UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2011 04

April 2011

User:WOOT

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

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

He's at it again. -- Cheese 15:52, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Vandalism - He really needs to stop.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:16, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Assuming that this is ruled vandalism, I think it'll be another month ban with a perma vote, and if that's the case, I want to say right now that I'm voting no to a permaban, just in case my internet cuts out again next week.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:54, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Has been told to stop it last time, and hasn't shaped up since in his contributions. Such I can't recognize it as a serious bid, while as a joke bid it is a lame repetition of something that already got him escalated once. Vandalism. -- Spiderzed▋ 16:43, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Vandalism - Consistent with earlier cases with WOOT. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 20:28, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Since this will likely be another escalation for WOOT, he'll receive a month ban as a minimum or permaban if we decide as such. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 20:35, 10 April 2011 (BST)

vandalism -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 22:47, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Permaban Vote

Sysops Only

1. No. While this is getting pretty dumb, his antics are easily stopped and of mild nature. Perma-ban isn't necessary, and nobody really seems to mind him. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 20:35, 10 April 2011 (BST)
2. No. Annoying? Sure. Worthy of a permaban? A very far shot from it. -- Spiderzed▋ 20:55, 10 April 2011 (BST)
3. No. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:45, 10 April 2011 (BST)
4. No - Just slipping my no from above in to the tally, and I think it's now conclusively not a permaban.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:02, 10 April 2011 (BST)
5. no -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 22:47, 10 April 2011 (BST)

I don't see how puttin myself up for Sysops is vandalism at all. I was 100% serious and I believe that I am the person that this wiki needs. Haters gonna hate.--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 23:15, 10 April 2011 (BST)

User:Venorx

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

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	3 edit rule

Phishing. Kill it with fire. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 02:47, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Just undid its contribs. Recommend block per DDR (3er). ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 02:53, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Aha, looks like Vapor ninja'd me: rollback button > undoing 3 separate edits complete with edit summaries. Quick on the draw, I see. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:28, 10 April 2011 (BST)

vandalism - 3er? -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:51, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Vandalism. And 3ER indeed: 4 edits, of which 75% are obvious vandalism. -- Spiderzed▋ 02:53, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Vandalism. And yeah 3er. ~ _{02:54, 10 April 2011}

Permabanned as per 3ER. -- Spiderzed▋ 02:55, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Added {{banneduser}} to user and talk pages. Presumably these could use locking? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 08:27, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Scratch that, should be deleted. ↓ ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 08:35, 10 April 2011 (BST)

“	The User: pages of permabanned spambots and vandal alts (that have no contributions showing) are to be deleted on sight.	”
—Scheduled deletions

I knew I forgot something in last night's hurry. This is however a matter of protection, as Venorx is neither an adbot, nor a vandal alt of someone who was already banned. (Not that deletion would change much given the lack of content on either site.) -- Spiderzed▋ 13:46, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Yeah and he still has contributions showing. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 13:57, 10 April 2011 (BST)

I understood “contributions showing” to mean contributions which were still visible without delving into edit histories. If this is not the case, then so be it; although a case could be made that retaining the userpages serves no useful purpose, that discussion belongs on A/PD. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 23:09, 10 April 2011 (BST)

In that case… *cough* ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 23:27, 10 April 2011 (BST)

User:Bankschroef

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

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

Come on. If Cornhole got taken down for something like this once, then "Banky" should go down as well. Photos from the Holocaust, blatant rascism and linking to some rather macabre stuff. Smyg 16:16, 9 April 2011 (BST)

I have to think a bit about that case, but want to point out that Cornholioo was escalated for spamming an administration page with his racist garbage. Group pages get much much more leeway. You better find a different precedent if you wish to sway opinion. -- Spiderzed▋ 16:29, 9 April 2011 (BST)

Meh, not competent enough for that. Smyg 16:33, 9 April 2011 (BST)

On further thought, I remember this case against Martino just a year ago. It is slightly different as the edit was done on someone else's talk page, but the image was also deleted back then. Unfortunately, I don't remember what the image exactly was, and if it was of the same magnitude as the one on the WT page. -- Spiderzed▋ 16:45, 9 April 2011 (BST)

I remember the image, basically the remains of holocaust victims, fully nude. More graphic than this one, in my opinion, but in that case the vandal used the image on another persons talk page for flaming. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 16:54, 9 April 2011 (BST)

Something like this -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 16:59, 9 April 2011 (BST)

It's bullshit, it's offensive but I'm actually not seeing that much "blatant" racism. Maybe that line about jews forcing multiculti upon us but meh. Also Spiderzed raises an interesting point. I'm not to keen on escalating him simply for being offensive, especially on his own group page. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 16:36, 9 April 2011 (BST)

The "blatant rascism" was mostly about the fact that he's saying that the Jews deserved to die.. Smyg 19:12, 9 April 2011 (BST)

I read the page 3 times, I don't see the line where he says that unless you mean the image. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 19:38, 9 April 2011 (BST)

