UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning

Template:A/VBsub

This page is for the reporting of vandalism within the Urban Dead wiki, as defined by vandalism policy. On this wiki, the punishment for Vandalism is temporary banning, but due to security concerns, the ability to mete out this punishment is restricted to System Operators. As such, regular users will need to lodge a report for a Vandal to be banned from the wiki. For consistency and accountability, System Operators are requested to note on this board their actions in dealing with Vandals.

Guidelines for Vandalism Reporting

In dealing with Vandalism, time is often of the essence. As such, we ask that all users include the following information in a Vandalism report:

• A link to the pages in question.

Preferably bolded for visibility. If the Vandalism is occurring over a sufficiently large number of pages, instead include a time range of the vandalism attempt, or alternatively, a link to the first vandalised page. This allows us to quickly find the damage so we can quickly assess the situation.

• The user name of the Vandal.

This allows us to more easily identify the culprit, and to check details.

• A signed datestamp.

For accountability purposes, we ask that you record in your request your user name and the time you lodged the report.

• Please report at the top.

There's conflict with where to post and a lot of the reports are missed. If it's placed at the top of the page it's probably going to be seen and dealt with.

If you see Vandalism in progress, don't wait for System Operators to deal with it, as there may be no System Operator online at the time. Lodge the report, then start reverting pages back to their original form. This can be done by going to the "History" tab at the top of the page, and finding the last edit before the Vandal's attack. When a System Operator is available, they'll assess the situation, and if the report is legitimate, we will take steps to either warn the vandal, or ban them if they are on their second warning.

If the page is long, you can add new reports by editing the top report and placing your new report above its header in the edit screen.

Before Submitting a Report

• This page, Vandal Banning, deals with bad-faith breaches of official policy.
• Interpersonal complaints are better sorted out at UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration.
• As much as is practical, assume good faith and try to iron out problems with other users one to one, only using this page as a last resort.
• Avoid submitting reports which are petty.

Vandalism Report Space

Administration Notice Talk with the user before reporting or accusing someone of vandalism for small edits. In most cases it's simply a case of a new user that doesn't know how this wiki works. Sometimes assuming good faith and speaking with others can avoid a lot of drama, and can even help newbies feel part of this community. Administration Notice If you are not a System Operator, the user who made the vandal report, the user being reported, or directly involved in the case, the administration asks that you use the talk page for further discussion. Free-for-all commenting can lead to a less respectful environment. Administration Notice Warned users can remove one entry of their warning history every one month and 250 edits after their last warning. Remember to ask a sysop to remove them in due time. You are as responsible for keeping track of your history as the sysops are; In case of a sysop wrongly punishing you due to an outdated history, he might not be punished for his actions.

July

User:Kerkel

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

Verdict	Ye Guilty
Action taken	48 hour ban

Removing content from a group and an user page he has no ownership of. Was escalated back in 2009 for the very same edits. -- Spiderzed▋ 22:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Watch out, Spiderzed! He might PK you in-game if you ban him!--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

As some day after filing the case none of you other fuckers have been on the ball and the user has been repeatedly vandalising the same pages, I have blocked him as Vandalism. Will take the misconduct charge later if (when) it becomes necessary. -- Spiderzed▋ 20:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Escalate obvious vandals yourself. There is no need to wait for confirmation unless you are unsure if it's vandalism -- boxy 13:03, 9 July 2015 (BST)

As there was a large time gap between the edits of the user, I had decided to wait to handle it properly by waiting for other ops. It is sometimes better to be too soft and to have the vandals hang themselves with the rope provided for all the community to see, rather than to jump the gun and never know if the vandal would be stupid enough to repeat a reverted vandalism hours later. -- Spiderzed▋ 22:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It's good to see you guys aren't letting the drama llama leave the premises without at least a little fight. ;) —Aichon— 16:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Aichons, I hope you feel bad about your egregious posting on this case in a humourous manner with no bearing on the decision. Prepare your body for Misconduct.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The train begins. Yonnua, I summons you to the unholy court of vandal banning, jury of the damned and judge of hellstorm incoming. A ZOMBIE ANT 00:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

20:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Isn't there some 3 vandal edit permaban rule? I clicked 2 links and didn't find it, so I gave up. --_K 21:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Alts whose sole contributions are three or more edits of vandalism go straight to a permanent ban. 21:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

