UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2010 12

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.

There were a bunch of spambit-looking account creations on the 17th, these are the live ones at present.

• HaroldBeaman (contribs | logs | block | del userpage | IP Check)
• HallieKetcham7 (contribs | logs | block | del userpage | IP Check)
• AlexanderNoyes7 (contribs | logs | block | del userpage | IP Check)--Cheese 17:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  Damn I legit missed these, thanks. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

December 2010

User:Survivor 2.0 and User:Zombieman 11

Zombieman 11 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict
Action taken	{{{2}}}

Survivor 2.0 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Someone want to confirm they're the same person for me via checkuser. Thanks. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

actually this is my roomate u banned his other account nexus thinking it was me please dont ban him he is not me--Zombieman 11 23:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Orly. It's sharing the same IP, as well as being a virtual clone activity-wise. I am outright calling you a liar now. Prove me wrong. 23:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

fine i will--Zombieman 11 00:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Same IP. If it vandalises, it should be banned, and Zombieman gets another escalation -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 07:08 20 December 2010 (BST)

User:Zombieman 11 (3)

Zombieman 11 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

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

Told you we should have hoofed him right out. 01:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You had me in agreement. I still don't know why he wasn't 3ER'd, since not a single one of his "good faith" edits had remained intact prior to today (including those ones cited by others on the talk page), and fully 2/3 of his edits were clearly intentional vandalism. Now, though, you can't 3ER him anyway, since he has some legit contributory edits. He really needs to be brought up for all of the pages he's vandalizing. Going on a tantrum that spans a half-dozen or more pages is clearly a case of extreme bad faith and is much worse than someone who only engages in a single misdeed, yet for some reason they're being handled the same way, which simply isn't right. People shouldn't get a pass just because they do all of their acts of vandalism within a few minutes of each other. If the 'ops aren't going to escalate because they're shy about doing multiple escalations for one case, I'm inclined to just make separate cases for each act. This should be obvious. —Aichon— 08:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, the entire escalations system is stupid, but counting vandal sprees as one escalation has always been how cases are done, so make a policy allowing discrete punishments or live with it, I'm afraid. :( --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that's how it's always been done. Really, what allows you to escalate multiple times is that there are separate parts to the spree. In his case, I wouldn't suggest escalations for every edit, obviously, since that'd be foolish, but escalations for every page or every set of actions actually make a good deal of sense. And we definitely have escalated people repeatedly in a short period of time before, so long as their spree has separate aspects to it, such as these. Anyway, meh. Career vandal is a career vandal. As soon as someone pisses him off, he'll get himself banned, and if he actually reforms, I certainly won't complain. —Aichon— 19:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

One precedent against the millions of times it's been counted as one offence is hardly worth writing home about, especially since it's been assumed to be one as early as 2006. Also, talk page.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

As a victim of the vandal spree, I'd say Aich is an involved party. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Anyway, it's precedent, not policy, and a bad one at that. It should simply be tossed for something more sane. Beyond that, I'm not going to argue it any further. —Aichon— 20:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I Agree with Misanthropy--Zombieman 11 02:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism. And is the above comment a self request? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Warned, and his alt, Nexus banned as a vandal alt -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:44 19 December 2010 (BST)

User:Zombieman 11 (2)

Zombieman 11 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warning

Special:Contributions/Zombieman 11. Multiple full and partial page wipes in an attempt to throw teddy from the pram. Have temp banned him for 2 hours to get a ruling on this without having to keep reverting wipes in the meantime. I'd be inclined to treat each page he's vandalised as a separate incident, but that's because I'm a cunt and don't particularly care to see him here any longer. 03:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Proper Vandalism I'd throw in 2 escalations. Anyone mind if I leave an in depth "if you don't know how to do stuff do this and this on his page? If He continues to ignore it we'll throw in a bunch of other stuff. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism - 1 warning and time served. He tried to contribute, failed badly, and chucked a tanty. None of which changes the escalation system -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:30 18 December 2010 (BST)

Vandalism - As Boxy.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 13:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Warned -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 23:00 18 December 2010 (BST)

User:Zombieman 11

Zombieman 11 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

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

sigh, again, soft/warning time? -- LEMON #1 01:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism. Has been told specifically several times how to go about things, and I made particular note to remind him not to remove others' comments when posting. He's ignored this and continued to break things. 02:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, his talk page is flooded with helpful suggestions that he's completely ignored through and through. -- LEMON #1 03:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Aichon was friendly a week ago, so I say Soft Warning this week. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Soft Warning for now, as Ross.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Ooooooo another one, sept this one's official, that'll make him listen! -- LEMON #1 23:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Well if he doesn't then it's easy enough to start escalating him. Right now, he isn't hurting anyone, so (soft) warning him is the right way to go.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 00:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Not vandalism - newb -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 23:00 18 December 2010 (BST)

