UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2010 07

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.

July 2010

User:DanceDanceRevolution

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

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

As below. 15:12, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Not vandalism Comment --Rosslessness^{Want 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	{{{1}}}
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. --Rosslessness^{Want 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)

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)

That one's on me. He was responding to what I had said in my edit comment, but I had missed that there was one for Kyle as well, and since he was seemingly unaware of the jorm one until I mentioned it, I would assume the same for the Kyle one. —Aichon— 10:12, 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. --Rosslessness^{Want 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)

Spamming has been considered vandalism for as long as I've been on this wiki. If you think it's a silly interpretation, you could take it to the community via a policy -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 23:15 5 July 2010 (BST)

Extensive discussion has been moved to talk.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:45, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Response by accused

Originally posted at User talk:Revenant

I targeted only members who have been involved in the Election page, and only left one message per member, clearly making note of who if was from and why the message was left.

As such, I consider the analogy to be to up-to-date enrolled voters, who have clearly opted in to receiving political material. Only one message was ever left per talk page, and if reverted by the user and not by someone attempting to subvert the political process, I would under no circumstances repeat the posting.

Thus, I respectfully dispute the appellation of the term "spam" to my political canvassing, and request that this judgement be overturned. Thank you. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:43, 5 July 2010 (BST)

• Also, point of order: as an involved party, sysop DanceDanceRevolution should properly not be exercising his sysop privileges on this case, due to conflict of interest, or else open himself to potential Misconduct charges. Thank you. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 15:01, 5 July 2010 (BST)

  Not particularly, if I were so inclined I could vote vandalism on this case to make the vote tally even further against you, and even that would, whilst poor form, be well within my power. Saying a sysop is in a role of "conflict of interest" when simply trying to stop what he deems (and eventually is declared) vandalism is, well, rich (imo) but arguable, not as much so when I have very little stakes to lose in having your votes/spam count either way. Similarly, there is no possible misconduct I've committed here anyway, I am simply ruling in the way the sysops have currently voted (1). Not misconductable, I'm afraid. --

   

   

   

   

  15:20, 5 July 2010 (BST)

  Please read the following: conflict of interest, prior restraint. Go on, I'll wait. Then come back here and prove my point some more, why don't you? <3 ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 16:26, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Further, I note that unstriking votes was not ruled vandalism. As such, I reserve the right to unstrike and count these votes denied to me by blatant sysop favouritism, pending civil discussion or possible Arbies (sigh) with Yonnua.

(Blob, this place is a clusterfuck. Now I am back I think I would have run for sysop even without Grim's Faustian bargain.) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 19:17, 5 July 2010 (BST)

And please see here for why no page rules were breached, either. ;) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 19:20, 5 July 2010 (BST)

I'd prefer to not go to arbies about it, given it's within the last few hours of the election. Once again, not my place though, because I didn't make the page or set the voting rules.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:28, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Oh, and Vandalism Deleting other people's votes? Not cool. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:03, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Which I feel comes under the "Blanking sections" area of the vb policy. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:10, 5 July 2010 (BST)

I'm pretty sure the removed comment was an edit conflict.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:12, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Why would an edit conflict show up in page history? Especially as between miss' vote at 7.34 and revenants edit at 7.41, the page had already been modified. By revenant. Are you saying, miss voted, revenant modified and saved the page, and then edit conflicted miss with his second edit? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:21, 5 July 2010 (BST)

I assumed it was that thing where you have multiple tabs open, and so it doesn't tell you about edit conflicts, and just overwrites the other edit. I seem to recall it happening a few times, once with me and cyberbob on here. But I dunno, he could be bluffing.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:37, 5 July 2010 (BST)

So he edits line 133 of the page, then accidentally scrolls down to line 213 and simply deletes it? Why would he do that? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:40, 5 July 2010 (BST)

I was assuming somethingto do with complete versions of the page. Once again, I'm not a wiki specialist, this was just why I thought his theory sounded plausible.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:41, 5 July 2010 (BST)