A single constructive edit is enough to offset the 3 edit rule, unfortunately. -- Spiderzed▋ 21:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Less than 24 hours between reporting and completing the case yourself? MISCONBRIATION. Obviously I agree with your actions. Worth semi protecting the targeted pages? --Rosslessness^{Want to complete a dangerous mission?} 21:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't jump the gun yet on semi-protecting, as especially the PK kill list gets edited by low-edit wiki accounts who would be equally hurt. After two more bouts of this it is off the permaban vote land anyway. -- Spiderzed▋ 22:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

April

User:Shazam

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

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Bans all around

Blanking the same pages he was in 2011. Last escalation was a weeks ban, looks like zumm zero is a clear multi and should be banned? --Rosslessness^{Want to complete a dangerous mission?} 17:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Yup, very clearly the same person for both accounts, and very clearly vandalism. We'll be consolidating the vandal data and banning one of them as a vandal alt, though given the history's of the accounts and the names he seems to go by, I'm kinda more inclined to ban Shazam as the vandal alt, while moving all of the escalations to Zumm Zero and banning Zumm Zero for a month. —Aichon— 20:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Sensible. Some semi protection as well?--Rosslessness^{Want to complete a dangerous mission?} 22:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism. I agree with consolidiation (with Shazam as vandal alt), month ban for Zumm Zero and semi-protection for threatened pages. (Also, I had no time for anything but a quick one-click reverting at the time I noticed ZZ's renewed vandalism. He has been warned just days ago for the exact same thing, so no more kids gloves despite the age of the player's in-game account.) -- Spiderzed▋ 23:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Right. Banned, perma'd, pages semiprotected. Now can someone check I've correctly merged the Vandal Data and issue the warning. I'm super busy. --Rosslessness^{Want to complete a dangerous mission?} 17:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Put up the notice on his talk page, rearranged A/VD data a bit and did some other tidying on the page. Everything should be done now. —Aichon— 18:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

User:JoshCz

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

Verdict	Presumed wikinewb
Action taken	Soft warning

Eeeh. Having a hard time assuming good faith here. --Janus ^talk 13:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Based on what was said, I get the strong impression it's nothing more than a person leaving their computer unlocked in a public place. Even if it's not, it's not worth a warning. Soft warning is the appropriate response. —Aichon— 18:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Caught using UDWiki in a public place. Embarrassing. To me it looked more like a classic Nallan drinking spree. A ZOMBIE ANT 07:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Zumm Zero

• Zumm Zero (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Deleting stuff
Action taken	Warning

Deleted group page stuff. Warned him for now. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

That was generous of you. Guy creates account and for his first 10 or so edits does nothing but delete content that mentions him from others' pages. I'd be more inclined to 3ev him. I'm glad you got to him first. —Aichon— 06:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The vice unit stuff looks like he may have been a member of the group. I reverted it, but it may be a reasonable edit, so I agree with gnome. --Rosslessness 06:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I gave him the benefit of the doubt. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 15:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Zumm Zero is an old player (he is mentioned as far back as 2006), not a simple throwaway account. For that reason alone I err rather towards Warning than invoking the three edit rule. There is also the Vice Unit stuff that is possibly constructive. -- Spiderzed▋ 17:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Good sleuthing! A ZOMBIE ANT 13:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Februrary 2015

User:Jack Yocum

• Jack Yocum (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Impersonation
Action taken	Permban

I believe coercing users to break the game's one rule = bad faith. I also suspect ban avoidance. See User:CarelessWill. ~ _{04:21, 16 February 2015, The year of our lord (UTC)}

Find me some evidence I can use for the ban avoidance. I've looked. I can't find any. His past bans (on the Jackyocum username) are all expired at this point. That said, given that he does have a warning still on that old account, I think a second warning is warranted, on the basis that his actions are clearly in bad faith.

As for why I consider them bad faith...we follow the TOS because we understand that the wiki exists in that jurisdiction and can't exist if it fails to abide by the TOS, right? Likewise, Kevan sets the ground rules and we're free to build on top of them, but we are not free to break them. If a zerger wants to come here and chat, fine. But the moment you come here and encourage others to join you in an illicit activity, you're no better than someone encouraging a DDoS against the game. You're seeking to use forbidden mechanics to undermine the game itself. That stands in direct opposition to the mission of this wiki, which is to support the game.

