UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2010 07

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)

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)

Permaed, btw -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:38 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 --Rosslessness^{Want 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)

REYeah, I have done this a couple of times, reliant on the "good faith effort" clause saving me. But if people want to ramp up this stuff, lets have a discussion. Not Vandalism --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:02, 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)

Ehhh Ok...I'll go back to stalking the recent changes page now.-- Jerrel tlk _{(82nd!) (Project Unwelcome!)}. 04:29, 14 July 2010 (BST)

Well, if it were perfectly clear cut, it would be, but I can see how someone might have room for disagreement, so it's still open. —Aichon— 04:31, 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)

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.

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)

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)

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 --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	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. --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)

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)

lol irony? ;P ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 08:52, 10 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)

  Don't worry, I can wait equally as long as you before you have the revelation that IRL =/= UDWiki. --

   

   

   

   

  04:00, 7 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)

Yes, well, perhaps it would have been better if you'd been asked not to do it before being brought here, but that doesn't make it "not vandalism" once it was reported, especially for someone who's been around long enough to know better. Also, it doesn't help your case, that you were basically threatening survivors with PKing if they didn't vote for you. Suck it up, it's a warning... you won the mayoral race, get over it -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:37 6 July 2010 (BST)

That's some bullshit reasoning there, Box. "So you won a contest, stop trying to appeal an undeserved punishment". 13:12, 7 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)

So, yeah

It wasn't vandalism because they were in on it. Do I need to elaborate further, or will that suffice? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 09:32, 7 July 2010 (BST)

WTF does that have to do with A/VB, Revenant? Please tell me you're not spamming admin pages to get people to read your bullshit speeches -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:11 7 July 2010 (BST)

OK. Try this for a spin: spam is defined as "unsolicited or undesired electronic messages". We arranged the whole canvassing thing as a send up. Meaning they were both solicited and desired. Is that enough, yet, or must I go on? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 12:20, 7 July 2010 (BST)

Mine wasn't.... -_∞ Poodle of Doom _∞ 13:23, 7 July 2010 (BST)

Desired? Fuck off. --

 

 

 

 

13:49, 7 July 2010 (BST)

I believe you cited 20 spams as the precedent, yes? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 14:12, 7 July 2010 (BST)

I believe I cited Karke's well-worded sentence. You can read it above. The situational thing, so even though you'rs already qualified as vandalism by numbers, it's also a situational thing and I believe yours counted as unecessary spam. Unecessary even more so since you got mayor without even needing it --

 

 

 

 

14:23, 7 July 2010 (BST)

Woulda coulda shoulda. Your de facto prior restraint on my contacting people via the wiki meant I re-evaluated and shifted focus to an arena which was less anal-retentive, after considering and deciding against just going around your obviously hasty and biased intervention. ("Closing hours"? With ~2 days to go? Give me a fucking break; I wasn't born yesterday, sunshine.) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 06:06, 10 July 2010 (BST)

There were around 12 hours to go in the voting out of a two week long voting period when he said that. I'd call that "closing hours". —Aichon— 08:04, 10 July 2010 (BST)

Also: It has to do with VB because it is the page the case stemmed from. Or are you saying you don't read the evidence that gets presented in these cases? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 14:13, 7 July 2010 (BST)

You specifically linked to the "victory speech" part of the page. I see no relevance whatsoever. And I've already read the election page, thanks, when it was linked above -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:03 7 July 2010 (BST)

Here you go demanding we listen to "evidence" which isn't even evidence, it's just the opinion of the accused, you. That doesn't count as evidence bro --

 

 

 

 

14:23, 7 July 2010 (BST)

I can haz reeding compreehenshun? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 06:09, 10 July 2010 (BST)

Wikipedia:Testimony

In the law, testimony is a form of evidence that is obtained from a witness who makes a solemn statement or declaration of fact.

So, basically what you're saying is that anyone voting for anyone but you in an election is specifically inviting you to cut'n'paste campaign material to their talk pages. Ummm, no, that is not a reasonable assumption at all. It is, as you say, spin.
If all candidates for elections felt free to spam campaign material like you did, to anyone who "signed up for it" simply by voting, it would be a significant disincentive to voting on anything on the wiki. If you want to "legalise" spamming, I suggest A/PD -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:03 7 July 2010 (BST)

^^ --

 

 

 

 

17:19, 7 July 2010 (BST)

Boxy, if my intent was to spam the wiki (as you continue to so quaintly call my tongue-in-cheek notices to a group of people who, by and large, should have gotten the joke if they were paying proper attention… maybe I expect too much of people?), I assure you that I would not do so by the laughably inefficient method of posting templates on people's pages by hand. That's strictly amateur league. Hell, it's not even skiddie stuff. Since you've read the Election page, you've no doubt seen Red Hawk One's Voter Apathy Party analysis? THAT would be my starting point, were I ever to "spam" the wiki, and in all likelihood I could have done so while maintaining plausible deniability, or, in the case of just emailing every registered user, without you even realising. It would not have been hard, either.
I say this not a a threat, but simply as a demonstration of how much I could have done. Instead, I complied with the interim ruling, compromised by conflict of interest though it was, and did my best to play the contest as it developed.
Honestly, am I the only one who remembers this? ↓ ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:16, 10 July 2010 (BST)

UDWiki:Vandalism

It is considered extremely poor form to automatically assume that a person's edit was an act of vandalism. On UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning, Sysops are expected to always look at an edit in the light of a good-faith edit, rather than assume guilt, and we expect that the user has attempted to contact the user regarding the edit.

