understand or are you just bringing multiple petty accusations motivated by self interest rather than that of the wiki? Back in my day that was considered vandalism... ♥ Moonie Talk | Testimonials 01:39, 6 July 2010 (BST)
- Yup, the latter. -- 07:20, 6 July 2010 (BST)
- So is that vandalism or am i mistaken? I could have sworn i've seen quite a few people come through here on the receiving end for creating multiple frivolous VB's entirely out of self interest when they are well aware of the purpose of this page ♥ Moonie Talk | Testimonials 11:08, 6 July 2010 (BST)
- Meh, after a prolonged history of it, yes. If he'd reverted our edits, yes. Even if it weren't I never really felt these cases were worth "retaliating" over though, he's drawn the line and we don't specifically have to sink to it. -- 13:32, 6 July 2010 (BST)
- So is that vandalism or am i mistaken? I could have sworn i've seen quite a few people come through here on the receiving end for creating multiple frivolous VB's entirely out of self interest when they are well aware of the purpose of this page ♥ Moonie Talk | Testimonials 11:08, 6 July 2010 (BST)
- lol irony? ;P ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 08:52, 10 July 2010 (BST)
- Yup, the latter. -- 07:20, 6 July 2010 (BST)
- I made you a picture. Isn't it beautiful? They were and still are considered vandalism and i removed them as such. Is that so terribly hard to understand or are you just bringing multiple petty accusations motivated by self interest rather than that of the wiki? Back in my day that was considered vandalism... ♥ Moonie Talk | Testimonials 01:39, 6 July 2010 (BST)
Not Vandalism - At the time the removals were made, the comments were considered vandalism unilaterally. If it is overturned later, the comments should be returned, but unless that happens, they were removed as vandalism.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 16:01, 5 July 2010 (BST)
Not Vandalism - Sorry, Mis, but it was ruled as a vandal edit, so anyone undoing it is justified in doing so. —Aichon— 10:31, 6 July 2010 (BST)
User:Revenant
Revenant (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Warning |
For knowingly impersonating signature/timestamps of users simply to pass the votes off as legitimate on the Mayor_of_Malton/2010 page. Initial edit was this and after being reverted by Yon and warned by me that what he was doing was borderline vandalism he continued to argue swearing at us and the like before his version of the "fixed" mechanism was a horribly broken "fixed" timestamp with broken brackets and such. In his flurry of desperate crap he also removed a users vote here. It doesn't help that the vote was for another party either. Rev was told the solutions to the problems and how he's broken the rules to the votingcriterea but he persists despite simply being able to get the original users to fix this whole mistake. Arguments include "the rules suck so that mean its okay to break them" which is not only idiocy, it's also admission that he's acknowledging the page's rules are against his actions and hence tried another way to fuel his campaign to... well, kill his campaign.
A/A doesn't apply because arbies doesn't interfere with administrative process, in this case dealing with vandalistic edits. Jorm did the same but hasn't made a fuss since his unstruck vote was reverted so no foul play there. I think Rev is crossing the line in petty distress, hence why I brought him here, even after ample warnings. --
07:59, 5 July 2010 (BST)
- He's now taken the liberty of spamming several talk pages with advertisements to vote for him, even for people who obviously won't, and who already voted, like myself. This is going further and further past the boundaries from immature to pathetic. He's broken three rules now, a rather grey-area "impersonation" which was due discussion, but since then he's removed posts from opposing people, and spammed several users with last-minute talk page advertisements, both of which have always been vandalism. I've been asking him to stop for hours now. -- 08:46, 5 July 2010 (BST)
- Also just noticed he did the same unstriking to a vote on Jorm's party to... maintain consistancy perhaps, but ignored the one on his main competitor Kyle's vote here, making his intentions seem even more biased/clumsy. -- 09:52, 5 July 2010 (BST)
- Iunno where i'm meant to point it out but i'd like to point out that it wasn't just random, he posted on the talk page for every person who voted for Kyle who at the time had just overtaken him. Will these be reverted or something cause it's well rude D: (Move me to discussion if you want, i just wasn't sure where abouts on the discussion page to post :s) ♥ Moonie Talk | Kyle For Mayor 10:52, 5 July 2010 (BST)
- Since it's looking like his talk page spam is being ruled as vandalism, they can be removed as vandalism on sight once the ruling takes place. -- 11:16, 5 July 2010 (BST)
Arbies for the vote sigs, but that talk page spamming of 20 talk pages is probably vandalism -- boxy talk • teh rulz 09:17 5 July 2010 (BST)
- Yeah. I took some backtracking because I also couldn't remember the rule of thumb of how much spam actually constituted vandalism. I could specifically remember cases for jed, airbourne, woot and imthatguy. The more relevant ones, woot and imthatguy show them getting an escalation for seemingly lower spam counts.
