Revision as of 21:50, 15 August 2008

Administration Services

Sysop List (Check) | Guidelines | Policies (Discussion) | Promotions (Bureaucrat) | Re-Evaluations

Deletions (Scheduling) | Speedy Deletions | Undeletions | Vandal Banning (Bots) | Vandal Data (De-Escalations)

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.

Adbots

Report adbots here. The log of all bans is found at Block log. The list of currently blocked users is found at Ipblocklist. This space should be cleared once a day.

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.

August 2008

User:Nubis

User:Blasto

Pretty much everything. Especially this attempt at parody. --Bob Fortune ^RR 22:42, 15 August 2008 (BST)

Creating spam pages and spamming existing ones. Not the adbot kind of spam. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 21:49, 15 August 2008 (BST)

[1] If all he's going to do is try to screw up the page alot, he more of a nuisance than anything else. --Sir WV 21:52, 15 August 2008 (BST)

Merged the 2 3 complaints since I just permabanned him for having no useful contributions at all.--– Nubis ^NWO 22:43, 15 August 2008 (BST)

User:Fish4Frogsx

[2] I think, I don't deal much with this type of thing though so it should probably be reviewed by someone else who does.--Karek^maps?! 08:09, 14 August 2008 (BST)

Spambotty enough for me. Blocked. --– Nubis ^NWO 02:42, 15 August 2008 (BST)

user:Asdfghjkl

admitted Ioncannon alt for ban evasion...again. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 16:00, 14 August 2008 (BST)

From Official Policy: Attempting to circumvent a ban will result in an escalation without any warning, for each attempted circumvention.

So should Ioncannon get a Perma Voting for each if these alts if his first one fails? Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 05:58, 15 August 2008 (BST)

Technically, yes.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 08:30, 15 August 2008 (BST)

user:Lkjhgfdsa

admitted Ioncannon alt for ban evasion. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 16:00, 14 August 2008 (BST)

User:TEAm4za

Vandalism - Jonny12 ^talk 15:00, 14 August 2008 (BST)

User:Highhi

More Ads, More Spam. 2 in 2 days now. I rule at this. Im going to go off and do something more cool. I may try and write down all the suburbs i can without looking. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 11:29, 12 August 2008 (BST)

Perma Ross - if you are bored you can work on the images :) --– Nubis ^NWO 13:38, 12 August 2008 (BST)

I'll have a look. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 15:12, 12 August 2008 (BST)

User:Ioncannon13

Imperso nation. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 11:04, 12 August 2008 (BST)

User:Ioncannon

Wiped various bits of the VB page. And also made this edit to current suggestions. -- C h e e s e 10:13, 12 August 2008 (BST)

Permabanned by the way. I beginning to think that this is not Ioncannon on a revenge streak. -- C h e e s e 10:16, 12 August 2008 (BST)

User:TotalMacho

this and this, Hell, I'm glad to have Ion's hate-spam off these pages, but is he allowed to do that? Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 01:15, 12 August 2008 (BST)

That is NOT Ion; I am in Ion's group and this is someone purposely framing him. It is obvious this is blatant trolling, even if you think this is Ion, and that makes it okay to delete. TotalMacho 01:18, 12 August 2008 (BST)

Blatant trolling is allowed here though, you can't delete something just because it's offensive. It's unfortunate, but it's true. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 01:21, 12 August 2008 (BST)

Sure you can if it's against this rules. This is somebody who didn't sign their edits, as I've been told is vandalism, and trolling probably isn't allowed on admin pages. That makes it a double offense??? You said yourself it's spam. Stop spamming up these pages with useless reports. TotalMacho 01:23, 12 August 2008 (BST)

Well the thing is, you can't go around deleting others' comments just because you don't like what they say. It was pointless and it was mean, but that's not against the rules per say, at least I don't think. I don't know if not signing your edits is vandalism, but if it is then that was indeed delete-able. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 01:26, 12 August 2008 (BST)

Yes, it is vandalism, and remember: you have to look at whether it was good or bad faith. It was stupid threats to keep using proxies to frame Ion, and that's bad faith. Bad faith edits are vandalism. TotalMacho 01:29, 12 August 2008 (BST)

Precedence has shown that posts created by vandal accounts are removed regardless of content. All further discussion should go onto the talk page. Just wait for a sysop to rule. - Jedaz - 01:32/12/08/2008

Yes, thank you. TotalMacho 01:35, 12 August 2008 (BST)

Resolved, Not Vandalism, etc. Thank you Jedaz for sorting this out.--Karek^maps?! 02:10, 12 August 2008 (BST)

An IP check reveals it to be an open proxy, I believe we have a policy against those?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 16:53, 14 August 2008 (BST)

Good point, does that constitute a separate case? Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 17:00, 14 August 2008 (BST)

Yes, probably, it's not the same offence. It's the same course of action, either way.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 17:15, 14 August 2008 (BST)

Open Proxies Blocked.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 17:24, 14 August 2008 (BST)

User:Autofinance

Spam!!!!! --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 13:24, 11 August 2008 (BST)

Ross, you know that now you will never get low low rates on your next new car or house? Permaban--– Nubis ^NWO 14:25, 11 August 2008 (BST)

He didnt read this--Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 15:32, 11 August 2008 (BST)

By the way,Ive always posted adbots below where it says adbots, and it always gets moved here. Why bother with the section? --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 15:32, 11 August 2008 (BST)