I'm not seeing the relevance either. It looks to me like Mis, Rev, and Jorm were all in on the joke. Okay. But what about Kyle's voters? His voters were the ones that were spammed, and from the responses we saw on a few of their talk pages and here, those ads were clearly unsolicited and undesired. The whole "20" thing is being played up a bit much, I think, when we should just be looking at the fact that these people clearly did not want the message you were copy/pasting and you did it a load of times. That's textbook-definition spam. End of story. Rev, you know I consider you a friend, but I think you're simply wrong in this case and I don't see how it being a big planned joke changes the fact that those messages were unwelcome in the first place. It wasn't funny for those people, and I'm not finding this whole fracas particularly funny now (aside from in a very sad sort of way). —Aichon— 19:58, 7 July 2010 (BST)

barhah dot com • View topic - Mayor of Malton ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:24, 10 July 2010 (BST)

I'm still missing the relevance entirely. I was reading that barhah.com topic the entire time it was around (I even linked it from my talk page back on June 2nd), but I fail to see how it responds to what I said in any meaningful way. At what point did the voter's whose pages you posted those notices to give you the go-ahead to spam them? That's what I'm looking for. Anything less than that and all I see is that you rapidly posted unwanted material to a load of people's pages who never "opted-in" to getting messages from you. That sounds, as I said before, like textbook-definition spam, and I don't see how the topic that you linked changes that in the least. —Aichon— 04:49, 10 July 2010 (BST)

I'll answer with another question. What is the purpose of a talk page? Specifically, a user talk page? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 06:02, 10 July 2010 (BST)

While I fail to see the relevance (that makes three times in a row), I'll answer. The purpose is to talk to that person. I'll expand that to include activities such as using the page to establish contact or notifying the user in case of a problem (e.g. Yonn's orphan messages). But copy/pasting a message to lots of people isn't talking to them (it's "talking" to them in the same way that junk mail "talks" to me), nor is it a means of establishing contact (else you would have tailored your comments and would have followed up), nor is it a case of notifying them of a problem (unless voting for Kyle is a problem). Essentially, I feel that you misused their talk pages.

That out of the way, I'm an extremely logical type, and I feel that your answers to most of our questions are leading us by the nose. I act in goodwill when someone cries, "I have new evidence," in response to our judgments, I'm not averse to overturning my verdict, and I willingly investigate what is said, but you can only go so far before the goodwill is spent, since I'm under no obligation to continually consider at length comments that I see as irrelevant. I expect straight answers to my straight questions, and if you're serious about trying to change my opinion, you'll need to provide them. Right now, it looks like you're treating this like a big joke (which is being played on all of the sysops participating). —Aichon— 08:04, 10 July 2010 (BST)

Aichon said:

The purpose is to talk to that person.

THANK YOU. Finally someone with an idea of how things are actually supposed to work!
So, now, my follow-up question is this: how, exactly, otherwise should I have contacted people who, in general, rarely visit the wiki except when called here to vote on something? (Hint: This is exactly what talk pages are for.) It's called a talk page for a reason. I used a template for the same reason people use {{WelcomeNewbie}} (OK, bad example, welcome templates suck and ours more than any other I've seen, but bear with me) – it's quick, it's easy to post and easy to remove if undesired by the page owner.
I actually had a nice chat with a few people who responded to my messages – who knows how many more would have responded if they hadn't been deleted by people who at the time supported another side? – and not one of them except DanceDanceRevolution (or, later MoonShine, for obvious reasons) decided to report it as Vandalism. It's also worth noting that this report was not preceded by any attempt at talk page contact, riddled with ad hominem personal attacks, assumes bad faith right off the bat, and was "decided" on by him, citing time constraints where no such existed: In short, a more flagrant sysop violation of UDWiki:Vandalism guidelines I'd be hard-pressed to put my hands on at short notice.
If it seems like I'm "leading you by the nose", it's only because I'm continually more surprised: surely I can't be the only one who sees this? Hint: look at all the emotional words he uses. There is a reason I didn't respond in the initial section: I want it to be clear as day when you read it. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 09:26, 10 July 2010 (BST)

