UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2008 09
|
Vandal Banning Archive | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
September 2008
User:Schizoidgull
Schizoidgull (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
These two edits. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 20:37, 30 September 2008 (BST)
User:Zeug
Zeug (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Yet another deletion workaround for his page under deletions voting, United Zombies of Malton. That page is still under deletions voting... The new page which an Arbitration case (which is a completely seperate entity from the Deletions request) said could be created is called "Urban Dead Zombie Portal" -- aka UDZP -- not UZM. Deletions voting is not finished. Therefore IMO this is a deletion workround. --WanYao 15:06, 29 September 2008 (BST)
- Seriously... The right thing to do here was to allow this process to finish. The United Zombies of Malton is still up for deletions. Period. Until such time as that process is finished, changing the UZM redirect to a new page -- with a totally different name and acronym -- seems in pretty bad faith to me... --WanYao 17:45, 29 September 2008 (BST)
- Seriously... Is this the best you got wan? The UZM redirect isn't up for deletion, the United Zombies of Malton is, and I've already changed my vote for the page I wrote to Speedy Delete. As for the relation between the UZM redirect shortcut and the Urban Dead Zombie Portal I revised wan's edit and pointed him to Talk:UZM where he really should get into the habit of discussing edits before he acts like a wannabe mod on this wiki. The Urban Dead Zombie Portal is a page for the Urbandead Zombies of Malton (UZM) external website portal on uzm-urbandead.com. UZM is what it's about. As for bad faith this user is obviously annoyed that he can't argue himself out of a wet paper bag with me and is chasing any opportunity to annoy and disrupt. Hilariously all his argument adds up to is a plea to not redirect until the completely superfluous deletion vote is tallied next week. Even if the Keep's win the day the page is going to be deleted as per Krazy's arbitration! I'd like to nominate wan's vandal escalation as not only pointlessly time wasting but blatant bad faith misuse of the wiki admin. Cheers --Zeug 19:18, 29 September 2008 (BST)
- The UZM redirect is clearly associated with the page under consideration for deletion. The new page does not have the abbreviation "UZM", it's not even close. Therefore, I consider Zeug's edits to be a deletion workaround, and that's why this case is here. If the United Zombies of Malton is deleted, speedily or otherwise, then UZM -- as its associated redirect -- ought to be deleted as well. And a new, appropriately named redirect created for the new page. Very simple, very straightforward, really. No sophistical "logic" necessary. Meanwhile, this case is either Vandalism, or Not Vandalism, no?... Everything else is, frankly, drama... 'Nuff said, rule away. --WanYao 20:00, 29 September 2008 (BST)
User:Schizoidgull
Schizoidgull (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Here you can see he wiped the Spam and Dupe vote portion of this suggestion and removed many of the Keep peoples sigs.--SirArgo Talk 03:56, 29 September 2008 (BST)
- Warned - even though he has few contributions showing (none of which are particularly helpful), he has been around since June, and made at least one suggestion (referred to on his talk page), so it's clear that he's had quite a few missing from the recent history wipe, therefore no perma -- boxy talk • i 13:23 29 September 2008 (BST)
User:Halo3rulez12
Halo3rulez12 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Impersonation of me. --Funt Solo QT 
02:21, 26 September 2008 (BST)
- Not vandalism - it looks to simply be a newbie unfamiliar with the intricacies of editing the wiki. A message on his talk page would be more welcoming and helpful than a vandalism report -- boxy talk • i 09:42 26 September 2008 (BST)
User:Wind Angel
Wind Angel (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Permabanned as an alt of Izumi Orimoto. IP check matches IP of her account, Illusionist (Sysops: See Checkuser history for details). Plus her exchange with Stephen_Colbert_DFA was kind of a givaway. --The Grimch U! E! 16:16, 24 September 2008 (BST)
User:Zeug: Case number 3452
Zeug (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Circumventing a page protection by creating a second copy of the disputed page United Zombies of Malton despite the fact that the original has been protected due to an edit war and nominated for deletion. -- Cheese 19:38, 22 September 2008 (BST)
- Vandalism - Creating a new page to get around a cooldown protection due to an ongoing edit war (which would merely have perpetuated that edit war) is obviously terrible faith. Warned --The Grimch U! E! 01:17, 23 September 2008 (BST)
User:Zeug
Zeug (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
This edit. Moron had been told clearly that he was unwelcome to post on my namespace and should not do so anymore. As per precedent regarding page ownership, request conviction for vandalism. -- 
.