I just moved it here 1. because I didn't pay attention to what section it was in and 2. to indicate it was dealt with. I think we are both correct in our actions. You were definitely right in yours though. (EDIT: that section is there so we can just ban and go without having to discuss and debate. It's still all checked out of course, but it keeps it from getting lost in case there are multiple VB reports at the time it is reported)--– Nubis ^NWO 21:18, 11 August 2008 (BST)

User:Vandal_Alt_DUH

Obvious vandal, see contributions. - Jedaz - 09:46/11/08/2008

Perma - Possible Ioncannon alt. I've protected Ioncannon's user and talk pages as a result. -- C h e e s e 12:54, 11 August 2008 (BST)

It's Ioncannon11 alright. I couldn't imagine anyone else doing it. Also, I've spotted that he uses more than one account now to do these things. TotalMacho and possibly FS could be his other alts? Anyway. Thanks Jedaz for restoring my page after his little attack. Zephyer 15:37, 11 August 2008 (BST)

Sorry for shitting up the page with unrelated talk but, Do you have any evidence for the above comment? Ill be posting anything else on the Talk page. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 15:53, 11 August 2008 (BST)

Nothing concrete, but the IP address used by this guy and Fucgrim are very close. -- C h e e s e 15:59, 11 August 2008 (BST)

And saying that ive just read the talk page and looked at the totalmacho contribs, and agree its a fair bet. Ignore me.--Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 16:01, 11 August 2008 (BST)

Sorry, but "very close" is not good enough... It could very well be ioncannon using a different computer in the same library, or something... or... Or it could another person, his buddy, who lives down the road and uses the same ISP. IPs being "very close" is not good enough, you know better than that. Now, if you can establish, say, that they're different nodes of the same proxy, for example, that's different... But nothing like that has been established as far as I know... **goes to check the Talk page now** --WanYao 20:55, 11 August 2008 (BST)

User:Zephyer

Changing the 173/blacklist page even though it's not his group. My leader asked me to come on here. TotalMacho 00:21, 11 August 2008 (BST)

Not Vandalism - Looks more like a name fix from the Cult of The Fallen Gay to the Cult of The Fallen God for accuracy purposes, probably provoked by Ioncannon after he apparently didn't like Zephyer adding a link to the page. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 00:55, 11 August 2008 (BST)

We're making fun of them on purpose. He's doing it again!!! THIS IS NOT HIS GROUP PAGE AND HE CAN NOT EDIT IT! You set precedent with sonny's imperium must die page!!! It is okay if he didn't know at first, BUT NOW IT IS VANDALISM!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TotalMacho (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Considering you've been here for a day, it looks increasingly likely that you are an Ioncannon alt. -- C h e e s e 19:36, 11 August 2008 (BST)

I just started this game and my leader told me to help him out by checking on the group wiki. Please tell zephyr HE HAS NO RIGHT TO EDIT IT!!!! Forget about me, focus on his vandalism! TotalMacho 20:33, 11 August 2008 (BST)

I'll get to it after I finish poking holes in your story. 1) Why would a group leader ask a complete newbie to check on the group's wiki page? 2) Why would a complete newbie know about the whole Imperium Must Die drama? -- C h e e s e 20:42, 11 August 2008 (BST)

I told you, I'm saying what my leader asked me to!! He im'ed me and told me what to say on MSN, so I posted it here as a favor to him. Deal with zephyr instead of picking on ion; zephyr's the real vandal! TotalMacho 21:16, 11 August 2008 (BST)

You seem to be using a very loose definition of Vandal. What we have here is a simple misinformed error that we see now and then when someone doesn't know about the sacredness of group pages. Ion on the other hand has wiped pages, trolled and broken a ton of rules in the process. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this occasion, but I have my eye on you. -- C h e e s e 21:19, 11 August 2008 (BST)

In the meantime, not vandalism because I don't think Gnome spoke to him about this and he hasn't seen the page. I have left him a note however and told him that next time it will be vandalism. -- C h e e s e 21:13, 11 August 2008 (BST)

Thank you. TotalMacho 21:16, 11 August 2008 (BST)

User:Fucgrim

Looks like Ioncannon11 has gone down the Izumi route...--Sir Bob Fortune ^RR 21:36, 7 August 2008 (BST)

Lol. I think you're getting yourself in worse there Ioncannon. Perma for this alt. -- C h e e s e 21:45, 7 August 2008 (BST)

Should Ioncannon get a further ban for sockpuppet ban evasion? --Sir Bob Fortune ^RR 23:00, 7 August 2008 (BST)

Replied to on the discussion page. --Funt Solo ^QT

23:59, 7 August 2008 (BST)

Given evidence provided on talk, i move to upgrade Ioncannon11's escalation a single notch. This means we have the permabanvote thing. I am in favour. He is a simple troll and we would be well rid of him. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 19:51, 9 August 2008 (BST)

I have to concur with Grim. Ioncannon just doesn't seem to have any regard for the rules and despite continually being brought here, still hasn't taken the time to learn them. He's been around long enough to know by now. Yes to perma. -- C h e e s e 20:31, 9 August 2008 (BST)

In light of the possibility of these Ion vandals being a completely different person out to stir up shit, I'm going to tentatively vote No. He can have that final chance. -- C h e e s e 22:47, 12 August 2008 (BST)

Fucgrim and his latestban evasion, asdfghjkl are ion, the rest are impersonators.just because some of the others are obvious frames doest mean he hasnt earned a perma anyway due to the real ones. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 04:47, 13 August 2008 (BST)