Just remember I didn't actually bring you here specifically for spamming, I brought you here for other actions that turned out to be honky dory and I left it once proven otherwise- I didn't actually atttempt to have the spam labelled as vandalism because I didn't realise the extent to which you'd done it (as demonstrated later when I thought I'd removed it all but only actually removed 50%). I don't know if that clears anything up but I felt compelled to explain it because you seem to think I assumed bad faith off the bat- Perhaps on the other accusations in the case, yes, since I was juxtaposing hard-line and well-established voting guidelines onto a simple community page, but the sysops handled that accordingly and I've very rarely had a problem in the past if sysops overrule me in voting process- I am more than confident in their abilities and I showed my faith in that here. Also, cases are judged on their merit and evidence not the way they are brought so any anger about ad hominems or petty quips are as transparent as the effect of the offensive remarks themselves, at leased when it comes to dealing with the case. Moreso onto the topic of ruling quickly: If what I'd posted you up for was to be deemed vandalism, it would have to have been done and ruled on as soon as possible if the offence was something that gave you an advantage over other candidates (note that if it was vandalism it would have made it an unfair advantage if by the time it was deemed so, the effect of what you'd done had already made its message to the targets of the spam) so the argument of my reluctancy to leave the case for long before ruling is a little over-the-top IMO, since 1. I had much sysop support via votes, 2. time was in the balance (I didn't want you swaying votes in the time it took for us to rule that your method of gaining those votes was vandalism) and 3. the only responses you'd gotten from the "spam victims" was less than accepting (see here and here, not including my own removal of the spam for obvious bias reasons). Also, your argument regarding using that as the only method to contact those users would be a whole lot more solid if they weren't meatpuppets (not all, but a vast majority) and hence only visit the wiki when asked rather than to check their talk page. If, say, of the users you spammed a majority of them were regulars (I see you hit up me and sexualharrison, ross, poodle, rddr, etc.) I probably wouldn't have thought it so bad at all. --

 

 

 

 

10:11, 10 July 2010 (BST)

So, wait. You're saying it was spam because… I was posting on the talk pages of contributors who weren't going to read it? AHAHAHAHAHA ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 21:34, 10 July 2010 (BST)

I meant read it in time. They'll get it in a month when they're called back onto the wiki and blah blah i don't know why i'm even arguing with you anymore. i should be turning my back liek the other ops. --

 

 

 

 

03:29, 11 July 2010 (BST)

To be honest, I don't know why exactly you are still arguing this, the sysops have obviously turned their back on the case because they still think their rulings are right, as do I, and the only reason I'm still here is because I seem to be held personally responsible for all their votes by you and I also think our (ie the sysops which i supported) logic is contrary to yours, not that one is more correct than the other but in the way that you should try and understand ours just as much as you understand yours, otherwise you aren't going to stop arguing, which by the looks of it will continue to go nowhere. --

 

 

 

 

10:11, 10 July 2010 (BST)

My issues with this case are mostly procedural, to be honest. Once the well is poisoned it's very hard to cleanse. Also, FYI, this could all have been sorted by posting on the relevant talk page, like it says to do in UDWiki:Vandalism (and, y'know, the little boxes at the top of this page that you have to go past to post this) rather than taking this straight to A/VB – just like the first one was. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 21:34, 10 July 2010 (BST)

This was handled appallingly. Simply asking Rev to stop, or expressing your opinion that it might be vandalism, would have worked much better, DDR. Compare how Yon sorted out his grievance with Jorm, via first asking him, then using A/A to reach an agreement, rather than going straight to A/VB to report it and hope for the outcome to go his way. Rev used the talk pages of users to talk to them, and instead of following suit and talking to him, you rushed through a bullshit case that was over before he could even respond (before he even knew it was being considered!), or I could even rule in it. 21:46, 10 July 2010 (BST)

See, now here I was assuming that you and Yonnua hadn't ruled because you were involved parties and were avoiding conflict of interest. Y'know, like good sysops. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:03, 10 July 2010 (BST)

Umm, that is why I haven't ruled... What other reason would there be?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:07, 10 July 2010 (BST)

Quite. My point was not directed at you; rather, I was contrasting your conduct with a certain other sysop's. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 23:08, 10 July 2010 (BST)

As the others were communicating through edit summaries during the edit conflicts (particularly revenenant), a practice not uncommon during edit wars, I also gave him several (I specifically remember at leased 3 or 4) warnings of either protection and A/VB and yet Rev persisted. I actually gave him more than enough warning. And don't give me the "oh subverting talk page waa" bullshit because I know you were more than capable (if not obliged since you use edit summaries to communicate regularly) of reading them and I don't doubt you did, since you stopped when I gave you the last warning before I was to protect Mayor of Malton page and you stopped. Now stop crying, particularly you Misanthropy, about how I "handled" the case. The sysops supported this through a vote, yet you blame the man who brought it to them? "He handled it so poorly, he saw vandalism, submitted it, and it was accepted as vandalism by the ruling bodies, so it's the original guys fault for submitting it". Your bias is putting you in as poor light as it was when you made the case against me above, Misanthropy. Do yourself a favour and take a step back, or just rule not vandalism and be on your way like a respectable sysop would do in this position. Since there is no indication that either of you are actually going to stop QQing about this, I might consider just ignoring this section of A/VB for the next 3 weeks as per the sysops who actually voted on this and hence are as responsible as I am for Revenant's warning, you know, the ones who supported the warning, yet I'm some sort of boogieman? Fuck me, don't know how many times I'm going to have to say it before you stop acting like headless chickens preaching about how I'm some sort of evil arsehole. --

 

 

 

 

03:38, 11 July 2010 (BST)

e Vandal Banning Archive

2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Q3 Q4 2013 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Years 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020