View source for UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2010 07

<noinclude>
{{:UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Header}}
{{:UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Bots}}
</noinclude>
==[[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2010 07|July 2010]]==

===[[User:DanceDanceRevolution]]===
{{vndl|DanceDanceRevolution}}{{verdict}}

[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Rosslessness&curid=65413&diff=1736530&oldid=1736422 As] [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Tim_The_Incredulous&curid=136970&diff=1736529&oldid=1736423 below]. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 15:12, 5 July 2010 (BST)

'''Not vandalism''' Comment --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 15:14, 5 July 2010 (BST)

'''Not Vandalism''' - As Below.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature‎}} 16:02, 5 July 2010 (BST)

===[[User:MoonShine]]===
{{Vndl|MoonShine}}{{verdict}}

[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Drawde&curid=27259&diff=1736548&oldid=1736308&rcid=1778535 Removing] [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Senergy&curid=136054&diff=1736538&oldid=1736347&rcid=1778525 other] [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Hierophant&curid=46858&diff=1736537&oldid=1736348&rcid=1778524 users'] [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Naozi&diff=prev&oldid=1736547 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. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 15:08, 5 July 2010 (BST)

'''Not Vandalism''' What a surprise. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 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 --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig3}} 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. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 15:23, 5 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.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature‎}} 16:01, 5 July 2010 (BST)

===[[User:Revenant]]===
{{vndl|Revenant}}{{verdict|Vandalism|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 [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Mayor_of_Malton/2010/Election&diff=1736402&oldid=1736396 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 [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Mayor_of_Malton/2010/Election&curid=136481&diff=1736394&oldid=1736389&rcid=1778380 a horribly broken "fixed" timestamp] with broken brackets and such. In his flurry of desperate crap he also removed a users vote [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Mayor_of_Malton/2010/Election&curid=136481&diff=1736394&oldid=1736389&rcid=1778380 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 [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Mayor_of_Malton/2010/Election&diff=1736433&oldid=1736418 "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. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig3}} 07:59, 5 July 2010 (BST)
:He's now taken the liberty of spamming [[Special:Contributions/Revenant|several talk pages]] with advertisements to vote for him, even for people who obviously won't, and who already voted, like [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DanceDanceRevolution&diff=prev&oldid=1736442 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. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig3}} 08:46, 5 July 2010 (BST)
::Also just noticed he [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Mayor_of_Malton/2010/Election&diff=1736433&oldid=1736418 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 [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Mayor_of_Malton/2010/Election&diff=1736361&oldid=1736358 here], making his intentions seem even more biased/clumsy. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig3}} 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. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 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 <b>every</b> 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) [[Big Bash 3|<span style="color: #FF0000; font-size: 80%">&hearts;</span>]] [[User:MoonShine|<span style="color:Black">'''Moonie'''</span>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:MoonShine|Talk]] | [[Mayor_of_Malton/2010/Election#Zombiecratic Party (Incumbent)|Kyle For Mayor]]</sup></small> 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. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig3}} 11:16, 5 July 2010 (BST)
'''[[A/A|Arbies]]''' for the vote sigs, but that talk page spamming of 20 talk pages is probably '''vandalism''' <small>-- <span style="text-shadow: #bbb 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em">[[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 09:17 5 July 2010 (BST)</span></small>
: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, [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_02#WOOT|woot]] and [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_07#User:Imthatguy|imthatguy]] show them getting an escalation for seemingly lower spam counts. 
{{quote|Karek|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 [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:ZR&curid=80245&diff=1736485&oldid=1049204 users] [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Kir&curid=50029&diff=1736469&oldid=687398 who] [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DanceDanceRevolution&diff=1736449&oldid=1736448 received] the message, rather than an informative message or such. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig3}} 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. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 10:12, 5 July 2010 (BST)

As above. '''Vandalisms''' -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 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. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig3}} 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. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig3}} 11:18, 5 July 2010 (BST)
::There's actually about another 20 of them, i'm going to start going through them now [[Big Bash 3|<span style="color: #FF0000; font-size: 80%">&hearts;</span>]] [[User:MoonShine|<span style="color:Black">'''Moonie'''</span>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:MoonShine|Talk]] | [[Mayor_of_Malton/2010/Election#Zombiecratic Party (Incumbent)|Kyle For Mayor]]</sup></small> 11:43, 5 July 2010 (BST)
:::Ahh crap thanks, don't ask how I missed them :/ --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig3}} 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. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 15:04, 5 July 2010 (BST)
:::::No, I don't. You're little [[+1]] escapades annoyed, "threatened" or addressed no one, except for the people who genuinely give a shit about special:mostlinkedpages, of which the count is approximately 1<sup>1/2</sup>. Comparing them is completely different. Unfortunately I don't know about the gibsonton squatters affair so I can't discuss. Regardless, it was hitting the nail into the coffin of what turned out to be a colossal hissee fit over becoming "mayor of malton" imo and it seems you're following suite. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig3}} 15:20, 5 July 2010 (BST)
::::::I still fail to see what is threatening or bad faith about Rev's actions here. Had he been posting notices for anything else this would have been overlooked and seen as not being bad faith. I'm jumping on this not because of the election (look at it, there's no way I'm winning it now, I already pulled out all the stops like a week ago), but because a man who committed no vandalism is being escalated because of some bullshit tantrum thrown by a rival. The conduct surrounding this thing has been deplorable and I refuse to stand by while someone who has actually kept things above board the entire time becomes the only person actually punished in the whole affair. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 15:28, 5 July 2010 (BST)

I've read the [[vandalism]] page, and I fail to see how Revenant's actions qualify.
:''On this wiki, we define Vandalism as "an edit not made in a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki". ... We make the following notes on what isn't vandalism: An unwanted edit to any page.''
The fact that the banners were probably annoying doesn't make them a violation of the rules. They were properly attributed, weren't misleading, weren't deletions of existing content, etc. I would appreciate it if the people who are voting for vandalism can point out exactly what part of the policy Revenant's actions violated. -- {{User:Aphelion/sig}} 19:04, 5 July 2010 (BST)


====Response by accused====
:''Originally posted at [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARevenant&diff=1736565&oldid=1736533 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. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 13:43, 5 July 2010 (BST)

*Also, point of order: as an involved party, sysop [[User:DanceDanceRevolution|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. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 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 ([[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Yonnua_Koponen/2010|1]]). Not misconductable, I'm afraid. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig3}} 15:20, 5 July 2010 (BST)
*::Please read the following: [[wikipedia:conflict of interest|conflict of interest]], [[wikipedia:prior restraint|prior restraint]]. Go on, I'll wait. Then come back here and prove my point some more, why don't you? <tt><3</tt> {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 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.

<small>(Blob, this place is a clusterfuck. Now I am back I think I would have run for sysop even without Grim's Faustian bargain.)</small> {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 19:17, 5 July 2010 (BST)
:And please [[Talk:Mayor_of_Malton/2010/Election#Vote_striking.2C_or.2C_.22Why_do_you_hate_Democracy.3F.22|see here]] for why '''no page rules were breached''', either. <tt>;)</tt> {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 19:20, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Oh, and '''Vandalism''' Deleting other people's votes? Not cool. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 21:03, 5 July 2010 (BST)
:Which I feel comes under the "Blanking sections" area of the vb policy. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 21:10, 5 July 2010 (BST)