Fuck you Grim, I wouldnt have to make socks at all if I wasn't constantly having to defend myself against people trying to frame me, and not to mention against sysops who have stood against me from day one because of a few mistakes I made when I was new. Just fuck off and give me a chance to reform. Lkjhgfdsa 12:23, 14 August 2008 (BST)

I know Ion and they are not real. If you are so sure they are, then do explain your concrete evidence instead of just saying bullshit, which is predominantly what I have seen from you. TotalMacho 06:10, 13 August 2008 (BST)

Nay, for the moment. Let the month finish. The picture isn't all that great of evidence either. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 05:20, 10 August 2008 (BST)

No - he gets one for free -- boxy ^{talk • i} 06:16 10 August 2008 (BST)

Yes He has 7 VB cases this year alone and one confirmed sock puppet banned. Even if you factor in the struck warning you have to add in the sock and that still brings him up to the required 7. I also want to point this out:

I'm going straight now, I'd like to give a big thanks to everyone who voted against the perma ban request. Ioncannon11 03:12, 21 May 2008 (BST)

I think he might have lied to us. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:30, 10 August 2008 (BST)

Yes - His trolling won't be missed and he's had enough chances to reform.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 19:17, 10 August 2008 (BST)

No - The more information comes to light the more this looks like a shady escalation of harassment of an unliked player. If he deserves it he'll get it on his own, however I, at this point, can not accept that these alts are, without a doubt, him. I also insist you keep in mind what his escalation was for, a humorous suggestion. That's hardly hard core vandalism or the type of thing that a user should be permabanned for. He's not exactly going around maliciously blanking pages.--Karek^maps?! 02:08, 12 August 2008 (BST)

Oh, he made this one, there is no doubt there, it was too quick, too relevant, and it is writtenlike every contact we have had from him. The rest are almost certainly impersonation alts, and once we can tie them to someone i wholeheartedly support insta permaing them. A perma comes based on their entire history, not based on what the most recent occurance of vandalism was. If a person has shown that they cannot stick within the rules of the wiki consistently and instead consistently troll, as Ioncannon has, then they really have no place here. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 03:13, 13 August 2008 (BST)

My comment probably wasn't clear, but my vote is because of his entire history - not just this.

If a person has shown that they cannot stick within the rules of the wiki consistently and instead consistently troll ...(snip)... then they really have no place here. I firmly believe this.

He has been on the wiki since January and has had an A/VB case against him almost every month. He if he truly wanted to be a contributing member he would have straightened up. Just scrolling through the vandal data shows most users straighten up after a ban. This clearly isn't the case. While I see your point about how unfortunate it is that the latest escalation is because of a humorous suggestion that doesn't change the fact that he is a persistent vandal.--– Nubis ^NWO 03:37, 13 August 2008 (BST)

Looking through I'd say that there are only two escalations that aren't in a similar vein to the last one. If this weren't his first 1 month ban maybe I'd agree with you but I don't think this is at the point where a permaban is needed yet.--Karek^maps?! 05:52, 13 August 2008 (BST)

Fair enough. Tell you what. Let's make a bet. If he doesn't get this permaban and has a legit A/VB case against him before January 09 you have to change your user page to say in huge glittery letters: NUBIS WAS RIGHT. And if he comes back after a month off and keeps his nose clean I will change my page to say whatever you want. I'm serious here. You in? --– Nubis ^NWO 14:57, 13 August 2008 (BST)

I would but I, sadly, can't think of a humorous retort. --Karek^maps?! 04:53, 14 August 2008 (BST)

User:Ioncannon11

Creation of a homourous suggestion breaking rule 10 of the suggestions page and therefore Vandalism. Anyone disagree? -- C h e e s e 21:18, 7 August 2008 (BST)

Vandalism - Banned for a month. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 21:22, 7 August 2008 (BST)

I didn't know wow. I thought they all go in the same place.Ioncannon11 21:23, 7 August 2008 (BST)

Ignorance of the rules is not an excuse, especially when you have been around as long as you have. They are clearly posted, and this one is rather mercilessly enforced. See you in a month. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 21:26, 7 August 2008 (BST)

User:The Truth Case number 1

Thinks certain people are zerging. Apparently. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 20:29, 7 August 2008 (BST)

[[3]] Probably want the link don't you? His only contribution. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 20:39, 7 August 2008 (BST)

Warned -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:31 8 August 2008 (BST)

User:Ioncannon11 Case number 7452.281

It seems that he's actively wanting to be a moron now. He's spamming up suggestion voting with lovely big yellow boxes around his text. Example 1, example 2 and example 3 to name a few. -- C h e e s e 20:23, 7 August 2008 (BST)

I'm not spamming! I just like the way it looks. Is there a rule against this? Ioncannon11 21:07, 7 August 2008 (BST)

Maybe, maybe not. But there definitely is against this. -- C h e e s e 21:16, 7 August 2008 (BST)

There are rules on sig size and the large yellow boxes clearly violate that.