Really? You can't see that from the picture with the Jewish man being shot in a mass grave with the text below it saying everyone gets what they deserve? For reals? --Karek^maps?! 19:42, 9 April 2011 (BST)

Eh, sorry, you're probably right. I'm probably misinterpreting the context of the image. It's just that I find the way this wiki handles nazi's confusing, because we do allow swastika's and we do allow this. We shouldn't allow it, IMO. But we do, and I'm trying to figure out how that relates to this case. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 19:56, 9 April 2011 (BST)

Well, there's two major differences there. The first is that that looks to be an anti-group group Queer Jew and the like were around for some time iirc. The second is that those other pages are using nazi symbolism but are not being blatantly racist, you can actually have one without the other and as distasteful as using the symbols of that group can be to some people it's not actually racist. --Karek^maps?! 20:07, 9 April 2011 (BST)

So basically, it's all about in what context it's placed. Is logical, I guess an all or nothing attitude doesn't apply here. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 20:11, 9 April 2011 (BST)

Plus, the Nazi Party of Malton aren't actually, you know, Nazis. Just out to offend by using Nazi symbolism. Smyg 20:14, 9 April 2011 (BST)

Well maybe Cornholio isn't a nazi either, just a massive troll we don't know that. But that's irrelevant here. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 20:16, 9 April 2011 (BST)

I mean that the NPM aren't actually trying to look like Nazis, they're obviously just trolls. Corny on the other hand is trying to appear like an actual genocidal maniac. Smyg 20:20, 9 April 2011 (BST)

I Promise you there were more real nazis in Nazi Party of Malton than there were in any of Cornholioo's groups put together. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 15:01, 10 April 2011 (BST)

I figure from that you had two real nazis? -- Spiderzed▋ 15:09, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Pretty much! -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 15:41, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Here's something semi-relevant. User posted a goatsie picture on his user page and got escalated. Anything holocaust-y should probably go the same way. Just my thoughts. -- Cheese 17:38, 9 April 2011 (BST)

Porn =/= Holocaust. That image was wiped because we don't allow such graphic sexual material. This image is used to offend, and perhaps for racism. I gotta say I'm very much on the fence here though. It's offensive and plain wrong just disgusting, but it's his page and we have that freedom of speech thing. It has nothing to do with urbandead, but so does a lot of content on this wiki. I'm unsure how to think about the level of racism. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 19:37, 9 April 2011 (BST)

In the porn context, you might want to consider the link he added to the WT page. It's.. bad. Very bad. Smyg 20:01, 9 April 2011 (BST)

Here's the revision where I removed the link. We've always considered links like that as vandalism in the past iirc. It's obviously absolutely not ok. --Karek^maps?! 20:20, 9 April 2011 (BST)

Vandalism Made up my mind. This crosses a line in terms of being offensive and shocking, not mention the racism. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 20:20, 9 April 2011 (BST)

After some serious thought, a reluctant Not Vandalism. Yes, it is tasteless, yes, I'd rather see it deleted now than later, and yes, I eagerly await Bankschroef to step over the line or expose himself as Corn's sock. However, we have allowed such group pages as Nazi Party of Malton, Columbine Kids, National Socialist Union or Combat 18 for a very long time, so by applied customs and specific case editing guidelines, the freedom to maintain your group page as you wish seems to take the front seat. In the meantime, I recommend A/D in regards of the image, and arbies if you wish to see the group page changed. -- Spiderzed▋ 22:04, 9 April 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism - As spiderzed. Unfortunately a lot of what Wotan's Templar is doing is mostly protected from policy and precedent, leaving a lot of it down to interpretation and who get offended at what. Ugh, I think the content is garbage but there's policy that we can shove up Wotan's arse to severely limit the offensiveness they want to achieve. Just put the obligatory NPOV statement every group has to have at the top of their group page, for instance. Other than that, it's just idiotic roleplaying and trolling, the latter of which you'd be convinced if you'd seen them in game. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:29, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Look at the revision link above, reasses. Because we precedent says that link is vandalism. --Karek^maps?! 01:36, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Adding that link is Vandalism, you're right, I missed that. However I still don't press for deletion of the page as vandalism. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:15, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Meh, I don't really either. It's got at least three unique reasons why it shouldn't exist unrelated to that link and one that is. Without an A/U request the second recreation of that page probably should have been escalated like the first. --Karek^maps?! 02:24, 10 April 2011 (BST)

But the previous deletions were because the content was created by a permabanned user avoiding their ban, not in any way because of the content of the page. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:53, 10 April 2011 (BST)

vandalism for the link. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:56, 10 April 2011 (BST)

User:Bar27262

Bar27262 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

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

Not entirely sure if I'm allowed to post here. Apologies if not. This user has been uniformly changing suburb status to safe, regardless of the actual situation on the ground. Gordon 14:13, 9 April 2011 (BST)

Don't worry, posting here is fine. It appears Mallrat has already talked about this to him and he's agreed to rescout contested suburbs. If there's any indication there's malice behind this it's vandalism, if he's just trying to scout everything and is being lazy or stupid then it isn't. Given he's been here for a while and the fact all of his changes are to "safe" (which can't be right- though I'd like the smallest bit of proof before ruling), leaning towards vandalism. Plus he took off Whittenside's "notoriety" boldness on the map, no idea why :| -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 14:31, 9 April 2011 (BST)

