UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2010 10

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

Guidelines for Vandalism Reporting

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

• A link to the pages in question.

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

• The user name of the Vandal.

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

• A signed datestamp.

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

• Please report at the top.

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

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

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

Before Submitting a Report

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

Vandalism Report Space

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

Spambots

Spambots are to be reported on this page. New reports should be added to the top. Reports may be purged after one week.

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

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

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

• Blocked a large surge of bots --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
• YasminLashbrook (contribs | logs | block | del userpage | IP Check) --VVV ^RPMBG 06:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
• LoganDos626 (contribs | logs | block | del userpage | IP Check) --VVV ^RPMBG 06:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  Both done DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 09:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

October 2010

All the sysops

I'm reporting all the sysops for being facists and racists and I demand an unban for user Hermann von Teutoburg.

The reason why I'm using an open proxy is the same reason as why I'm using a nickname. I don't want my personal data on the internet. In my country, when you have someone's IP adress you can look up personal data of this certain person which I do not wish to be on the internet. I use it 'everywhere', with the exception of websites I trust.

That said, I do not know who Corn is.

Yes, I have experience using wiki. No, I have never had an account on this wiki. I had an account on 'The Vault'.

No, I am not anti-Jewish. Yes, I am anti-Zionist.

I'm reporting all the sysops here for being facists because I didn't have a chance to defend myself here on Vandal Banning and because they ban for no reason. (I have done nothing wrong, so leave me alone.) That leaves banning me because I'm an anti-Zionist. This makes all the sysops racists. Zionists would like to see the White race destroyed. Banning someone for being anti-Zionist makes you a Zionist. This means the sysops (Zionists) are racists. Since user Hermann von Teutoburg has done nothing wrong, or be it at least that he can't be proven to have done anything wrong, I demand this user unbanned. --Hermann von Teutoburg2 07:14, 28 October 2010 (BST)

User:Hermann von Teutoburg

Hermann von Teutoburg (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

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

Open Proxy, poor grammatical English, anti Jewish Ramblings, and another name for User:Arminius, anyone think its not Corn? The proxy is already blocked, as per tradition, but I'm assuming we block the alt and remove whatever its posting? Because of the ban avoidance. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:11, 26 October 2010 (BST)

I'm not sure, honestly. The English is poorer and the writing style is quite different than what Corn previous exhibited. That said, they did jump onto the wiki and start using it like a veteran, they're (mis)using the phrase "National Socialist", they didn't stop or pass by Go before immediately starting the anti-Jewish rhetoric, they're using a blatant German reference for their name, they used a proxy to make their account and comment, and...well...10-to-1 says it's Corn. I'm tempted to suggest contacting them and asking them to respond here without the use of a proxy, but I honestly don't know that doing so would change my opinion. —Aichon— 00:19, 27 October 2010 (BST)

Of note, not misuse of the term. Nazi is a contraction of the Nazi Party's german name, Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers' Party). Whilst the complete opposite end of the spectrum from plain socialism, it's still the correct appelation. Cf/ Irish Republicanism and the US' Republican Party. Oh, and ban the proxy, ban the alt as a workaround account, and protect the page. Consider the idea of a policy limiting the use of real-world politics as wiki group pages after an open discussion. 00:26, 27 October 2010 (BST)

Why Protect the Page? Why not delete it? It is vandalism, as its an edit by a banned user? The Proxy is already banned btw. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:59, 27 October 2010 (BST)

Ban the alt, delete the page, make no such policy as it stems free speech. Also, Aichon's correct. Whilst the party was called the National Socialist party, as soon as Hitler became leader of the party he ousted all socialist elements (Well, he did it in 1934). The terminology isn't apt at all, which is why people refer to them as "Nazis". But yeah, obvious alt is obvious.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature3 10:21, 27 October 2010 (BST)

If we're ruling it's an alt of a banned user, then, yes, delete the page as a vandal edit. Now that we've corrected the IP banning so that it'll take effect on Hermann, it may be interesting to see what happens. —Aichon— 19:27, 27 October 2010 (BST)