Signatures which generally break the wiki in some way either through formatting or other means. --– Nubis ^NWO 01:16, 8 August 2008 (BST)

And what is that rule? Hmmm? Trolling and humorous suggestions are allowed. This falls into the latter. I took great care not to offend any races. Ioncannon11 21:18, 7 August 2008 (BST)

Ohhh, sorry, I didn't know they go separately. Thanks for moving it. Ioncannon11 21:22, 7 August 2008 (BST)

So, are we just rolling this all into the month ban, or what? -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 04:28, 8 August 2008 (BST)

Consider it the same offense I'd say.--Karek^maps?! 12:53, 8 August 2008 (BST)

User:Zapp

Impersonation. Yes, it's most likely a newbie-mistake, but I have a vague memory of even newbies getting warned for impersonation. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 10:12, 7 August 2008 (BST)

Where is your post on his talk page asking him about this post? Isn't it obvious that he copied the vote above his to get the formatting and didn't realize that he copied the sig, too? Is what you did the proper way to strike an unsigned or improper vote? --– Nubis ^NWO 13:06, 7 August 2008 (BST)

Yes, it's obvious he copied the above vote, but like I said, I have a vague memory of even newbies getting warned (as in official warning) for impersonation, which would make me posting on his talkpage pretty much pointless because a sysop would do it anyway. And what do you mean with "Is what you did the proper way to strike an unsigned or improper vote?" It wasn't unsigned and it wasn't an improper vote. It was impersonation. Removing it completely is certainly better than leaving it there. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 14:38, 7 August 2008 (BST)

If you think that an edit like this is an honest mistake, it's much better to discuss it with the person first, on their talk page. There is no requirement for you to report it here... even if it's some form of marginal vandalism, sometimes a quite word works better, and a report can always be made later if the poster doesn't change their ways. Anyway, it seems that Zapp has got the message, so not vandalism -- boxy ^{talk • i} 15:06 7 August 2008 (BST)

User:Airheadoh

Despite his comments, he has no right to edit the group's page: here Ioncannon11 09:10, 7 August 2008 (BST)

Where is the post on his talk page asking him about this edit? --– Nubis ^NWO 13:08, 7 August 2008 (BST)

Also, Detective Ice seems to be his other account. He can certainly edit his own comments. You didn't remove the Det. Ice comment. So either he has permission to edit the page as Detective Ice (and therefore edit those comments as Airhead if he isn't smart enough to realize he is logged into the wrong account) or he doesn't have permission to edit it at all. Which is it? --– Nubis ^NWO 13:18, 7 August 2008 (BST)

I'm guessing that ioncannon doesn't want to remove anyone's comments from anywhere, given that he's the subject of a "witch hunt" at the moment, and doesn't want to risk getting a warning/ban himself. It's reasonable to make otherwise uninvolved parties contact others before reporting them for minor vandalism, but not really the best idea when the parties are obviously already involved in a conflict. I'd classify this as vandalism, editing another (enemy) groups page instead of using the talk page to contact them (and not a newbie mistake given the long history of contributions) -- boxy ^{talk • i} 15:17 7 August 2008 (BST)

Exactly, boxy, thank you. Nubis, he is not supposed ot do this. And I did remove it. Is it back? I'll fix that. He has no permission to edit it as he is not even a member of my group. Ioncannon11 15:50, 7 August 2008 (BST)

i don't know why somebody deleted my debating this but i'm am reposting it:

as you can clearly see, my comments were not vandalism. he is trying to insult the name and people of the Cult, when he knows we clearly won is proposed "war." he's just mad he lost. and my group has reported to me that he is being a flamebait, and changing things on his pages that clrealy insult us.Detective Ice 13:46, 7 August 2008 (BST)...i'm sorry i didn't use the talk page. i just wanted to be sure it was seen and exactly what i was talking about. And i know i am posting under my Airhead account. Detective Ice was banned because you aren't allowed to have multiple accounts, however i was told you can change your sig to match for whichever character you are posting as. I don't think this is vandalism. I did not edit the page to harm it. I was merely telling him that his history is wrong. If I wanted to try and vandelise his page I would actually change things he wrote in there. which i didn't.~Detective Ice 19:46, 7 August 2008 (BST)

Someone rolled back your edit to this page because you wiped out a heap of text from the top of the page when you tried to post here. Learn to edit properly. As to your most recent edit to ion's page, well that just makes it as plain as day that you are a vandal. Here's the rule, follow it ==> Do not edit other people's group pages, use the talk page instead! -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:25 8 August 2008 (BST)

Warned -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:25 8 August 2008 (BST)

oh gee, thanks for warning me. i'll try not to correct true history again when someone makes up their own.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Airheadoh (talk • contribs) 04:25, August 8, 2008.

Groups have greater ownership rights to their own pages, and are given quite a bit of latitude in the "truth" that they may portray there. It would be anarchy if we allowed enemies to have free reign to edit rival group pages because they disagreed with the truth of claims made there. If you want to have something changed on someone else's group page, discuss it with them on the talk page first. If they don't agree to change it, just ignoring it is probably the best option. If you are still intent on having something changed because of inaccuracy, then arbitration is the best place to do it (bring evidence please). Editing the main page, or sub page, of a another group is not allowed unless you are helping to make it the way that they want it, and changing someone's signed comments is vandalism almost anywhere -- boxy ^{talk • i} 06:05 9 August 2008 (BST)

User:Ioncannon11

This, I'm pretty sure it was ruled that changing headers is vandalism/impersonation, and this is clearly not in good faith. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 18:51, 6 August 2008 (BST)

Burn the witch!!! --WanYao 19:41, 6 August 2008 (BST)

I would count this as a bad faith edit, I'm pretty sure changing the header was previously ruled as vandalism.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 19:55, 6 August 2008 (BST)

Well, he didn't edit it himself and I don't see what the big deal is; it's not vandalism. It's nothing serious, in any case, and I was just having a little fun. Is that so bad? I didn't impersonate anyone, blank anything, etc, etc, it was just a little laugh I suppose. Slap on the cuffs and take me away. :( Ioncannon11 21:38, 6 August 2008 (BST)

From the Policy: Vandalism page:

On this wiki, we define Vandalism as "an edit not made in a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki".