Alright, I've spent about 100AP scouting various suburbs that he's listed, and for the most part, what seems like systematically going through bunches of suburbs to label safe are actually not misinformed for the most part- I tentatively scouted the 8 block mass between New Arkham and Mornington and found his reports completely accurate, and also scouted between Dentonside and Fryerbank, all were accurate except for Fryerbank, whos SE was mostly ruined, something he couldn't have missed if he actually did dissect it when scouting from Penny Heights to Miltown, as his contributions suggest. However, while most buildings were ruined there were very little zombies in sight so this may be his misinterpretation of the guidelines for "safe" vs "dangerous" etc. and not knowing the rules.

I'm still trying to judge the rationale behind this one but I'm thinking we get more input on any evidence of malice, he may rather be a guy who may just not know the rules, or has relaxed rules of scouting and just needs a friendly reminder about accuracy when reporting. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 14:51, 9 April 2011 (BST)

I'm still pondering the case as a whole. However, this edit suggests the widespread danger level changes could have been a C&P job, as there was no reason to reduce Whittenside's notoriety status. -- Spiderzed▋ 22:20, 9 April 2011 (BST)

I honestly have no idea what the user was thinking when he made these changes. The reasons I thought it was vandalism are 1) The entire southern section of the map turned green, this involved 22 suburbs being updated, a number which it seemed inconceivable that one person could scout. Even assuming multiple alts there is no way that many suburbs could be possibly scouted within 160 or even 320 IP hits. 2) Suburbs such as Gulsonside are pretty much devastated and zombie infested. Even a very cursory scout would have picked up on that. 3) The suburbs were uniformly southerly. Even assuming a newly created army of scout alts, one would assume at least one or two would have spawned towards the north. I am inclined to think that any suburbs being updated accurately is the product of a fluke rather than any actual scouting.Gordon 22:54, 9 April 2011 (BST)

Good evening, and Hi. I may of missed some buildings as i was just scouting to find any zombie events/mall tours/so on, that the wiki does not say, so yes, the sub's looked safe to me. Bar27262 01:52, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Alright. Well in future please make sure you follow the criteria when doing danger reports and please don't update suburbs that you aren't >75% sure on at least, thanks. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:22, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Question: How did you come to the conclusion that Whittenside is safe? And why did you reduce its notoriety? -- Spiderzed▋ 03:16, 10 April 2011 (BST)

I didn't mean to reduce its notoriety, that was a mistake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bar27262 (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

How did that mistake happen? When you update a danger level, you only need to change one variable (the danger level). So seeing any other part on that page changed is highly unusual. -- Spiderzed▋ 14:11, 10 April 2011 (BST)

User:The many

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

Verdict	3 edit vandalism
Action taken	permaban

Vandalizing the DHPD main page, multiple times (see contribs). -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 21:11, 8 April 2011 (BST)

3ER? -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 21:17, 8 April 2011 (BST)

Yep. Perma'd. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 06:30, 9 April 2011 (BST)

User:Shazam (3)

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

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Week Ban

Oh ho ho, how funny, a vandal spree. I just gave him a temporary block of 2 hours, since he was trying to cause as much damage as possible. I guess it's time for a week ban now. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 16:32, 7 April 2011 (BST)

Vandalism. Week ban it shall be. I also take bets on April 14. -- Spiderzed▋ 16:34, 7 April 2011 (BST)

Yeah, it's a wee bit silly we can't perma him as of now but meh, it's not like anything he does can't be fixed in five seconds. Also he uploaded the same image 5 times, under 5 different names for some reason. Off to A/SD! -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 16:39, 7 April 2011 (BST)

You can actually probably find a few vandal edits from alts of his too if I had to guess, I'm assuming that he is all of the MVU and the characters that he keeps trying to add to other pages/groups might also be secondary wiki accounts. --Karek^maps?! 16:43, 7 April 2011 (BST)

After taking a closer look at his old edits, I got to agree with Vapor. There are hardly constructive edits in Shazam's history, making him IMHO eligible for 3ER. I'd feel better if the accused were aware of the potential permaban in advance (after being threatened with just temporary bans). But then again, I strongly doubt he'd make wise use of one very final chance, looking how he reacted by vandalizing the user pages of the ops serving the warnings and bans. Perma. -- Spiderzed▋ 20:41, 7 April 2011 (BST)

Actually it should be perma by now unless you guys would like a case for every single edit he made to the Necronauts page. Relevant Link. Not to mention that the accounts history beyond a complete overhaul of the Yea Bank page, in which he mentions that he's part of that rival group shown in the above link, has been completely dominated by non-contributive vandal edits, with more than a handful of page wipes that were somehow missed previously by the sysops. This is also kinda shady, and while not letter vandalism is actually nonconducive to a good wiki and obviously bad faith. You guys can and should totally perma this guy.--Karek^maps?! 16:41, 7 April 2011 (BST)