User:Poodle of doom

Poodle of doom (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	{{{2}}}

Spamming stuff. Specifically some nonsense on Kevan's talk page and an arbitration case against DDR that had no serious grounds.--(Thad)eous Oakley ^Talk 18:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

He has also been unofficially warned for this and asked to stop on these pages by people but he chose to seemingly ignore it. --(Thad)eous Oakley ^Talk 18:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Simply going to say not vandalism for the time being because I fucking hate messy cases across several admin sections. Whilst Poodle was being an annoying twat, it genuinely seemed to me to be an A/A matter so I'm not willing to rule for an escalation on VB. 18:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

In what way is this an A/A case? The way I see it, Ross' complaint was that Poodle was "senselessly spamming". Spamming's always been a VB issue, and it shouldn't be dealt with on Arbitration. The only distinction is that Arbies deals with edit conflicts, which this in no way is. Whether you think he's committed vandalism, he hasn't, or he deserves just a soft warning, it should still be a matter for VB.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, though I respect your decision. However, spamming has been dealt with on A/VB before, multiple times, and whether this case here is vandalism or not I do believe it should be dealt with here rather than A/A. --(Thad)eous Oakley ^Talk 18:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a case of staying away from a single user's talk page, which has always been arbitration material. Just because that user is Kevan doesn't mean it should follow a different set of circumstances. 18:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That's an arbitration punishment, not a reason for creating arbitration. Read Ross' complaint. He says the problem is spam.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The spamming of a single user's talk page, and the way to combat that is with an A/A case where the creater is seeking a bar on commenting there. VB spam cases have dealt with profilic edits to many pages, not with unwanted edits to a single talk. Regardless of the terminology used, this should still be an A/A case with Ross or anyone else seeking to just put a block on Poodle commenting on Kev's talk page. An escalation doesn't fix the issue, it just escalates someone who is likely to do it again anyway, whereas a ruling would create a situation where every edit there would rack up these cases quicker than individually bringing them without one would, acting as an actual deterrent. 18:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you seem to be breaking the eggnog open early this year. He's done spam, which is a vandal offence. Vandal offences are dealt with on Vandal banning. Running in and yelling that it's an arbies issue makes no sense, especially since you're arguing a precedent which doesn't exist. Harassment is most likely what you're thinking of, where two fighting users get a cool off period not to argue with each other. If I repeatedly posted the word "Hello" on your talk page every day for a month, I'd go on VB for spamming your talk page. I wouldn't go to arbitration. It's quite possibly the most well known precedent. Ross didn't even ask for Poodle to be banned from kevan's talk, he asked him to stop spamming it with comments about snow.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. He's looking for a prevention of future edits, not a warning based on past edits. VB is to deal with events that have happened, arbies for events happening or likely to happen - to prevent future comments to Kevan's talk page, an arbitration ruling is the way to go, not a warning for previous edits. Regardless of whether it's considered spam or not, it's about restraining future edits from occuring, and that's the purpose of arbitration, not of VB. I'm not getting into whether or not spam is VBable. I'm saying that preventing a user from commenting on another user's talk page, spam or no spam, is an A/A matter. 18:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

No, that's actually not what arbitration is, by a literal definition, by a wiki definition or by any definition. It's for resolving conflicts between users.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Present conflicts or forseeable future conflicts. You can't resolve something that's already over. Hence, arbitration - by usage, not by definition - is for dealing with present and near-future issues, and that's what this is. It's an issue about possible future edits. 19:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

But it isn't a conflict between two users, so what you said makes no sense.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It is clearly a conflict between Ross and those who agree with him, and Poodle. 19:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ross told him to stop. So did DDR, before him. Thad also said to stop before him. This is in no way a conflict between Ross and anyone. This is about Poodle doing something which is against the rules of the wiki, and Ross telling him to stop. It's a vandal case.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