Impersonating another user. It is possible to make a comment on the wiki that does not look like it is from yourself, but instead is from another user. Of course, the fact that you edited the page will always exist, so such acts rarely go unnoticed. We expect that, if you're commenting, you're commenting as yourself.

in any case, and I was just having a little fun. Is that so bad? I didn't impersonate anyone

You did impersonate someone; me, and if you find vandalism funny that's really not my issue, nor should it be. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 22:21, 6 August 2008 (BST)

I didn't impersonate you noob. You refused to change the header yourself, and seeing as how that makes you a noob in my eyes, I made a slight, but true, joke and showed you that the header needed to be changed. Ioncannon11 03:07, 7 August 2008 (BST)

In all honesty, this is no worse than half the snarky things I say with my soon to be cycled templates and so much nicer than 90% of Wan's comments. --– Nubis ^NWO 03:39, 7 August 2008 (BST)

The other "Discussion" moved to talk page. --– Nubis ^NWO 03:29, 7 August 2008 (BST)

Vandalism - Someone else created the suggestion there, someone else created the headers. The headers are very strongly implied to be the work of the author of the suggestion. Leaving them in the generic default doesnt give other people the right to change them to insult the poster of the suggestion, correcting them to match the suggestion is fine when left in th default (Much the same as a typo correction), but that did not happen here. Feel free to be insulting in your own posts, but do not resort to impersonation to do so. Also, the edit was entirely made in bad faith, and asking only really applies when there is some doubt over the intent of teh edit. No matter how hard i try i cannnot see how this was made in any small part in good faith. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 04:08, 7 August 2008 (BST)

FYI: Im holding off on processing this due to Nubis's stance here. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 04:10, 7 August 2008 (BST)

If this is vandalism then your creating an insulting headline for J3D is also since the end result is good or bad faith. If this is vandalism then your creating an insulting headline for J3D is actually more vandalism since you posted it over his comments. Are you sure you still want to consider this vandalism? Either Ioncannon can make a funny insulting headline over his post in an area that other people will post under (like you did) or he can't. But we are not going to say that a sysop can but a user can't.--– Nubis ^NWO 13:31, 7 August 2008 (BST)

The parallels between this case and what Grim did is astounding. While Ion replaced an existing heading, it is a default heading and by the nature of the new heading it was apparent that Tech hadn't written it. Also at least the first comment under the new heading was Ion's unlike Grim's which until the explanation text was placed appeared as if i had written it. It seems to me the real difference here is that one was created by the 2nd most powerful and one of the most respected users on the wiki and the other was created by a largely disliked vandal prone user. Double standard anyone? And yes Grim, i am directly involved considering there is very recent precedent about this and my name was brought up in both cases, the first case in fact centred around a post i made and where it was located.--x o x o 14:00, 7 August 2008 (BST)

Vandalism - There's a difference between being uncivil and what was done here. Editing headers to be insults, on community pages, is most certainly not a civility issue.--Karek^maps?! 05:27, 7 August 2008 (BST)

So why didn't you vote vandalism on the case against Grim for editing a headline? I can see why it isn't Misconduct, but why the hell didn't you say it was vandalism?--– Nubis ^NWO 13:31, 7 August 2008 (BST)

I prefer to stay away from A/VB when possible, something about an agreement I made with the community when I was up for promotion. I don't know specifically which case you are talking about off hand unless it is the one that led to the misconduct case. If that is the case, the biggest difference is that there was already an existing header and header naming convention that is obvious on the page. To me it's not about impersonation, it's about him defacing Talk:Suggestions in an attempt to attack another user. --Karek^maps?! 13:46, 7 August 2008 (BST)

Sure it is! He didn't edit and I felt I could use that header separately for my comment. Is that not allowed? I can't have a separate header for my comment? Everyone can have their own sub comment. I was just trying to draw attention to the fact that he is a noob. The rest of the post was 100% in good faith; I was contributing my 2 cents. Impersonating is changing people's posts. He left that part of the template blank, so I used it for my own comment! Not impersonation!!!! Or, at least, definitely not worth a week's ban... Ioncannon11 06:05, 7 August 2008 (BST)

Vandalism - Changing someone else's header is a nono. You know that. -- C h e e s e 15:23, 7 August 2008 (BST)

FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME, IT WAS NOT HIS HEADER!!! HE MADE A CONSCIOUS DECISION NOT TO EDIT IT AND NOT MAKE IT INTO ANYTHING EXCEPT PART OF THE TEMPLATE!!! I TOOK THE HEADER, MADE IT MY OWN AS A SUBSECTION OF THE DISCUSSION. Oops, capslock :D. Is this really worth a month ban? Hell, look at all the contribs I have from my last ban! I think everyone knows my megalomania has subsided, and if blanking 1000 pages gave me a week ban, adopting a header should not give me a month...As J3D was quick to point out, Grim did something very similar and nothing happened to him. I will pull up that precedent and show it. Then if I was to be banned it would be complete and utter disrespect to the wiki's rules, not because you banned me, but because you banned someone for doing something exactly like, hell much better (I had a normal comment goin on) than what a sysop did, the latter being let off on all allegations. Ioncannon11 15:49, 7 August 2008 (BST)