I had the impression anything not under the "3 edit rule" has to go through the normal escalation system, but I'd happily believe otherwise.-- Thadeous Oakley Talk 16:48, 7 April 2011 (BST)

He meets the 3 edit rule actually. His group only exists to impersonate the DEM plus something like 2/3rds of his edits have been vandalism and more than a few have been missed over the course of his user history. He's obviously a vandal only account at this point. --Karek^maps?! 16:51, 7 April 2011 (BST)

If he meets the 3 edit rule, then it should have been enacted during his first or second warning a year ago, probably something went wrong there. We may as well apply it now though I guess. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 16:58, 7 April 2011 (BST)

Perma Plz. Because Karek says I can. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 16:46, 7 April 2011 (BST)

Vandalism --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:47, 7 April 2011 (BST)

Ive enacted the week ban, discuss the other stuff as you see fit. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:51, 7 April 2011 (BST)

Until its concluded, I won't update the vandal data. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:07, 7 April 2011 (BST)

Vandalism Not Perma per 3ER IMO, even when counting all edits to Yea Bank as one edit. Also made a couple of good faith edits to The Younghusband Arms in regards to Malton World Cup Committee. I have no doubt he'll go on another spree and eventually end up with a Perma ruling, however. ~ _{17:46, 7 April 2011}

Actually, after reviewing contribs again I think 3ER may apply after all. The edits to The Younghusband Arms were likely another attempt to impersonate yet another group, The Malton World Cup Committee. There is no indication that an event occurred in 2010. MWCC appears to have gone completely inactive after 2006. The overhaul made to Yea Bank cannot be "deemed to be constructive or to the benefit of the majority of the wiki." per 3ER. The contributions were just too irrelevant and obscure to are completely overshadowed by the amount of vandalism happening here. I'm ruling Perma. ~ _{18:34, 7 April 2011}

Vandalism but not perma - I've never agreed with Karek's interpretation of stretching the 3 edit rule for users like this, surprised others are. Just because he made a trolling group doesn't mean he's a dedicated vandal account which is what the 3 edit rule is supposed to stop. Besides, somehow we're expected to ignore a year of everyone thinking this guy isn't permabannable only to apply a retrospective permaban now? ew. A weeks great, then a month, if he's anywhere as bad as you guys seem to think he is he'll be on the perma vote in no time. Widening the criteria for 3er to interpretation for things like this will create more trouble than it's worth, which is why we never did it. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:06, 8 April 2011 (BST)

And I almost completely accidentally ran into this misconduct case heavily related to using that mentality with Aichon. here -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:08, 8 April 2011 (BST)

To be fair I could make his last escalation case right now if you really wanted for the edits to the Necronauts page but after certain dramas I'm really shocked you'd still consider using any case you made as relevant precedent for your points, especially when there is commentary in the ruling that this is exactly why the rule exits and there isn't comparison in the contributions of Shazam to a once productive good user banned in that case. The only edits even in question as far as non-bad faith are Yea Bank, and with the Malton World Cup Committee being added as part of it by said user even that's at best borderline. It takes more of a strech to claim relation to that precedent than it does to show Shazam is a vandalism only account and has been treated too leniently for some time due to lack of actual review on the part of the ruling sysops in his original cases. --Karek^maps?! 02:28, 8 April 2011 (BST)

Anyone can submit Shazzam here for 3er, not just a sysop, so as far as actual review goes it's not just the sysops but the whole community that has overlooked it all, still a bit much to just throw that all away because he went on one vandal spree TBH. You mention yea bank as the non-bad faith edit, and for sake of argument let's say it is so (which IMO it is), it only needs one good faith edit before a 3ER banning is invalid. As far as the link I gave, I wasn't specifically labelling it as a precedent or I would have used that word, I just said it was heavily related: it's a demonstration that the only time people have made the choice of pushing the 3ER this far it was misconducted, plus my finger was more pointing at what I said in the case (which is a retrospective of how the wiki has dealt with 3ER so far and why we haven't pushed the envelope since its creation). -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 04:21, 8 April 2011 (BST)

I really just want to know if you view his postings on behalf of the disbanded Malton World Cup Committee as group impersonation or not and if it's worth having a discussion about what is and isn't impersonation of a group or vandalism when it's done. Like is the MVU page stuff where they claim to be part of the DEM impersonation? It's probably the most worth discussion part of this case and, if I had to guess, the difference of opinion for you.--Karek^maps?! 04:39, 8 April 2011 (BST)

Vandalism - not comfortable with applying the 3 edit rule to this account though. Too many contributions, which, while they may be of questionable validity, arn't obvious vandalism, which is what the 3ER was set up to combat -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:29 8 April 2011 (BST)

It's obviously vandalism, however the matter of applying the 3ER: 3 for perma, 2 against perma, 1 not specified. We can wait another day in case someone else chips in. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:04, 8 April 2011 (BST)