I'm gonna wait for the others though. —Aichon— 05:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The game has measures against zerging. The wiki is a different beast, and we have tolerated blatant zergers like TZH, Zoomie or Thad for a long time. I wouldn't cry if Yocum went down, but a pro-zerging stance alone on a group page isn't sufficient for a ban. -- Spiderzed▋ 15:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The wiki exists for the game, and the game states not zerg. How does it make sense to be okay with someone signing up just to tell people to zerg? I know you guys like to stick with a "mechanical" view on vandalism, banning people for page blanking for instance, and tend to shy away from the more "behavioural" type where we would take issue with how people conduct themselves. But creating an account to make pages telling people to zerg doesn't make for a good wiki, and doesn't help the game; it makes it worse. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 15:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hugely relevant precedent. BSAA calls for years for zerging, yet the group page sits unmolested on the wiki for years. Has never been brought up on A/VB though. -- Spiderzed▋ 17:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Well it's about to be molested now. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not precedent, that someone getting by unnoticed. If it had been brought to a/vb or a/sd or arbitration, I'd agree it stood as precedent but as it never was. ~ _{00:28, 17 February 2015, The year of our lord (UTC)}

Wahahaha, after all these years I see my name is still mud struck whenever convenience arises. Being compared to TZH or Izumi is laugable, it was never blatant and my slate was cleaned just during my first sysops bid. Never change UDwiki :'). --Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I know it has been a long time since jackyocum was warned, but unless I'm mistaken then warnings do not automatically expire. Unless a request is made at a/vb/d, then it kind of is ban avoidance (or more accurately escalation avoidance). I just found it interesting that CarelessWill claimed that there was a vandal spree and even claims of suing the sysop team. Either there's another user account here not being taken into account, or CarelessWill was mistaken. ~ _{19:44, 16 February 2015, The year of our lord (UTC)}

Yeah, he'd get a second warning, for sure, but I'm not sure if we can consider it avoidance since he used the same name, just with a space. But yeah, he did get insta-banned twice back before the escalation guidelines were established, due to his vandalism. Those are still on the record and will come into play if he gets back to the point where a ban is warranted. —Aichon— 20:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The naming structure shouldn't matter in my opinion. If Cornholioo came back as Corn Holioo, it wouldn't make it less of a vandal alt. And it would likely affect things more than you lead on if you guys consider this vandalism, because ban avoidance cases typically get handled by banning the alt and warning the user (the vandal alt contributions are usually removed from the wiki as well). ~ _{00:28, 17 February 2015, The year of our lord (UTC)}

Sorry, I should have been clearer. What I meant is that by using what is essentially the same name, rather than trying to pretend to be a new user, he wasn't trying to avoid an additional escalation. It's far more likely that—given the lack of edits on the old account—he simply lost the login info years ago, or possibly even forgot that he had it at all. Which is to say, I don't see any avoidance at all. He seems to be "owning" all of these edits, both old and new. We'll simply take his old vandal data into account when escalating. —Aichon— 01:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

We're talking about Jack Yocum here, the game's longest running and worst offending serial zerger. I don't think it's safe to assume anything of the sort. I do realize that at the moment, it is a rather precarious claim. And though I could be wrong, I think it warrants looking into thoroughly and escalating to the full extent of the sysop's authority. And most of all, unless precedent shows otherwise, users should not be allowed to advocate for zerging on the wiki. ~ _{02:01, 17 February 2015, The year of our lord (UTC)}

As far as I'm concerned, what's happening here is vandalism. Beyond that, however, I need convincing. Just because I find someone's actions repugnant doesn't mean that I'll cheat them out of due process or skip the whole "assume good faith" part for actions that are questionable. If you can find evidence, that may change things, but I've looked, and I'm not finding anything that has changed my mind yet regarding the avoidance issue. —Aichon— 03:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm here to defend myself. I do NOT come here to "promote" zerging, I just state that I don't care if my group does and if they must, they should only use humans. That is just a suggestion

Jack Yocum (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The fact that you're advertising a group that openly condones zerging is, in and of itself, promoting the act of zerging. —Aichon— 02:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