You have just had a warning struck, so you arn't getting banned for this. It will be another warning. This is a simple case, Ion, you changed a template heading to be insulting to the author of the suggestion. You can edit that header to be descriptive (if the author forgets), but it has to be in clear good faith. It obviously should be in the form of "Discussion (suggestion name)". So, warned -- boxy ^{talk • i} 16:09 7 August 2008 (BST)

User:JaredV

Blanked out a section of my Talk page here. --WanYao 15:51, 6 August 2008 (BST)

Ok, I thought I could do that as I was one of the main parties in the discussion. I'll take the vandalism, and I guess I'll know not to do that in future. Sorry Wan. --Jared^{Talk Aces C-Kids} 16:10, 6 August 2008 (BST)

ok... I'll drop this... DROPPED.... But, no, you can not delete posts from any page except your own Talk page and that of groups you're a member of. Even then, it often considered bad form, allowed, but bad form. --WanYao 16:37, 6 August 2008 (BST)

I'll keep that in mind. Thanks. --Jared^{Talk Aces C-Kids} 16:57, 6 August 2008 (BST)

Wow. An A/VB case that could have been solved by leaving a note on the offenders talk page. Color me surprised. Thanks for following the guidelines on the page, Wan Yao. Soft Warning - Don't file petty complaints.--– Nubis ^NWO 02:52, 7 August 2008 (BST)

User:Skouth

Warned for vand alism. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 00:10, 6 August 2008 (BST)

User:Zombie_Lord

After this edit of mine was (rightly) striken, I reposted the content as a re: to my own vote, here. Subsequently, Zombie Lord deleted my second, valid, re: Axe Hack agreed that one is permitted to re: one's own vote, and undid that removal. Then, Zombie Lord unjustifiably moved my author re: to the Talk page (both edits show in the link provived).

Also, a perusal of the user's recent history in the Suggestions area will show that one of his overarching ambitions seems to be trolling... In this context, I say that the last edit was in bad faith and clearly another attempt to troll. This is in addition to the simple fact that his edit was completely unjustified, as I am perfectly within my rights to re: my own vote, and he has no right to remove that re:. --WanYao 20:00, 5 August 2008 (BST)

And... before someone throws the "there's no civility policy on this wiki" argument at me. EXACTLY! Thus, ZL's trolling is permissible. And also my re: to my own vote is permissible, and it's removal is an act of vandalism. --WanYao 20:03, 5 August 2008 (BST)

I don't know about REing your own vote, but Zombie Lord had no right to replace it with his own comment.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 20:12, 5 August 2008 (BST)

If not, delete the word RE. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 20:13, 5 August 2008 (BST)

It's very common practice for people to respond to others' votes by creating a "re:" underneath their original vote. This has always been permitted in the past... I've done it, I've seen others do it, it's never seemed to be an issue. --WanYao 20:16, 5 August 2008 (BST)

Which is why I'm saying I'm not sure about it rather than forbidding it. What I am saying is that Zombie Lord should not have removed it.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 20:24, 5 August 2008 (BST)

Even the authors do it too if they realized they missed something. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 20:19, 5 August 2008 (BST)

It's allowed, and I don't see how it really differs from one less colon. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 21:22, 5 August 2008 (BST)

He removed part of WanYao's post. Probably because Axe Hack didn't strike the RE properly and that part of it was visible. Gah. Anyway, the deleted part of the comment is now restored and struck properly. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 21:13, 5 August 2008 (BST)

Not Vandalism - He seems more confused than wanting to do anything malicious. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 00:14, 6 August 2008 (BST)

You're joking right??? Well... whatever... meh... --WanYao 04:55, 6 August 2008 (BST)

Not sure what he's smoking. Anyway, just move your RE back to the main page and report Zombie Lord if he deletes it again.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 08:44, 6 August 2008 (BST)

What am I supposed to warn him for? Please do not move things to the talk page. Right. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 18:11, 6 August 2008 (BST)

Altering another user's posts in clear violation of all policies and conventions/practices, Gnome. Isn't that vandalism? Certain people are twisting the letter of the rules, just barely falling outside the letter of the policies, in order to get off the hook for serial trolling. And it's effectively being condoned. Now, if you look at the sysop guidelines, it pretty clesrly states that a sysop can (and is sort of expected to) follow the spirit of policies even if this violates the "letter" of said policies. It's time to start following the spirit of the policies and making appropriate decisions in regards to what are clearly bad faith edits... see also ioncannon above for another very relevant example. --WanYao 01:24, 7 August 2008 (BST)

Furthermore, let's look at my re: in the context of it being a lame, long-winded, trollish rant itself. Ok... I can accept that... I kind of feel that way, now, myself. However, there's a bigger contect -- what the fuck??? in regards to Zombie Lord being able to troll me in a blatantly inflammatory manner in his vote... but I have to go through shit in order to defend myself against his trolling? Whether I myself acted with the greatest level of dignity or appropriateness -- or not -- is kind of moot in the context of the fact that people are permitted to twist the rules and get away with trolling. Why is this permitted? As I've said, the spirit of the definition of bad faith can -- and should -- include blatant serial trolling. I think it's time you's started looking at it in this light, and acting accordingly. --WanYao 01:33, 7 August 2008 (BST)

And you're any better? He insulted you a bit, so what. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 04:20, 7 August 2008 (BST)

User:Ioncannon11

Continued editing of the Invasion of Gibsonton page, despite being barred from editing it, as per the arby's case.