Honestly, even though I consider Shazam as a three edit vandal, I am highly uncomfortable with permabanning someone on such a very slight majority and with such a contested claim. 3ER is meant for clear-cut cases with little room for argument. And while it is a different beast policy-wise, regular permaban vote requires a 2/3 majority for a reason. I might adjust my vote to plain vandalism just to keep us on the safe side in this case. -- Spiderzed▋ 09:46, 9 April 2011 (BST)

Vandalism - But not a permaban. His group page edits weren't vandalism.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:26, 9 April 2011 (BST)

Thanks Yonnua. Not enough for permaban so I'm closing this as a week ban. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 16:40, 9 April 2011 (BST)

For the record I'm fine with the ruling as it ended but i believe there should be more consensus about the rule and when it can or cannot be invoked. I'll probably open up a Policy Discussion on the point when I get a chance. ~ _{19:03, 9 April 2011}

User:DHPD Officer 666

User:DHPD Officer 666 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

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

Having just checked by creating an alt myself and wandering around the zombie covered wasteland that is Molebank, I'm happy to confirm all his recent updates to the danger map are complete balderdash. Thoughts? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:29, 6 April 2011 (BST)

I'm not real anxious to see The Dead related A/VB cases just yet. AS DDR said on A/PT, let's not be too reactionary. Perhaps just try to handle it through discussion unless it just gets ridiculous. It's not 3ER and it's not very blatant vandalism. Perhaps Officer 666 is trying to play the system and he should be made aware that doing so can possibly result in A/VB cases. I'm going to go with Not Vandalism with a side of don't do that and I'll be watching their contribs. ~ _{22:19, 6 April 2011}

That isn't what reactionary means... <.< Also, I'm kind of with Vapor on this. I'm pretty much thinking not, but with a soft warning that if he keeps doing it he'll be back here.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:55, 6 April 2011 (BST)

Vandalism - normal result for cases like these. slap on a warning and tell him forging stuff is wrong. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 23:16, 6 April 2011 (BST)

Vandalism - seems like a bad faith attempt to hand out false information and make The Dead seem bigger than they are right now while their babahs are busy leveling. Give him a proper warning. -- Spiderzed▋ 23:21, 6 April 2011 (BST)

Um, what? This guy was going around declaring all the suburbs safe. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 23:29, 6 April 2011 (BST)

Seems like a bad faith attempt to pretend the Dead isn't ten times larger than any other group regardless of levels. Of course, given his group association it isn't that surprising. --Laughing Man 23:36, 6 April 2011 (BST) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Laughing Man (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Oh, I plainly wondered if someone would RAEG enough to even forget to sign properly if I reason like that. Looks like someone does -- Spiderzed▋ 04:10, 7 April 2011 (BST)

I'm not quite sure what you are talking about. User name, post date, dashes. The only thing that seemed to be missing was a link to my user page and if that's what got your panties in a bunch you've got problems you may want to look into. --Laughing Man 04:46, 7 April 2011 (BST) (User page link omitted on purpose. Deal with it.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Laughing Man (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

K -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 08:34, 7 April 2011 (BST)

We'd be happy to see him banned. Purple Cat ~ DHPD 12:45, 7 April 2011 (BST)

If it wasn't clear from me bringing it here, I think its Vandalism. Thanks. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:19, 7 April 2011 (BST)

User:Domino Harvey

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

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

Blanked Letum Corporation--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 23:15, 5 April 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism. Gordon and Domino are the same person. Gordon just had used the wrong wiki account. -- Spiderzed▋ 23:18, 5 April 2011 (BST)

then both he and I are silly people--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 23:19, 5 April 2011 (BST)

Yes I am. Gordon 23:22, 5 April 2011 (BST)

User:Shazam(2)

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

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	48 hour ban

Replaced Spiderzed's User page with Image:bird.jpg. I slapped a temporary 2 hour ban while we work out ruling. ~ _{15:25, 4 April 2011}

Vandalism - His second this month. Likely in response to his 24h ban from below. ~ _{15:27, 4 April 2011}

The same was done to the talk page also replaced with bird--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 15:32, 4 April 2011 (BST)

Did you want him to vandalise your user page? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:36 4 April 2011 (BST)

For the record, I didn't want to see my talk page vandalized. Neither will I rule, as I am an involved party. -- Spiderzed▋ 15:39, 4 April 2011 (BST)

I'm sorry... but apparently we're not allowed to assume that you don't want your pages vandalised. I blame "political correctness gone mad!" -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:47 4 April 2011 (BST)

Vandalism - escalate that funny fellow -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:36 4 April 2011 (BST)

He's getting an 48 hour ban. Thanks for catching the talk page, Michaelson. - ~ _{15:39, 4 April 2011}

user:XJENSENx115x

XJENSENx115x (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	3-Edit Rule

Only contribs are blanking DHPD pages. Permabanned.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:18, 2 April 2011 (BST)

User:Shazam

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

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	24h ban

These edits look like a clear case of vandalism. It's not the first time, by the way (case 1, case 2). Regards, G F J 16:20, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Vandalism. Not a three edit vandal though, as the user had also created and maintained a legitimate group page in the past. -- Spiderzed▋ 16:39, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Vandalism. ~ _{17:02, 2 April 2011}

