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. To lodge a request for de-escalation, please visit A/DE. 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, they might not be punished for their actions.

December

User:Helena Green

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

Verdict	Incomplete
Action taken	None Yet

As per my recent comment on A/BP, it appears that this account is likely to be a sock puppet, given that its only edits were an attempt to influence an election via proxy (do an Internet search for “proxy” with the IP they used for the edits). I’ve already blocked the IP address permanently as a proxy IP, but I’m bringing the account itself here for consideration. We generally only take action against proxy users when they engage in an apparent act of bad faith, with sock puppeting being the classic example of bad faith.

Thoughts? I’m honestly a bit ambivalent. Given this user’s edits to date it’s hard to construe their use of proxies on A/BP in any way other than in a bad light, at which point we generally insta-ban as a vandal alt when it’s a brand new account using proxies from the get-go. Even so, I could see this being a unique, Goon meatpuppet using a proxy out of habit, at which point I’m fine giving them leeway to correct the issue. I’d love for others to weigh in. —Aichon— 07:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Someone once tried to vote for me in a crat election with a proxy and it was decisively called not vandalism.

I’ve never had a problem with isolating the proxy IP and leaving the account alone to return with a proper IP if they wish to in future. However, due to the conflict of interest I won’t be voting on the case. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 12:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

We always ban the proxy IP, and we generally leave it at that in the case of benign edits. In the case of accounts created to engage in apparent acts of bad faith via proxy (which any action on A/BP via proxy would certainly be), we generally ban immediately as a vandal alt for an unknown vandal.

As for the case, I’m glad you brought that one up since I had forgotten about it. At first glance, it looks like a strong precedent for this case, but in looking over the accompanying Misconduct case, it sounds like the ensuing debate was because CyberBob banned the account on the basis of thin, circumstantial evidence: the account was seemingly created just to vote in the election and its IP was from the same city as other known users. That’s it. I’m not even convinced I agree with them striking the vote in that case, since the evidence of sockpuppetry was so thin.

In this case, however, the evidence isn’t nearly so thin or circumstantial. That the edits were made from a proxy—which is definitively disallowed—is clear. We may not know who it belongs to, but we do know that this account was (edit: striking an overstatement on my part) both created and used in a apparent act of bad faith.

Anyway, even if you recuse yourself from ruling, keep chiming in with thoughts. I’m honestly still on the fence about this, since even if it’s an apparent act of bad faith, it isn’t a certain one. —Aichon— 14:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the edit is bad faith. Like you said, it's borderline — it's possible the person is just used to running a proxy and wasn't aware that proxies are disallowed on the wiki. (They made an account exclusively to vote, and the A/BP page doesn't list the proxies thing.) I'd vote vandalism for proxy use but just a warning, no perma.

If the person continues to edit with a proxy after your message, then we'd be entering 3eV territory, right? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 15:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

My one qualm with dismissing this as someone who is used to operating behind a proxy is that we have more than one IP for the account, and not all of them are behind proxies, which would suggest they purposefully used a proxy when voting. Of course, the fact that we can't tie any addresses to any other accounts would seem to suggest that there's a unique individual behind this one, meaning it isn't necessarily sockpuppetry. You can see why I'm of two minds on this one and decided to bring it here before doing anything, since there's clues pointing both ways.

Regarding giving them a warning, I find myself disagreeing with you, Bob. If this is a case of a user mistakenly engaging in disallowed behavior while otherwise operating in good faith, then no escalation is warranted, warning or otherwise, since they likely wouldn't have known any better. If, on the other hand, this is a user intentionally hiding their identity so as to operate in bad faith, then this is a vandal alt, plain and simple, to which the only appropriate response is a permaban. That's the question I'm trying to get resolved with this case.

Regarding 3EV, I suppose that we could ban them as 3EV if their next edit is via proxy, but I'd be against doing so if that edit is something that's otherwise benign. A simple warning for their continued use of proxies is all that I'd be inclined to do in that case, but that's a bridge that we can cross if and when we reach it.

Honestly, this is all moot if they never make another edit, which frankly wouldn't be a surprising outcome to the situation. For now, however, I'm leaning towards Not Vandalism. We know they used a proxy on A/BP, which isn't allowed, but we don't issue warnings to wikinewbs over honest mistakes, it isn't obviously linked to anyone else in a way that definitively proves sockpuppetry, and we're called to assume good faith, so I'm inclined to leave things as they are. In the interests of a fair election, the vote should remain struck, of course, until and unless they replace it with one made from their own IP. —Aichon— 20:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Jack's Inflamed Sense Of Rejection (3)

• Jack's Inflamed Sense Of Rejection (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warning

Impersonated Murderess by "signing" as her in the ongoing A/BP vote. He's been warned for impersonation before, and this is on an imporant administrative process, so I'm bringing it here. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 12:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Just chiming in with agreement for this ruling, though shouldn’t it be a warning? Looks like you haven’t applied a block yet, despite what the template says above. —Aichon— 14:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, just copy-pasted and forgot to mark that no ruling has yet happened. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 21:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism - In terms of policing this kind of signature stuff, I don't think all situations like would normally be vandalism straight up (if it were a playful in-joke, and not a copy-paste of the original signature, I could be convinced it's fine). However, this is too much, and clearly bad-faith. While I don't think it's a legitimate attempt to cause reputational damage to Murderess (because she does more than enough of that to herself without needing anyone else near her), it's clearly pushing the rules just to torment someone. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 01:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll take that week, or warning, or whatever your imagination allows you. I'm just waiting.. Considering most people I don't identify myself as an enemy of Murderess - she was just the victim of a joke, unlike what I did last time with the talk page. -- 03:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The administration guidelines does not allow for imagination, something I'm very thankful for. You would be administered a warning should this be confirmed as vandalism. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 05:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Went ahead and issued the warning. And I agree with DDR that it isn't necessarily bad faith to do something like this with a signature, given the right conditions, but we tend to take a dim view towards it as a generality, even more so when it involves admin pages, and even more so again when it involves voting on admin pages. Voting fraud is rarely in good faith, after all. ;) —Aichon— 07:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

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