But I am not advertising in the sense of trying desperately trying to gain new members. I am simply telling the truth regarding our stance on zerging. Banning us here won't change the fact we exist in game. Is therr a way you would suggest I state this without lying? I am trying to cooperate with you. That isn't something a vandal does. Jack Yocum (talk) 03:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

If you change it in such a way that it interferes with any of your zerging activities, that would be an improvement. A NPOV description of what your group does, where they are active, followed by say, a list of your "members", would do. You could use Save the yeti as a guide. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The advertising was done when you added the group to the group listings for those two suburbs and then linked them to a page suggesting zerging is perfectly fine and that others should feel free to engage in it too. —Aichon— 08:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The game bans characters for zerging. The wiki accounts created promote zerging. The accounts haven't done anything else. Ban the accounts. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 14:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

We tolerate the players who engage in prohibited activities, not their actions. A vandal is welcome here so long as they are on good behavior, but the moment they start vandalizing, we cease tolerating what they're doing. I have never had a problem with us tolerating known zergers, but zerging is an activity that is outright prohibited by the game (and as AHLG said, the wiki exists for the game), so the moment the wiki is used to facilitate zerging, as is happening here right now, a line has been crossed.

I'll reiterate: I believe a warning is warranted. —Aichon— 16:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

We enforce the rules of the wiki, not the rules of the game. Not vandalism -- boxy 01:42, 17 February 2015 (BST)

Vandalism is defined as anything that is not a good-faith effort to improve the wiki. Can you honestly say that what he's doing here is either in good faith or improving the wiki? We may not be (read: we aren't) enforcers of the game's rules, but the wiki exists as a resource for the game, so facilitating something that runs in direct opposition to the very nature of the game is, by definition, not an improvement to the wiki. —Aichon— 02:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The wiki exists to inform players about the situation "in-game". There are zerging "groups" in-game. If he is honestly stating the in-game situation in regards to his group, then it is a good faith, and on topic, edit, as long as it's restricted to the group page. Others can add context (via the NPOV section of the group page) or remove the page (via deletions). The closest he came to vanadlism due to "encouraging zerging" is his edits to a suburb page, stating that people should zerg. That is a NPOV zone, where dubious group "interpretations" are not allowed. I removed this edit, and would have probably VBed him, if he repeated it -- boxy 10:25, 17 February 2015 (BST)

Jack, what do you have to say about the claims made against you on the page User:CarelessWill? It would seem some think you have some history with the wiki already. ~ _{05:12, 17 February 2015, The year of our lord (UTC)}

Well to tell you the truth which you won't believe anyway, I am NOT the real Jack Yocum. I am a resident of Shearbank and saw these idiots saying and spraypainting all around the burb "Jack Yocum restored Shearbank. You're welcome!" and saying we don't care if you zerg, PK, etc. So I decided to make this here parody account and parody group to say basically whaf he said in game here on the wiki. Take that for what you will. If this gets deleted, at least the truth got out. Jack Yocum (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I.e. You're admitting to creating a wiki account with the express intent of impersonating another wiki user. That's grounds for a permaban on your account. —Aichon— 08:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

No, not impersonating a wiki user, just an in game UD character. But go ahead and ban this account I don't care. Jack Yocum (talk) 09:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, apparently, there is a previous account going by this name (without the space). You probably was unaware of this, so I would be in favour of this account being permbanned, however, not having that ban being carried over to any new account they may wish to sign up to. This is technical impersonation, however, not intentional impersonation of a wiki account. Worth a warning (for any new account) -- boxy 10:32, 17 February 2015 (BST)

I'm with Boxy. Perma the impersonation account, warn the follow-up for impersonation. -- Spiderzed▋ 23:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Did you make the account User:ZergingZerger too? ~ _{13:55, 17 February 2015, The year of our lord (UTC)}

It appears dear Mr Jack Yocum has left. And he didn't bother answering my last question. So what is this? Impersonation? Self ban request? Warning for bad faith? And what about the ZergingZerger account? What does the IP data suggest? Is there evidence of proxy use? ~ _{01:56, 20 February 2015, The year of our lord (UTC)}

If no one says otherwise, I'll permaban it this weekend as an impersonation account. As per boxy and Spider, we'll need to warn someone for the impersonation as well (and I still think a warning is due for the zerging stuff, even if it wasn't spelled out before, since encouraging cheating is always bad faith), but see below for why applying warnings to other accounts may be an interesting conundrum. —Aichon— 02:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

So, in an interesting twist, one of the confirmed Jack Yocum zergs in-game just contacted me in-game to claim that the Jack Yocum here in this case is actually CarelessWill. I caught it in real-time and was posting it to Talk:Jack Yocum as it was happening, but I'm reposting the links here since they're of relevance to everything that's going on.