"Since Ioncannon11 had no interest in participating in this arbitration, then he will be barred from editing that page, with any edits (aside from grammatical or spelling fixes) to be considered vandalism."

Thanks for your time. --Ocular ^Druuuuu 05:46, 5 August 2008 (BST)

Vandalism. Violation of arbitration ruling=ban. Anyone disagree?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 10:35, 5 August 2008 (BST)

Not Vandalism, for numerous reasons, chief among them that he was baited into editing, that there is no bad faith, that arbitrators do not have the power to put a limitless and absolute ban on user contributions to a page, and that violation of an arbitration ruling is not vandalism, nor is it the arbitrator's place to decide which violations, much less all, are vandalism. Akule ruled out of his ability and unless you can show intent to vandalize you can't call this vandalism, especially when the edits are targeted to illicit a response knowing the "limits" the ruling place on Ioncannon.--Karek^maps?! 11:30, 5 August 2008 (BST)

A minor correction: Violation of arbitration rulings results in a ban. So, yes, such edits are, in practice, vandalism.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 12:04, 5 August 2008 (BST)

No, violation of an arbitration ruling when it violates the rulings purpose is vandalism. Arbitrators rulings are limited to the reason the case was brought up, they are not encompassing of everyone or page involved in the case only the edit/s being disputed. All ruling violations are not vandalism, part of our job is to limit the arbitrator's power by determining which ones are, even if it's been neglected in the past.--Karek^maps?! 12:42, 5 August 2008 (BST)

Short Version; The case didn't address that groups presence, nor was it asked to. If the case isn't relevant to the edit it holds no bearing here, we shouldn't re-enforce abuse.--Karek^maps?! 11:33, 5 August 2008 (BST)

Usually, I would rule vandalism here, but due to the nature of the edit in question I'm going to say that on this occasion it is Not Vandalism. -- C h e e s e 11:38, 5 August 2008 (BST)

Well then, I change my ruling. Consensus is Not Vandalism.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 12:04, 5 August 2008 (BST)

Oh, please, this is not vandalism. My group was there; I respected the decision regarding the outcome of the whole thing, but they vandalized it and took out my group's name from the participant label. How much more vandalism can you get? Thank you, karek. Ioncannon11 11:33, 5 August 2008 (BST)

No matter how much of an asshat ioncannon is ... Yeah ... He was legitimately "defending" himself. Now, whoever tried to take his group off? Why haven't THEY been brought here, or at least been given a little note on their talk page? Eh??? --WanYao 12:18, 5 August 2008 (BST)

Well, yao, maybe I like you a little more now :). It was The Surgeon General; I didn't do anything because I wanted to edit it myself at first, but I suppose they deserve to be here. Ioncannon11 12:43, 5 August 2008 (BST)

User:Swizzler

Impersonation and breaking the rules of voting, all in one edit. He impersonated Cheese and used that impersonation to vote twice. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 22:47, 4 August 2008 (BST)

Not Vandalism - He seems to have copy-pasted from my sample suggestion that I made a while back. -- C h e e s e 23:04, 4 August 2008 (BST)

There was a sample suggestion? Huh. Didn't notice that. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 23:06, 4 August 2008 (BST)

User:Jackson

Don't we have rules against making pages like this? -- C h e e s e 14:30, 4 August 2008 (BST)

I'm not sure, you could count it as bad faith and I believe there may be a precedent regarding it. I can't be certain, though.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 14:43, 4 August 2008 (BST)

I was just about to come and report it myself.--/\Haliman/\ ^{T | CC | UC | P! | W!} 18:22, 4 August 2008 (BST)

User:Chincocracker

Made this edit. I asked him to justify his actions on his talk page, but he has not responded. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 06:30, 4 August 2008 (BST)

Warned.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 08:17, 4 August 2008 (BST)

User:GmanG

Need I say more? Brought us pages such as "Creampie", "Bukkake" and "Thirteen Inches Dick". Anyone else get the feeling that this is a sexually frustrated 15 year old? Perma. -- C h e e s e 14:45, 2 August 2008 (BST)

This is the 3rd Gman Sockpuppet who's shown up and started vandalizing the wiki, perhaps a IP ban is in order if this trend continues? Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 18:09, 2 August 2008 (BST)

A quick check of GmanG showed no matching ips or I would do an ip ban.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 19:27, 2 August 2008 (BST)

He must have an unstable IP address or be using proxies, there's no way this is a coincidence. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 19:31, 2 August 2008 (BST)

I agree, but it means an ip block is, at present, fairly useless.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 19:37, 2 August 2008 (BST)

User:Lolwarrior

Perma None of his edits seemed to be good or helpful. --– Nubis ^NWO 01:33, 2 August 2008 (BST)

User:G-man-returns

All his edits. IP ban? --Sir Bob Fortune ^RR 00:42, 2 August 2008 (BST)

B& permanently. --Zs L 00:52, 2 August 2008 (BST)

User:Shooty08

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Talk:Suggestions&curid=1414&diff=1235171&oldid=1235170, Impersonation. This is his third A/VB today. I'll let the author of said comment say anything else that needs be said. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 00:01, 1 August 2008 (BST)