. <== DDR Approved Editor 15:33, 22 September 2008 (BST)
- Can you provide a link to the precedent to which you are referring? As in a case where the page owner revoked the right of the offending user to reply on their page and this wish was broken and then ruled as vandalism. I have no idea when or where I'm searching for it. -- Cheese 18:31, 22 September 2008 (BST)
- We have very clearly punished users for breaches of page specific rules before, but I can't be bothered to find the actual case given that the edit history has been wiped. So instead you get the process which it is all based around.
- The page in question is in my namespace, it is my main talk page. There is no disputing this.
- The rules of my page were placed long before Zeug's comment. They have not been changed retroactively to implicate him. There is no disputing this.
- I clearly removed Zeug's right to reply in my comment. He was aware of this as his posted in direct response to this post. There is no disputing this.
- Accordingly we have a situation where I have created rules for a page in my namespace, specifically named another user as being subject to them and this user has broken them. I have brought the matter to the next logical conclusion, A/VB, and reported vandalsim. Now it seems I have to explain the whole thing.
- On community pages we have a system of user consensus to establish non-policy rules for the governance of that page. A good example would be the suggestions guidelines, which are not to be found in any policy but have instead come about due to agreement by members of the community in order that the page runs according to the wishes of the owning party (in this case the community).
- As my talk page belongs only to me, and not the community, I need no such consensus with anyone else to decide equivalent rules. As the community can decide and post rules for the suggestions page, I can do so for my own personal pages.
- I claim this right under this specific policy document. Particularly this section:
- "It has been explicitly noted that User: and User talk: pages are the sole property of that particular user...As such, Users are free to do whatever they wish to their user pages"
- As the policy states it is under my ownership, and that I am allowed to do whatever I wish with my pages (with the noted exception of instances mentioned further down in the document such as impersonation) I claim the same rights afforded to community pages.
- I claim this right under this specific policy document. Particularly this section:
- Therefore, the rules were clear and obvious before Zeug posted. He clearly was in contravention of them. He should now be issued the next stage of escalation available.
- Failure to do so indicates that non-policy rules count for nothing within the process of this wiki and mean that anyone ever convicted under rule ten of the suggestions system is able to appeal their ruling and bring ruling sysops for misconduct under moderation principles.
- If this is not ruled as vandalism it will lead to a situation where users have their talk pages protected to avoid situations like this and thus reduce community interaction, ultimately damaging the core purpose of this wiki. --
.
. <== DDR Approved Editor 09:52, 25 September 2008 (BST)
- This same situation has been ruled time and time again as not vandalism, despite your bullshit claim to precedent. You can put that notice up, and henceforth delete anything and everything that Zeug posts on your talk page, no problem (as long as you don't misrepresent him in doing so selectively), or you can go to arbitration and get a ruling there that he is not to post to your page. However, without an arbitration case, where good reason is required to allow such an imposition, your talk page should still remain available to all users to contact you about wiki issues. That is it's purpose, it's only reason for existing, after all -- boxy talk • i 12:54 25 September 2008 (BST)
- Oh, and no, active users should not be allowed to have their talk pages protected, for the same reason. Others need to be able to contact a user, and without a talk page, there is no reliable way to do that on a wiki -- boxy talk • i 12:57 25 September 2008 (BST)
- If this is not ruled as vandalism it will lead to a situation where users have their talk pages protected to avoid situations like this and thus reduce community interaction, ultimately damaging the core purpose of this wiki. --
- Not vandalism - Never has been vandalism. Get an arbies ruling saying no or just delete the comment. You are far too fucking litigious here and its getting on my nerves. --The Grimch U! E! 01:12, 23 September 2008 (BST)
- You'll notice how little I care about your opinion of my behavior on this wiki. Feel free to try and invent a ruling that you can convict me under. You should be fucking thankful I let most of what I see slide, although I am debating whether or not there's a point to putting half the active sysops up for misconduct as per policy. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:52, 25 September 2008 (BST)
- You'll notice how little I care about your opinion of my behavior on this wiki. Feel free to try and invent a ruling that you can convict me under. You should be fucking thankful I let most of what I see slide, although I am debating whether or not there's a point to putting half the active sysops up for misconduct as per policy. --
User:Zeug
Zeug (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
This edit. Now this is a strange one and will set precedent for the future. I'm probably going to put this under impersonation.