I don't mind waiting but in the long run I want the page gone. Otherwise it just shows that people avoiding bans can post happily and we'll tolerate it, even when its full of basic chemistry mistakes. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:30, 27 October 2010 (BST)

I'll delete the page some time tonight if there are no objections.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature3 20:49, 27 October 2010 (BST)

I'd say not, just protect. I was in cahoots with the guy who edited Nazi Party of Malton page, and he used a proxy too? I dunno. I just don't think we have enough evidence to kneejerk in Corn's direction. There are other nazi's out there, they all use rhetoric (it's hitlers thing), and while I have to be honest, I think it's corn, we could at least wait on some evidence (or at least inaction after the proxy ban) before deleting, until then this seems draconian. -- LEMON #1 23:28, 27 October 2010 (BST)

I'm happy to wait a few days. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 23:35, 27 October 2010 (BST)

Works for me.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature3 23:57, 27 October 2010 (BST)

User:Mtumbe Ngoube

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

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

For this edit, in which he deleted the only link which shows that Rofl is the author of the guide PKer tips. This appears to be a premeditated act meant to conceal the true identity of the author, in order to make it easier to delete the guide by claiming authorship before it up for deletion.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 16:10, 21 October 2010 (BST)

I'm going to assume good faith for now, whilst I ask him to show connection between the old user and the new user. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:50, 21 October 2010 (BST)

As Ross.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:04, 21 October 2010 (BST)

I hadn't really considered this possibility. Sorry to take it here, I should have asked the user first.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 15:14, 22 October 2010 (BST)

Edit summary, FTW -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:10 24 October 2010 (BST)

Seems they are the same person, so Not Vandalism. Makes the deletion vote interesting now. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:10, 23 October 2010 (BST)

Not really, since it's a scheduled... -- LEMON #1 05:03, 24 October 2010 (BST)

Just because a page falls under a scheduled deletion, doesn't mean that we are bound to delete it. This is a community page (even if others haven't edited it), and if the community thinks it should remain on the wiki, they are free to vote keep, and expect the sysops to leave it be. If the author wants to distance himself from his creation, he can remove any reference to his name -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:10 24 October 2010 (BST)

Mostly incorrect, Crit 7's have preference over anything in a vast majority of cases, examples like these, no matter how trivial. -- LEMON #1 13:35, 24 October 2010 (BST)

Those were pages in the User's namespace. Ownership rights are greater there. This guide, however, is a community page, and they should only be crit 7ed if they are of little, or no use to the community. Given that the community is voting on it, it is easy to determine in this case -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 21:42 24 October 2010 (BST)

Ah, I see your point, but I still believe that if the user has the controlling right to be able to blank the page and not have it reverted (as he does now) then it might as well be an inarguable crit 7. -- LEMON #1

Darma and Lois Millard

Darma (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss) Lois Millard (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Not vandalism
Action taken	None needed

More importantly the shared IP. It's either a proxy, in which case it needs banning, or they're the same person, in which case we may need to log it, and also flare signals are sent off since one of the edits from this IP was a vote in a crat election. They haven't both voted, so it would be a good issue to clear up. Proxy or alt?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:47, 4 October 2010 (BST)

Sigh. Both are on the up and up, no proxies so no bans. No vandalism has been committed, and Lois is as upstanding as they get. 22:49, 4 October 2010 (BST)

Well yeah, but are they the same person?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:50, 4 October 2010 (BST)

They are the same person. Check Lois' RG forums sig -- Spiderzed▋ 22:54, 4 October 2010 (BST)

Board requires me to be logged in, but I trust you. :P --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:08, 4 October 2010 (BST)

Template:EC

Edit conflictedAsking on talk page, but contribs are leaning me towards alt. What's the practice in these cases?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:50, 4 October 2010 (BST)

To do nothing, in a case like this. If Lois uses the Darma account as a second vote, or to vandalise, that's the only time that multiple accounts are looked at. 22:53, 4 October 2010 (BST)

Yeah, but I'm wondering if a note is necessary? I think practice is for there to be one somewhere, but usually it's VD, and I'd guess she doesn't have any.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:54, 4 October 2010 (BST)

A note is only standard practice on A/VD to show the vandal alts of those who use them, not to list any and all alt accounts. 22:55, 4 October 2010 (BST)