I was just about to report this. It's not technically impersonation, I'd push for a warning (based on precedent below) for striking another user's comments without good reason on a community page. I'd suggest premeditation as his edit before this was the one that broke my post into two sections. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 00:04, 1 August 2008 (BST)

New development:http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ASuggestions&diff=1235177&oldid=1235175 , He's gone large scale. depending on whether this counts as a new A/VB, this could be his fourth today, If that's not unprecedented, it at least deserves some sort of firm response. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 00:08, 1 August 2008 (BST)

Persistent vandalism of the suggestions discussion page, request block under active vandal criteria. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:08, 1 August 2008 (BST)

I agree, 4 A/VB cases in one day about the same section Definitely suggests something amiss. In my opinion, serious action should be taken to show him that this is not a joke. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 00:33, 1 August 2008 (BST)

Have you tried talking to him? I personally think it's more the fact that he's a complete and utter noob and doesn't get the wiki. In the first one, he's striking an unsigned comment, which is allowed. And the other two are him attempting to remove the suggestions from discussion, I think. :/ In any case, it doesn't look as though there is any malicious intent. Just being one of those annoying noobs who seem to have a completely epic first day which sees them in VB more times than most users in their entire wiki career. I will have a word with him, however, and let him know that he is bordering on getting the book thrown at him. -- C h e e s e 00:42, 1 August 2008 (BST)

Cmon' cheese, 4 A/VB cases? really? This guy is actively laughing at his own vandalism as he posts it, and showing it online with little "XD" faces every time he breaks the rules by wiping suggestions or removing others' content. He's like a little kid running around kicking everyone in the building; someone needs to tell him he can't do this kind of crap and get away with it before it goes farther into his head. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 01:02, 1 August 2008 (BST)

The first one wasn't an unsigned comment, it was a response of mine that was properly paragraphed. It became orphaned from my signature when Shooty08 broke up my comment by posting within it, his next edit was to strike it. You'll notice I mention this premeditation above. You ask for the evidence, I bring it, and still nothing. Ignorance does not change the fact he breached established vandalism precedent. There's a reason the first offence doesn't carry a perma.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:58, 1 August 2008 (BST)

You'll also notice that because he moved his strikeouts around, my comment now appears to have been signed by him. This is now a case of impersonation that I'd like ruling on. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 01:03, 1 August 2008 (BST)

Ok. Give me an exact diff link showing that and I will rule on it. -- C h e e s e 01:05, 1 August 2008 (BST)

No exact link as it was the result of conflicting edits, however here is where he strike my comment, having previous posted inside it, and here is where he removes those strikeouts (so that his vandalism to the entire suggestion will work), but he leaves his signature. While I can remove the strikeouts and move his comments as it's vandalism to a community page and a comment in an incorrect place according to the page guidelines, I am unable to move that comment or delete the signature now acting as the impersonation due to previous precedent. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 01:11, 1 August 2008 (BST)

Ok. Number two is the one I'm after. It may not be intentional, but it is impersonation. Therefore, vandalism. You can quite happily delete the signature by the way. You aren't handless. It's your comment anyway. -- C h e e s e 01:16, 1 August 2008 (BST)

ohohoho, don't tell me that permanent impersonation counts as a seperate VB, cuz if this guy is subject to 5 A/VB cases in two and a half hours I will freaking wet myself from laughter. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 01:17, 1 August 2008 (BST) (DAMN EDIT CONFLICTS MONKEY!!!!!! =P jkng)

And if the "noob errors" continue... will you slap a ban? That's the question... --WanYao 11:49, 1 August 2008 (BST)

In the future please include all relevant diffs, in this case this one was missing. That being said, I am going to step in and say it's Not Vandalism and you're all reading way too much into what is easier explained as uninformed mistakes, for one_{(again highly relevant, again not included)}, he is allowed to remove his own suggestions whenever he feels like it. Frankly, I'm dumbfounded that Cheeseman missed this.--Karek^maps?! 02:12, 1 August 2008 (BST)

I'm pretty sure that while he can remove his own suggestions, he can't remove other users comments, which he did. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 02:21, 1 August 2008 (BST)

There was an obvious gap between the two, better people have been tricked by less, the same thing even, we've never ruled it vandalism and attempting to remove unsigned comments is hardly such without bad faith, it's something that is done in most voting sections of the wiki, Suggestions included, that he didn't know it's not done on Talk:Suggestions is the reasonable conclusion.--Karek^maps?! 02:41, 1 August 2008 (BST)

Im inclined to agree with karek here. Nothing here appears malicious. Just a series of errors that could have easily stopped if you had tried to explain to him how to use the tags and the rules of the page. I see nothing that indicates you have even attempted to do so. No. Id actually contend that you made this case in bad faith to persecute a person you consider an idiot without trying to help him out first. Not Vandalism, just a newbie mistake. Warning is hereby overruled (2-1) and purged from his record. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 04:01, 1 August 2008 (BST)

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
+===[[User:Nubis]]===
+{{vndl|Nubis}}
+He's a bad person

UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive1: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:50, 15 August 2008

Guidelines for Vandalism Reporting

Before Submitting a Report

Adbots

Vandalism Report Space

August 2008

User:The Truth Case number 1

User:Ioncannon11 Case number 7452.281

Archive

Navigation menu

Search