I said as much, yes. What the fuck ever happened to assuming good faith, people? Am I expecting too much of the current crop of sysops? (Also, lol @ Ross edit conflicting me.) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 21:23, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Fucking Edit Conflicts! This. Is wrong. "I targeted only members who have been involved in the Election page, and only left one message per member, clearly making note of who if was from and why the message was left." You didn't. I see no messages for those that voted for the eightees party, the example party, thermonuclear party, jorm, the blob or the green party. you simply spammed those that had voted for kyle. And Kurt Cocaine for some reason. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:34, 5 July 2010 (BST)

He at no point said "everyone involved", merely "only those involved", meaning he didn't speak to those who had not involved themselves in the election. 21:37, 5 July 2010 (BST)

SO those that voted for parties other than kyle weren't involved in the election. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:39, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Are you deliberately being obtuse here? No one said that, at all. What is meant is, election notices were posted to people who had voted and therefore cared about the election, therefore it was not random spamming. AT NO POINT did anyone say they were posted to anyone and everyone involved, they were of course deliberately targeted, but targeted about something they obviously cared enough about to involve themselves in, exactly in the same way that, for instance, Axe Hack posted blanket reminders about the Manhunt to everyone who had signed up regardless of their activity. You're either putting words in people's mouths on purpose or you really need to sit down with some tea and collect yourself, mister. :( 21:42, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Ah. Tea. I'm not saying its random spamming. It was highly specific spamming. Silly --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:44, 5 July 2010 (BST)

The point being, you're calling Rev out on being incorrect in describing his actions, and he's not. :( 21:46, 5 July 2010 (BST)

So I'm saying that Rev deliberately spammed the pages of Kyle voters, not "voters" just "kyle voters". Whereas you're saying "he only spammed those involved in the election." I've kind of missed the disagreement here. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:05, 5 July 2010 (BST)

I was getting to those when I was notified of the A/VB case and ceased pending a proper ruling. Surely you can see the logic in targeting the support base of the largest opponent first. Look at the order, I went straight down the list like a phone book. (Ross, I swear you ninja edit conflict me!) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:08, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Well, now you've put it in your sig, I'll let you off. Mis the issue was such. Rev went to a smurf orgy, and said "I'm gonna fuck all youz smurfs" and then went home after postboxing smurfette with a headache. His intention was never to smurf everyone, regardless of what he said. It was a highly tactical "smurfing." You massive bicycle salesman. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:48, 5 July 2010 (BST)

So it was targeted spamming. It was still done purely out of self interest, trying to drum up support. The only time we've allowed talk page spamming like this this, is when providing neutral information such as vandal warnings, orphan page notices and welcomenewbie, or if the recipients "sign up" for it (being in a group that regularly contacts members). Simply voting on something is not "opting in" to receive spam from other parties. If we open it up for people to canvas for votes like this, then it is legitimising any amount of spamming, as long as you can say you targeted them is some manner. It mightn't be that annoying when only you do it... but once every other party starts, it will get old very, very quickly -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:51 5 July 2010 (BST)

Then escalate these guys to be consistent. 22:55, 5 July 2010 (BST)

You'll have to be more specific. I don't have time to trawl through their contributions, but the top ones don't seem to be spam at the moment. Like I said on the main page, if you don't feel that we should be escalating for spam, then A/PD is the place to enforce it, because there is precedent for this, even if not everyone is reported -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 23:21 5 July 2010 (BST)

Looks like Fenian would have got a warning if he'd been reported, apparently he stopped when asked -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:03 6 July 2010 (BST)

Boxy: I stopped when asked. Of course, I was "asked" by a Vandal warning. No attempt at discussion, mention of a case, or anything. Hence why I am still here. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:37, 6 July 2010 (BST)

Nup, you stopped when you'd gone through the list of people who'd voted. Warning came well after you'd finished your tirade of fail, the fact you won via more meatpuppetry simply demonstrates that most of what you did yesterday was totally unnecessary in achieving your goal. --

 

 

 

 

07:19, 6 July 2010 (BST)

Also, Ross... smurfs? What? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:50, 6 July 2010 (BST)