Is it UHUB then? I'm tired and can't really recall.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:00, 4 October 2010 (BST)

UHUB? 23:01, 4 October 2010 (BST)

User hub. There are a few like that on there, but I don't know really. I think she already has her name on there, so it would probably be great if she added it but not mandatory. :P Not a clue. This is here if we need it, so there's a note somewhere.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:07, 4 October 2010 (BST)

Also, I didn't add the template because this isn't strictly a vandalism case, it's an alts thingy.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:07, 4 October 2010 (BST)

In future, alt-based vandalism requires an actual act of vandalism first. Most user with multiple accounts don't want the connection to be known, and several of them exist. It's treading into misuse of checkuser to expose them without actual cause, so please don't do this again. 23:14, 4 October 2010 (BST)

Except pretending to be somebody else is actually impersonation which is vandalism, isn't it? So the "They don't want to know" argument is BS.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:19, 4 October 2010 (BST)

Only pretending to be an existing user is impersonation, which clearly isn't the case. 23:24, 4 October 2010 (BST)

Imagine I create multiple accounts. Every time I get in an discussion I get my alts to support myself in order to steer a discussion in my favor. I'm sure there are more ways abusing this without actually vandalism. --Thadeous Oakley 23:27, 4 October 2010 (BST)

It's already in the actual rules (where's Box's sig when I need it) that voting and vandal alts are the only uses we punish this for. That's clear. This is unnecessary, and making a big deal about it is just pointless. Plus, if you beed to create a bunch of alts just to win an internent argument you need to find a better position in that argument in the first place. Case is closed, any sysop bringing another case like this without any actual infraction is going to A/M as a result, as no one can claim ignorance to how this operates now we've got this laid down. 23:31, 4 October 2010 (BST)

The Rules. If folks create lots of alts to "win" an argument, we can out them since they're clearly acting in bad faith. That said, I agree with Mis' statements pretty much across the board, though I'd go further and say that it was actual, though mild, checkuser abuse (I'm not taking him to A/M over it, however). Lois' alt account should not have been outed unless something shady was going on since alt accounts are perfectly permissible when used for reasonable purposes, and by all accounts, Lois was not behaving irresponsibly with the accounts.

By Yonn's own admission, this is not a vandal case, so it has no reason to be here in the first place, and why Yonn felt it necessary to note this alt when we know of dozens of others is beyond me. I'll chalk it up to him being tired, but generally the only time a note is necessary is when an actual vandal case happens. Otherwise, they are allowed to have them, as long as they use them in good faith, and we don't mention it out of respect for their privacy. —Aichon— 00:03, 5 October 2010 (BST)

Right, Confirmed there the same person, case remains as a note in VB history they are the same person. Have a nice day. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:38, 5 October 2010 (BST)

User:Misanthropy

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

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Soft Warning

This case is inevitable and I'm not nitpicking but I think it's gotta be brought here. Image:A BP.png needs evaluation as pornography/offensive content. -- LEMON #1 12:38, 4 October 2010 (BST)

In my defense, we've allowed graphic slash fiction before, and it was inevitable. 13:31, 4 October 2010 (BST)

Soft Warning - Borderline case. Any worse and it would be proper vandalisms, but for now a soft warning will do. Plus, he hasn't done anything like it before.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:52, 4 October 2010 (BST)

Soft Warning - As Yonn. —Aichon— 00:06, 5 October 2010 (BST)

Regardless of vandalism, I really think this should be deleted in the interests of good taste, it fits in the definition of hardcore imagery. Yeah, I know how prudish I'm sounding. -- LEMON #1 02:28, 5 October 2010 (BST)

Oh right, yeah. I'll get it now, was just waiting for a tad more of a consensus.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:17, 5 October 2010 (BST)

More on talk page.

Vandalism., but just. so Soft It terrifies me to think what having you as a crat will be like. (But then I could Say the Same thing about DDR) --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:40, 5 October 2010 (BST)

Yonn already deleted the image a few hours back, so I'm gonna go ahead and close the case, since it looks like it's wrapped. —Aichon— 07:27, 6 October 2010 (BST)