Simply put Extinction set up this page back in 2007, and as they are cheating scumbags, no-one noticed it until I did yesterday. The page is for a zombie 'super alliance', and on the membership it lists the RRF, Militant Order of Barhah and Hambargar Halparz. Not one of those groups ever agreed to be part of that alliance. Moloch (Papa of the RRF) removed the RRF and Bisfan (leader of the Halparz and representative of MoB) removed MoB and the Halparz. Zeug reverted these edits.
The page implies that the aforementioned groups agreed to join and support the alliance. This is impersonation of their wishes and standing in the community.
Also, since they are listed as members of the group, why do they not get editing privileges to remove their names? Page ownership rules clearly show that members of a group may make edits, if the above groups are members as Zeug claims, why can't they edit it?
I'd like each confirmed group (three so far) added against their wishes to count as a separate charge of impersonation. With the precedent that any entry on a group or suburb page that lists groups as allied or friendly be impersonation unless accurate according to the leadership of the mentioned groups. This precedent would not affect the rights of a group page owner to create KOS/Enemy/Shit lists and mention other groups in them.
This case is another example of Extinction having delusions of adequacy again. I doubt that the majority of the groups there would even deal with them at all. Failure to rule accordingly in this case will open the door to huge amounts of drama. Can you imagine the shitfest when The Dead create an alliance to devastate DH, and list DHPD as founder members?
-- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:14, 21 September 2008 (BST)
- Well, it doesnt appear to actually be a group. Its a browser covering a bunch of different groups forums and such, not an alliance, despite the categorisation. Its not actually vandalism as a result, however i am adding a notice explicitely spelling that out onn the page itself and im removing the group categories. If those are readded i will treat this as an alliance page and retroactively change this ruling to vandalism. For now though, its not vandalism. --The Grimch U! E! 12:50, 21 September 2008 (BST)
- K, thats all done. Ill keep my eye on it from here. --The Grimch U! E! 12:54, 21 September 2008 (BST)
This is a case for arbitration. As far as I can see, Extinction have no case for claiming that the RRF, Haparz, MoB (or pretty much any of the other groups) are participating, or "covered" by their web tool, given that it is simply an inclusion of their wiki pages, and dedicated "shoutboxs" that were set up by extinction themselves and is open to all. Given that it is not a group page, the leadership of these groups should be free to remove any inclusion of themselves on the wiki page. If a group doesn't want their name to be associated with an external web tool, they have the right to remove it from the page. Not vandalism, take it to arbitration, please -- boxy talk • i 14:16 21 September 2008 (BST)
User:House of Usher
House of Usher (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Wiped Grim's talk page.--SirArgo Talk 18:11, 19 September 2008 (BST)
- Blocked for a day. It looks like some of his edits were purged so I didn't make it a perma. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:14, 19 September 2008 (BST)
- He wiped my talk page and changed my user page to calling me an asshole and to find him in game. Who is he? --Sonny Corleone DORIS MSD pr0n 19:31, 19 September 2008 (BST)
- Vandalise this close to a history wipe and its your own damned fault if you get a nasty punishment. I have upgraded this to permaban. --The Grimch U! E! 23:58, 19 September 2008 (BST)
- Using the unfortunate timing of vandalism close to a history wipe is not an excuse to give an instant permaban when the user has a clear vandal data history, and contributions back to July 07. I've unblocked, and will warn this user -- boxy talk • i 16:26 20 September 2008 (BST)
User:Wind Angel
Wind Angel (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