Vandalism --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:20, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Verdict is vandalism. On Shazam's escalation level, that means a 24 hour ban. -- Spiderzed▋ 17:33, 2 April 2011 (BST)

User:Spiderzed

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

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	Soft warning

Putting a user who hasn't edited in 7 months up for promotion. [1]. Of course he'll claim seriousness despite any evidence but he hasn't even notified the user about it so all actions just lead to drama wanking. Sigh. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:17, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Are you psychic DDR? I mean come on, you must be psychic to assume all of this. Are you going to A/VB everyone who vouched too?--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 01:23, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Of course not. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:24, 2 April 2011 (BST)

You guys might want to check your calendars. Just saying. -- Spiderzed▋ 01:37, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Ah, well unfortunately I live in Australia so it's been 2nd for 11 hours now, forgive me for overlooking that. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:39, 2 April 2011 (BST)

dum dum dum! -- The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking

bitch 04:47 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism - Spiderzed knows not to do this. Bid should be moved to the talk as per precedent.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 01:22, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Given further investigation (and some interesting irc logs my laptop picked up) I'm going for a Soft Warning.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 10:52, 3 April 2011 (BST)

Apoligies to all, in australia April fools has been over for a while. As long as it's removed after GMT April 1st ends, I don't see anything wrong with pushing the envelope for April fools. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:48, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Boxy has beaten me to the actual bid, but I removed the news entry (which I didn't put up in the first place). All traces should be gone, unless I miss something? -- Spiderzed▋ 11:36, 2 April 2011 (BST)

I have a relevant question. Were the Grim promotion or the Iscariot promotion escalated? Cause if not then there's no reason why this bid is any different, bids a bid and even a joke bid that won't pass still means community discussion on a user's qualification so there's no way it's harmful to the page or spamming. --Karek^maps?! 04:08, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Answered it myself, I hope this link is good enough to settle this since it's both unanimous and involving the reporter --Karek^maps?! 04:14, 2 April 2011 (BST)

You may want to check the history of Jerrel. He got an escalation for putting himself up for promotion multiple times, despite being told not to. Also we did move dumb bid's like these to the talk page before, see WOOT. I don't know why we stopped doing so in Grim's case, but there was a time spam bids were just moved. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 07:07, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Actually, as it turns out, if they were ever "just moved" that's the fluke, not leaving them, and it shouldn't be done in the future. Bid stays up until the user refuses to accept it and the precedent you were referring to actually should have led to either a misconduct escalation for any crat that closed the case or a vandal escalation for whoever moved it. To compare the Jerrel bid, a serious one, or the current bid in question to, just a reminder, This is absurd on ever possible level and if you can't see that difference then leave now, you'll probably wind up demoted for legitimate misconduct within three months and have no clue why. --Karek^maps?! 13:59, 2 April 2011 (BST)

....what? I'm honestly having trouble understanding what you're trying to say. This is almost Iscariot's level of English. If I understand correctly you think Jerrel and WOOT should not have been escalated, and bids no matter what should never be moved? -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 14:21, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Reading comprehension is your friend, especially when you're a sysop.

1) Jerrel was escalated on unrelated precedent and, yes, the removal of his bid, not the bid itself, should have been taken as vandalism because it was a user removing a bid because they didn't like the person putting it up. 2) WOOT's bid was vandalism. Read the bid, it's blatantly both spamming and not in good faith. It is not, however, in any way related to this bid or, for that matter, Jerrel's because of the content of that specific bid being why it was vandalism not the subject of the bid. It is not vandalism for a user to be put up for promotion simply because of who they are. --Karek^maps?! 14:26, 2 April 2011 (BST)

_{Note I am not a sysop and this is not a ruling, it's emphasis. --Karek^maps?! 14:27, 2 April 2011 (BST)}

Of course it's not vandalism for Jerrel if someone else puts him up for a bid. And no, this case is indeed not related to those other cases. Nor have I said otherwise. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 14:51, 2 April 2011 (BST)

finally! i knew this would come in handy.-- The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking

bitch 14:39 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, surely this case fits those criteria as well, Karek. It wasn't made in good faith (good faith would be actually willing for that user to be promoted, and spiderzed has said that it was a joke) and it was created solely for the purpose of spamming admin pages (putting something on there other than the intended (i.e. a bid)). In my opinion, it being April Fools isn't a defence.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:23, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Actually Yonnua, the intent to lighten the tone of the page after some perceived drama is about as good faith as it gets. It isn't spamming admin pages because it's a legitimate bid on a page with no specific rules against why someone is put up for a promotion bid, unlike A/VB, A/M, or Suggestions which all have rules specifically regulating when it's appropriate to report someone and it in no way hurts the usefulness of the page as the page is low traffic and fairly simple and easy to follow even with 4 bids running at the same time. He didn't break any rules, He didn't make anything worse off, and his intent was obviously to lighten the mood. Without coming to the discussion with some idea that not using the page how you'd prefer it would be used being bad faith(also known as assuming bad faith) there's nothing he did in violation of the spirit or letter of the page, wiki, or rules. --Karek^maps?! 19:13, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Well, as the page exists to promote users to system operator I'd say he actually probably wasn't using it as it was intended. Ultimately, you've done nothing to convince me it isn't vandalism, and I've done nothing to convince you that it is, so we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:54, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Yonnua, the page exists to discuss user's suitability to being promoted to system operator not to promote them. That's your disconnect here. It's not vandalism to post a fake suggestion on Talk:Suggestions who's purpose is to develop suggestions, A/PM is the same thing. It's not a matter of convincing me that it is, you are responsible to show how what he did was in bad faith and as it's been shown quite clearly that non-serious bids are historically not vandalism your ruling can't reasonably be based on that with you actually having reviewed the relevant links posted or precedent cited.