| Karek said: |
| It is generally about 20, yes but, there's also the situational thing, so while most things limit to 20 for escalations blatant spam is still spam |
- Imthatguy's case is good cause it says 20 is generally the rule of thumb, and given that Rev spammed specifically users who voted directly against him, it's particularly at an inconvenience for most users who received the message, rather than an informative message or such. -- 09:41, 5 July 2010 (BST)
As boxy. A/A and Vandalism. I think the deleted vote and missed unstriking were accidental, so no need to handle them here. —Aichon— 10:12, 5 July 2010 (BST)
As above. Vandalisms -- Cheese 11:07, 5 July 2010 (BST)
I'd really like to get this out of the way since it's in the dying hours of the vote so , Vandalism and warned for the talk page spam. Since it's been supported that the edit warring on the original page Mayor of Malton is not vandalism, I'll give him a heads up that it's fair game for now, with Yon to enforce it via A/A (as page "organiser") if he so wishes. --
11:16, 5 July 2010 (BST)
- Oh, also I rollback'd the talk page edits, but left the ones that had already been replied too. -- 11:18, 5 July 2010 (BST)
- There's actually about another 20 of them, i'm going to start going through them now ♥ Moonie Talk | Kyle For Mayor 11:43, 5 July 2010 (BST)
- Ahh crap thanks, don't ask how I missed them :/ -- 12:08, 5 July 2010 (BST)
- This is fucking bullshit. It wasn't fucking vandalism when the Gibsonton Squatters posted on every fucking talk page on the wiki in a derogatory manner to another group, nor when me and Axe Hack went on a +1 rampage earlier in the week, so why should it be vandalism that Rev is posting a few tongue in cheek voting notices? It's pretty pathetic that this is even being considered a case, let alone being ruled on. Had one of the supporters of the other candidate in this election done likewise I doubt we'd be seeing anyone escalated and you all fucking know that I'm right. 15:04, 5 July 2010 (BST)
- Did any of those get reported? The Gibsonton Squatters one sounds to be clearly vandalism, if it's as you described -- boxy talk • teh rulz 22:58 5 July 2010 (BST)
- Throw up the cases here mis. We can rule on them as well. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 23:02, 5 July 2010 (BST)
- I'm not putting them up, as I don't believe they're vandalism - they fall under a similar heading to this, and I don't find this vandalism, though the Squatters case was actually verging on bad faith, while this plain isn't. 23:03, 5 July 2010 (BST)
- I'm not putting them up, as I don't believe they're vandalism - they fall under a similar heading to this, and I don't find this vandalism, though the Squatters case was actually verging on bad faith, while this plain isn't.
- Throw up the cases here mis. We can rule on them as well. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 23:02, 5 July 2010 (BST)
- Did any of those get reported? The Gibsonton Squatters one sounds to be clearly vandalism, if it's as you described -- boxy talk • teh rulz 22:58 5 July 2010 (BST)
- This is fucking bullshit. It wasn't fucking vandalism when the Gibsonton Squatters posted on every fucking talk page on the wiki in a derogatory manner to another group, nor when me and Axe Hack went on a +1 rampage earlier in the week, so why should it be vandalism that Rev is posting a few tongue in cheek voting notices? It's pretty pathetic that this is even being considered a case, let alone being ruled on. Had one of the supporters of the other candidate in this election done likewise I doubt we'd be seeing anyone escalated and you all fucking know that I'm right.
- Ahh crap thanks, don't ask how I missed them :/ -- 12:08, 5 July 2010 (BST)
- There's actually about another 20 of them, i'm going to start going through them now ♥ Moonie Talk | Kyle For Mayor 11:43, 5 July 2010 (BST)
- Extensive discussion has been moved to talk.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:45, 5 July 2010 (BST)
Further discussion in archive -- boxy talk • teh rulz 10:42 28 July 2010 (BST)
|
Vandal Banning Archive | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Vandal Banning Archive | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
