UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2011 03

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)

March 2011

User:Lawliet Yraola

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

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Impersonation. --VVV ^RPMBG 23:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism - Warned. ~ 23:45, 7 March 2011

Not Vandalism - Warning retracted. Should probs have checkusered before warning. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, remember to link to case when A/VDing :( -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, fucking facepalm at myself. I've just read the discussion this case was involved in. Was said user trying to pass an alt account off as an enemy, and then accidentally signed as the wrong one?? Ugh, fail ddr. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

(and you did checkuser him before issuing the warning anyways, so sorry about the above) -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the checkuser logs, it seems like Lawliet was purposefully speaking with a forked tongue. I'm really on the fence about this one, since it is at the same time an underhanded use of wiki alts and likely done in bad faith, but also futile (RRF doesn't go out of its way to kill mouthy harmanz or do favours for strangers), not one of the established clear-cut wiki alt abuses and something done by a newb. However, I think the bad faith part is the decisive one, and thus, Vandalism. -- Spiderzed▋ 01:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It's really going to be a discussion point here. Had I realised she was deliberately masking her alts to deceive, I probably wouldn't have mentioned it and therefore I might be misconducted for this (which I won't mind). I don't know the extent of this entire thing so I can't tell what is the right thing to do just now especially since a case exactly like this hasn't come up at all that I can remember. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

At least I won't drag either of you to misconduct. I could see Vapor's reasoning for acting swiftly to put a stop to this show, but also your reasoning for withdrawing the warning, as this could be a complicated topic. There was no clear-cut "right" approach in this one. -- Spiderzed▋ 01:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Vap didn't do anything wrong. he used checkuser but I'm pretty sure he didn't check the IP which revealed the alts L is using. Hence, his view of the case was a textbook case of vandalism and there's nothing wrong with insta-ruling on that case. With a tie in votes, the end ruling is not vandalism so when contested the ruling should go down. Besides a possible checkuser breach of privacy by myself, everything here is dandy but perhaps wait for another ruling by an op before reinstating the warning, methinks? -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

One former op has already disagreed with my reasoning on the talk page, so you can bet that I wait a bit to the give the rest a chance to add their opinion. No need to jump the gun twice. -- Spiderzed▋ 01:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not checkuser abuse, it's relevant to it not being impersonation. Any not Vandalism ruling would have required as much. --Karek^maps?! 01:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. My thoughts were the same until I realised it was a deliberate cover and not just some noob who was signing as say, a lost account or on their known alts behalf. Aware of cases like this, I was open to the idea of being put forward for wrongly revealing checkuser info. But in retrospect they pretty much shot themself in the foot by cocking up the signing and putting their accounts in this situation. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You're covered on this stuff usually. When it's part of an active VB case and relevant to decisions, that kind of thing is a lot less sensitive than when it's pulled out of the blue in spite. Talking about checkuser info for a VB case concerning misuse of alts is par for the course, and I'd probably spit blood if I saw someone seriously take an op to A/M for doing their job properly based on an irrelevant "precedent". Anyway, with the case at hand, I'm inclined to agree with Vapor and Spider, as this seems a deliberate, albeit failed, attempt to misuse alts in a sockpuppet manner. Vandalism. Also keep an eye on account activity for the next few days maybe, if one alt is mostly a sock it should be banned as part of this escalation. No need to hit one now in case they end up being used right. 04:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah thourough checkusering after the warning was issued revealed what was going on and I'm fine withdrawing the impersonation ruling since its obvious it is not. However, like Spidey I believe its still a bad faith issue. Coupled with nefarious alt use, I'm still ruling vandlaism. ~ 03:37, 8 March 2011

Vandalism - while using a wiki alt is not encouraged, it is still allowed. However, when they are used to attempt decieve an enemy, that is bad faith. Seems clear that this is the intent here, so the alt should be banned, and the main account gets an escalation, and it's not a breach of privacy to reveal who owns the main account either -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:22 8 March 2011 (BST)

Vandalism --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Tallying this after 5 rulings in, we are at a 4:1 majority for a warning (assuming DDR sticks with NV). Of the usual suspects on A/VB, only Ross and Thad are missing. Unless someone beats me to it or this gets surprisingly overturned, I will set the verdict and issue a proper warning in some hours. -- Spiderzed▋ 16:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

So Lawliet Yraola has replied to the previous warning posted on their talk page and appears to be claiming that they are not using alts. It should be noted since it may affect actions taken. We're possibly in ban avoidance territory now. ~ 16:13, 8 March 2011

Because of the confusing nature of the "impersonation" I don't think Vapor should have insta-warned especially since there was no direct threat to speak off, but beside that everything else has been said, so I'll leave it at that. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 16:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I should have used check user before issuing the warning rather than after. The insta-warning was because it appears to be clear-cut vandalism without looking deep into check-user results. ~ _{16:38, 8 March 2011}

I have nothing of any real value to comment. Hi Karek, good to see you. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm fence sitting with this one because I think alt abuse on this scale is sort of harmless in most ways except politically (that's assuming she isn't zerging ingame alongside this), so having acknowledged the views of either side, I'll probably just leave my ruling as Not Vandalism but Warn her as per the vote. As for the alt, I'd prefer it not banned because bar the act from the combined accounts (which I put as an action from her main account) it hasn't really vandalised, my personal preference is to just tell her the rules about alts and honesty and not vandalising, but I'd prefer we have a casual vote over it to see what should be done with it. I haven't banned the alt in the meantime. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 22:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)