So I ask you, is there some external user specific reason why this doesn't mesh with what has always been the established way of ruling these cases or is there some personal drama between you and him that gives you reason to see what he's doing as intentionally damaging to the wiki? Because, frankly, if you can't come up with something more you probably shouldn't be ruling on questionable cases about degrees like joke edits. --Karek^maps?! 20:04, 2 April 2011 (BST)

How about that posting non-serious cases/bids/suggestions that amount to nothing constructive or contributive can actually be interpreted as bad-faith and/or spam especially when done repeatedly? I know I'm not going to convince you, but you should realize you haven't any actual point at all why this isn't vandalism besides your own opinion/interpretation, hence making this discussion indeed a case of disagreement rather than being right or wrong. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 20:21, 2 April 2011 (BST)

I think you're missing the part where relevant precedent was shown. I can find more directly comparative links if that's what floats your boat, I can think of at least five off the top of my head that we didn't escalate for that match this almost exactly. Here's a link with three in which Yonnua rules the fake bid as not vandalism.--Karek^maps?! 21:04, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Read the case and you might learn that it wasn't vandalism because Sonny hadn't repeatedly been put up for promotion before, whereas Jerrel has. But do keep trying to bully people in to changing their rulings, Karek. It makes you look really mature.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:18, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Yonnua, it was not vandalism because Misanthropy didn't have a history of putting up fake reports, does Spiderzed? Keep in mind I have no dog in this fight, I'm bringing this up in the discussion because it needs to be brought up. I don't actually care if he gets escalated I care that you guys are actually using precedent right and the precedent relevant to joke bids like Sonny's, like both of Iscariot's, like Grim's, like The Surgeon General's all point to it not being vandalism to post or cycle a joke bid. If you feel I'm being bullying maybe it's because I'm refusing to go away quietly into a corner until this very simple but all important point gets picked up. You don't make up the rules as you go, you follow the precedents relevant to the case and in this case Spiderzed obviously had every possible reason to believe this to be an acceptable edit because it always has been. --Karek^maps?! 21:31, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Sorry, but I still have to disagree with you. In my opinion, it isn't an appropriate use of an admin page; Spiderzed intended it as a joke, which isn't what the page is for (I have a perfectly good humour admin pages page in my namespace). The reason it typically isn't vandalism for first time offenders isn't because it's "acceptable", it's because they might not know better. In this case, Spiderzed most definitely did know better, and so I still believe it's vandalism. It may be more appropriate for him to have a soft warning (I'm impartial as to whether it should be a full or soft warning, but I'm leaning ever so slightly towards full as it stands, because he should be setting an example for more casual users who are breeding drama on that page). I get where you're coming from, and your help is appreciated, but I don't see myself changing my mind failing the discovery of a completely earth-shattering precedent that I'm unaware of.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:45, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Every case I brought up was made by established knowledgeable users. What basis do you have that he knew better, what can you point to that shows that he had any way of knowing this wasn't allowed before the creation of this case and your ruling? That's the standard for ruling it in bad faith, without that you're essentially manufacturing intent.

It's worth note that Soft Warnings are actually not vandalism rulings but with the distinction that the user gets the good faith notice that it's not OK that didn't happen before the action. --Karek^maps?! 21:52, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Look, I'm really not interested in you trying to pretend I'm biased, and I'm not even going to bother acknowledging comments of that nature again. In terms of why I believe he knew that what he was doing was wrong, he copied a bid which was a) removed from the promotions page and b) ruled vandalism, changed it ever so slightly, and then posted it on the page. In more general terms of spamming admin pages, he obviously knows that that isn't on, and as a wiki regular, he shouldn't be doign either of the above.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:01, 2 April 2011 (BST)