If that's not a sock-puppet of "she who must not be named", I'll vote for Obama. --Stephen Colbert DFA 21:56, 18 September 2008 (BST)
- I have had my eye on that account for some time now, but there is unfortunately nothing conclusive to link it, so ive done nothing but keep watching. Please dont report suspected socks here unless you have proof. --The Grimch U! E! 03:56, 19 September 2008 (BST)
User:Red mafiya
Red mafiya (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Wiped a nice chunk of this page. It could be nothing but I'm a) too tired, and b) working at 7 in the morning and need bed so I'll leave it to someone else to decide. -- Cheese 00:25, 17 September 2008 (BST)
- Judging from what was cleared and from the only other edit available, this looks to be vandalism. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:50, 17 September 2008 (BST)
- Ah this fellow again. Yes its Vandalism, and yes you should have banned him for it. Im banning him for 48 hours in accordance with escalations. Yes i know there was a history, wipe, but he's been inactive ever since then. Let it be a lesson not to reoffend so soon after a history wipe. --The Grimch U! E! 03:51, 17 September 2008 (BST)
User:Ryannx25, User:Wast0id and User:MCD24
Ryannx25 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Vandalised the Dead Dudes page here and here.He also has vandalized the Millen Hills page here and the Lamport Hills page here in order to smear the name of Dead Dudes. He is bringing an in-game vendetta into the wiki and is just deleting large amounts of text and sometimes listing himself as group leader, declaring the rightful leaders as enemies and other malicious lies.Basically, he is angry with the group in the game, and thinks it is humorous to vandalize the wiki page. He has gloated several times in-game about "fixing" the Dead Dudes wiki page.He may also use alts to do so.Sorry if I did any of this wrong,as I had hoped never to have to do this sort of thing, but I feel my (and Dead Dudes) hand has been forced--A combat medic in the service of Dead Dudes of Lamport Hills. He wandered Malton in the time after the outbreak, homeless and purposeless, until he came to Lamport Hills and the Sidney Arms. Ther he met Dikki,St. Rafty, Sir Alex Ferguson and the rest of the Dead Dudes and ended his wandering ways and found a home.
|
Planned Revivification |
| This user or group supports organized revivification. |
|
Fertilize the Land Policy |
| This user or group believes in regaining NT buildings at any cost! |
 |
River Tactics Supporter |
| This User or Group supports River Tactics. |
 |
No-Tolerance |
| This User or Group supports the No-Tolerance Policy, and does not tolerate PKers, GKers, or zombie spies under any circumstance, and will attack them on sight. You have been warned. |
 |
PK Reporting |
| This User or Group supports PK Reporting. Don't let Player Killers get away with murder. Report them on the Rogues Gallery. |
 |
Dead Dudes | |||||||||||||||||
|
Man, these guys make good films!
Understood. Although I must say the templates I used should be removed if using them is considered vandalism (Also I had thought the Neice page was created by MCD, as Ryannx25 has another page for his character). I should have looked at the history and seen that MCD had changed his page rather than creating it.I didn't. That's my mistake and I apologize for it. But regardless, lesson learned (by me anyway as you won't ever have a spot of trouble from me ever again). I won't be speaking to Ryannx25 about this as he has proven to be completely irrational and unwilling to listen to reason when it comes to his feud with our group, but I won't ever touch another page on this wiki that has anything to do with him,his alts/proxys,or groups, as I really want nothing to do with him in any way.---A combat medic in the service of Dead Dudes of Lamport Hills. He wandered Malton in the time after the outbreak, homeless and purposeless, until he came to Lamport Hills and the Sidney Arms. Ther he met Dikki,St. Rafty, Sir Alex Ferguson and the rest of the Dead Dudes and ended his wandering ways and found a home.
|