But it's not against the rules. The only thing resembling a rule on this mentions prolific page editing, not a few edits to one page. He was asked to stop simply because it was annoying, not in any official function due to rules being breached. Therefore it's a case of conflict between the party wanting him to not do it again, of which Ross, as the A/A case starter, is a figurehead, and Poodle. VBing someone in order to stop future happenings is a stupid idea, as it's meant to be used to apply escalations for infractions that have already incurred. VBing Poodle now to stop him editing Kevan's page in the future, all over some vague interpretation of what isn't really a rule, is a terrible idea, when this should simply have remained an A/A case asking him to stop. 19:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the first person to warn him (as I said a minute ago) was DDR, who did warn him in an official capacity and threaten vandalism. And since you keep trying to pretend nobody's accused him of spamming, which is vandalism, even Ross accused him of that.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That's clearly not what I'm saying at all. Don't put words in my mouth - just read what I'm actually saying. What I'm saying is that the point of this case is to stop him doing it again. Regardless of whether it is spam or not, and I don't care if it is because it's irrelevant, the prevention of future edits to a user talk page is the domain of A/A. This case doesn't hinge on punishing Poodle for past spam and being done with it, or I'd have voted vandalism and washed my hands. The purpose here is to do something constructive for the community by stopping future unwanted and annoying edits to Kevan's talk page, regardless of spam or intent or any of that, and the way to do that is through A/A. I can't be any clearer than that, but you don't seem to be grasping me. I am not arguing over the issue of spam. I only brought it up in order to show that it's not a clear-cut VB case and should be A/Aed. I'm saying that this is the wrong avenue to use in order to pursue the goal at hand. A/VB is for doling out escalations for past offences and being done with it, and hoping they don't repeat them. A/A is for trying to reach a ruling on contentious issues which aren't actually over yet, and for trying to prevent future issues from happening. Poodle posting bullshit to Kev's talk in the future is something that is beyond the scope of an A/VB case. So the way to stop it is to pursue an A/A case with the aim of barring him from posting there as a result. That is it. That is what I am saying. 19:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Right, can you stop saying that A/A is to do with current or future issues, because it isn't. It's to do with mitigating conflicts between users, VB is to do with vandalism. It doesn't matter for fuck if the vandalism is a recurring problem and the goal is preventing it by warning or bannign the user. If it's vandalism, it MUST go here. You previously said if this case were about punishing Poodle, then you'd vote vandalism. So why the fuck haven't you voted vandalism? This is a VB case, so don't vote based on some stupid line of thought that you don't ever want him to post on Kevan's talk again. That isn't what this case is about, and it isn't even what Ross started the case about. He said specifically, he didn't want the spam to continue. It's a VB matter, so stop whining about how it should be on Arbitration, and rule based on the fact that it's here.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

OH MY FUCKING CHRIST. I give up. You are obviously not reading what I'm typing at all or you'd know exactly what I mean by current and future issues. A/A CAN'T FUCKING CHANGE WHAT IS OVER AND DONE WITH SO ALL OF ITS CASES ARE BY DEFAULT ONES THAT ARE HAPPENING (CURRENT) OR ARE TO BE AVOIDED (FUTURE). FUCKING SERIOUSLY. I am voting as I did. Because I believe that this is the wrong way to go about this issue, as I have spent too long explaining. 19:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

/Discussion. Time for a break. --(Thad)eous Oakley ^Talk 19:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Soft Warning - The posting every day was really annoying, but he mostly stopped after the "I'll take you to VB" from DDR. He did post twice more afterwards, but imo they weren't enough to constitute full blown spam. I say soft warn him officially, and if he does it again start piling on escalations.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism - He's been doing crap like this for a while, in the forms of A/A cases and annoying messages on peoples talk pages. The reason he should be warned is because this time he was TOLD what he was doing was wrong and kept doing it anyway, while full well knowing the preciousness of the page for serious conversation. If he'd done this on any other talk page no one would have cared, but spamming on Kevan's talk, which is the only communication medium we have to publicly contact him, is a no-no, and Poodle knew this.

In fact, I don't know why people are saying that after I "warned" him, he stopped harassing Kevan about snow and started spamming nonsense, as if it's a good thing in his defence. If anything, that's miles worse because all it shows is that he disregarded the reason he was spamming (which was legitimate, although way too harassing imo), and just resorted to spamming paragraphs of nonsense instead. He knew it was wrong, he was told it many many times and kept going, somehow thinking he was being funny or clever or witty or ironic or whatever he thinks when he does this garbage. He needs to get this "the wiki is my playground for dumb and lols and making nonsense" shit out of his system. -- LEMON #1 00:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Not vandalism - at the moment. Do take it as a warning not to be deliberately annoying to third parties, even on talk pages, though. Eventually it will be deemed vandalism -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:28 9 December 2010 (BST)

Closed as Not Vandalism with 2 votes for Vandalism and 2 votes for Not Vandalism.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)