• http://ispy.dxavier.net/1204266162.html (I had just moved to a different block, but I stepped back to where I had been when I realized he was talking in real-time)
• http://ispy.dxavier.net/1277738337.html
• http://ispy.dxavier.net/1627097766.html
• http://ispy.dxavier.net/1465242637.html
• http://ispy.dxavier.net/1897779198.html

If this is true, then it adds a wrinkle, in that this Jack Yocum would have been fully aware of the prior one and their history here on the wiki, suggesting the impersonation would not exactly be a benign one. Of course, it could also just be a case of us dealing with the real Jack Yocum all along, and now he's trying to cast some blame on someone who called him out years ago. I can't confirm or refute any of the claims he's making.

Anyway, something to think about. —Aichon— 02:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

So, the plot thickens? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

So, the bullshit thickens? ~ _{16:10, 21 February 2015, The year of our lord (UTC)}

OK, I think we've given it enough time. I'm permbanning this account, and deleting it's page (as vandalism), as it is a self admitted impersonation account -- boxy 21:20, 21 February 2015 (BST)

If any clear evidence of who owns this alt comes to light in the future, they should also get a warning -- boxy 21:32, 21 February 2015 (BST)

I have strong reasons to believe it really was Jack Yocum and not just some random person, though admittedly there's no hard evidence to back that up. It's just too convenient that the in-game JY found Aichon in-game just a few days after this case started and acted as if he'd been following along the whole time. It sounded just like he was continuing this conversation in-game, and nothing like he was a third party just making an observation. Also, I've spoken with Spad and I am thoroughly convinced he was not behind it as in-game JY alleged. Other things like the second account, the proxy use, his claim of leadership, and his attempted justification for the group's actions all lend weight to the notion that this was the actual Jack Yocum. I'm glad that he has been banned, but I don't think impersonation was the right call. ~ _{06:03, 22 February 2015, The year of our lord (UTC)}

Apparently I have a knack for checking on my account right as real-time stuff is happening:

• http://ispy.dxavier.net/1278261260.html
• http://ispy.dxavier.net/1180573862.html

And my response:

• http://ispy.dxavier.net/1647305253.html
• http://ispy.dxavier.net/1477332971.html

To say the least, I doubt we will be taking action on this, given that it's a user page, but I wanted to share it with everyone, regardless. —Aichon— 18:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Annnnd, one last response from him: http://ispy.dxavier.net/1276672063.html. —Aichon— 02:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

User:ZergingZerger

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

Verdict	Vandal alt
Action taken	Permbanned

As above, bad faith attempt to encourage breaking game rules. Similar MO as User:Jack Yocum. Suspect these two are alts. ~ _{04:21, 16 February 2015, The year of our lord (UTC)}

I'd be inclined to ban this one too. Given the timing, content, and activity level, it's very likely to be the same as the case above -- boxy 21:32, 21 February 2015 (BST)

Let's not forget this case in all the excitement over Yocum. Checkuser information isn't conclusive, but this user has edited from an open proxy solely. That raises enough flags with me to consider it to be editing in bad faith, and possibly evading a former ban. I'm inclined to go for a 3 edit perma for three edits using a proxy (making them non-constructive by definition), plus the proxy use itself. No additional escalation for Jack Yocum, as there is no conclusive proof of a connection between the two accounts. Additionally, the proxy IP will be perma'd as is standard practice for proxies. Everyone on board for this? -- Spiderzed▋ 01:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Permaban and block the proxy would be my vote as well. —Aichon— 03:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Calling Boxy, Gnome and Ross for more input. Else I will carry the perma out in the next few days. -- Spiderzed▋ 22:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Proxy use is good enough for me. I concur. --Rosslessness 23:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Permbanned -- boxy 11:15, 26 February 2015 (BST)

Archives

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