I'm not pretending you're anything. All you'd previously said was that he should know better and didn't give a reason when pressed. It is, however, worth noting that he did, in fact, not rule on that case. Nor was it escalated for what he's being escalated for now. You can't escalate him simply because he put Jerrel up for promotion, and Jerrel being escalated previously for spamming A/VB with monthly bids without regard to why they were being removed/failing. It was user specific. So again, I ask, how would he know as both the points you just made obviously aren't the case. --Karek^maps?! 22:13, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Naw, Yonnua, you couldn't be biased because Spider has an alt in a group that has been kicking your group's ass for well over a year. Cause you're a reasonable unbiased neutral Sysop. (You know, the kind that would never abuse your position and post someones IP address on your DA forum. Oh wait, nevermind.) Yeah you couldn't be out to wave your E-Penis around again after losing the last E-Penis swordfight you were in with...who was it again? Oh YEAH! I remember now. Gee, I just can't imagine why 99% of the UD player base avoids the Wiki like the plague. Not when a harmless April Fool's joke would never be trumped up to score a few petty points. That sort of thing would never happen around here in our paradise of reasonable unbiased neutral Sysops.--

| T | BALLS! | 00:08 3 April 2011(UTC)

It's nice precedent, which I have seen before, but I do still believe there's a limit on how much you can push these sort of non-serious bids. I don't believe the limit has been reached yet, as you can I see I haven't voted vandalism, but if Spiderzed would do this sorta thing again in the foreseeable future I would not be so lenient. And again, the precedent is nice but there is a subtle difference, mainly that the user in question, Jerrel, is inactive for months and the fact that Spiderzed didn't contact Jerrel on his talk page. I can see why Yonnua voted for Vandalism, (and Vapor for Softwarning), since this I can agree with them this shouldn't be encouraged, although an actual escalation goes to far. Do you think the bid should have stayed on for two weeks? -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 21:25, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Oh no, I understand that. I'm not arguing for a ruling, I'm arguing for the rule. Obviously repeatedly doing this is soon would qualify as drama mongering on an admin page and vandalism.

Jerrel's isn't different from Grim's obviously in the regards of activity, there was nothing wrong with removing the bid. The problems start when A/VB is being made to create new rules about all joke bids imply bad faith to the act of doing it, that's not ok. --Karek^maps?! 21:31, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Just for the record, I wouldn't have kept the bid around for 2 weeks. I'd have removed it myself over the course of April 2. -- Spiderzed▋ 21:34, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Even more recent precedent about humorous use of admin pages. And I picked Jerrel purposefully, because his history should make it crystal-clear that this isn't a serious bid, and because it gave me an excuse to use his involuntarily hilarious campaign assets table :P -- Spiderzed▋ 11:36, 2 April 2011 (BST)

I would have thought it was pretty obvious this one was an April Fools? C'mon people... ~ Kempy “YaketyYak” | ◆◆◆ | CAPD |

 

11:44, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Meh It wasn't very funny. I don't think this is worth an escalation, but the bid should be pulled off now, it's spam and especially since A/PM is already so cluttered. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 07:12, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Spiderzed, don't do this again. Thanks. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:08, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Don't plan to. Not for the next 364 days at least :P -- Spiderzed▋ 14:19, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Soft Warning. ~ _{17:02, 2 April 2011}

Question - Spiderzed, why did you post the bid?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:31, 2 April 2011 (BST)

The joke bid was put up for April's Fool day, to celebrate the holiday and lighten up the wiki a bit. From my knowledge of joking use of admin pages (Karl vs Ash arbies, Hagnat's demotion and Grim's promotion just to pick three recent ones), I knew that a first-time joke is tolerated and wouldn't be considered vandalism. I don't know even a single precedent where such a thing has been deemed vandalism, and neither has one been brought up in this discussion so far. I would expect an escalation even less so given the seasonal context and given that I don't have history of repeatedly putting up jokes. (The latter might get me escalated as per Jerrel and Woot precedent, but as of now, the case isn't comparable. What got them escalated was repetition, not futility.) -- Spiderzed▋ 22:57, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Actually, Woot was escalated for his first bid, iirc. Also, I take it these are straight answers, and that if I log on to redrum's irc, I won't find you, Karek and Sexualharrison co-ordinating your responses, right?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:01, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Scratch that, his second bid was, at which point he expressly said he didn't know doign it a month later was bad.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:10, 2 April 2011 (BST)

yon hate to break this to you.. i have a life. and you all should lighten the fuck up. spidey made a joke. give it a rest.-- The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking

bitch 23:52 2 April 2011 (UTC)

By way of clarification: as author of that last bid, I should inform you that it was ha ha only serious. I am still of the opinion that Grim would be an asset to the UDWiki, but I sincerely doubt he would do so again of his own volition. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:36, 10 April 2011 (BST)

I know it seems like a backflip but (now I understand the april fool context) I don't think there is any harm in posting something as a joke like that if it is only going to exist on the one day, even given the context of A/PM already being bogged up lately. And you gotta admit, it did get us. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:21, 3 April 2011 (BST)

Not vandalism - but spidy should take this as a soft warning about messing up admin pages with jokes. There's enough of that going on, without encouraging more... and none of these on A/VB next year, please -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:32 3 April 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism just to formalise my opinion- and also as Boxy: I recommend A/A next year ;D -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 09:46, 3 April 2011 (BST)

So far, the case seems to be closing as not vandalism, but soft warnings seem wanted, so please make it a less.... sensitive place next time you want to do an April Fool's, Spidey, or anyone who's planning something big next year. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:51, 5 April 2011 (BST)