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. 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.

Februrary 2015

User:Jack Yocum

• Jack Yocum (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Incomplete
Action taken	None Yet

I believe coercing users to break the game's one rule = bad faith. I also suspect ban avoidance. See User:CarelessWill. ~ _{04:21, 16 February 2015, The year of our lord (UTC)}

Find me some evidence I can use for the ban avoidance. I've looked. I can't find any. His past bans (on the Jackyocum username) are all expired at this point. That said, given that he does have a warning still on that old account, I think a second warning is warranted, on the basis that his actions are clearly in bad faith.

As for why I consider them bad faith...we follow the TOS because we understand that the wiki exists in that jurisdiction and can't exist if it fails to abide by the TOS, right? Likewise, Kevan sets the ground rules and we're free to build on top of them, but we are not free to break them. If a zerger wants to come here and chat, fine. But the moment you come here and encourage others to join you in an illicit activity, you're no better than someone encouraging a DDoS against the game. You're seeking to use forbidden mechanics to undermine the game itself. That stands in direct opposition to the mission of this wiki, which is to support the game.

I'm gonna wait for the others though. —Aichon— 05:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The game has measures against zerging. The wiki is a different beast, and we have tolerated blatant zergers like TZH, Zoomie or Thad for a long time. I wouldn't cry if Yocum went down, but a pro-zerging stance alone on a group page isn't sufficient for a ban. -- Spiderzed▋ 15:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The wiki exists for the game, and the game states not zerg. How does it make sense to be okay with someone signing up just to tell people to zerg? I know you guys like to stick with a "mechanical" view on vandalism, banning people for page blanking for instance, and tend to shy away from the more "behavioural" type where we would take issue with how people conduct themselves. But creating an account to make pages telling people to zerg doesn't make for a good wiki, and doesn't help the game; it makes it worse. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 15:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hugely relevant precedent. BSAA calls for years for zerging, yet the group page sits unmolested on the wiki for years. Has never been brought up on A/VB though. -- Spiderzed▋ 17:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Well it's about to be molested now. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not precedent, that someone getting by unnoticed. If it had been brought to a/vb or a/sd or arbitration, I'd agree it stood as precedent but as it never was. ~ _{00:28, 17 February 2015, The year of our lord (UTC)}

I know it has been a long time since jackyocum was warned, but unless I'm mistaken then warnings do not automatically expire. Unless a request is made at a/vb/d, then it kind of is ban avoidance (or more accurately escalation avoidance). I just found it interesting that CarelessWill claimed that there was a vandal spree and even claims of suing the sysop team. Either there's another user account here not being taken into account, or CarelessWill was mistaken. ~ _{19:44, 16 February 2015, The year of our lord (UTC)}

Yeah, he'd get a second warning, for sure, but I'm not sure if we can consider it avoidance since he used the same name, just with a space. But yeah, he did get insta-banned twice back before the escalation guidelines were established, due to his vandalism. Those are still on the record and will come into play if he gets back to the point where a ban is warranted. —Aichon— 20:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The naming structure shouldn't matter in my opinion. If Cornholioo came back as Corn Holioo, it wouldn't make it less of a vandal alt. And it would likely affect things more than you lead on if you guys consider this vandalism, because ban avoidance cases typically get handled by banning the alt and warning the user (the vandal alt contributions are usually removed from the wiki as well). ~ _{00:28, 17 February 2015, The year of our lord (UTC)}

Sorry, I should have been clearer. What I meant is that by using what is essentially the same name, rather than trying to pretend to be a new user, he wasn't trying to avoid an additional escalation. It's far more likely that—given the lack of edits on the old account—he simply lost the login info years ago, or possibly even forgot that he had it at all. Which is to say, I don't see any avoidance at all. He seems to be "owning" all of these edits, both old and new. We'll simply take his old vandal data into account when escalating. —Aichon— 01:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

We're talking about Jack Yocum here, the game's longest running and worst offending serial zerger. I don't think it's safe to assume anything of the sort. I do realize that at the moment, it is a rather precarious claim. And though I could be wrong, I think it warrants looking into thoroughly and escalating to the full extent of the sysop's authority. And most of all, unless precedent shows otherwise, users should not be allowed to advocate for zerging on the wiki. ~ _{02:01, 17 February 2015, The year of our lord (UTC)}

As far as I'm concerned, what's happening here is vandalism. Beyond that, however, I need convincing. Just because I find someone's actions repugnant doesn't mean that I'll cheat them out of due process or skip the whole "assume good faith" part for actions that are questionable. If you can find evidence, that may change things, but I've looked, and I'm not finding anything that has changed my mind yet regarding the avoidance issue. —Aichon— 03:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm here to defend myself. I do NOT come here to "promote" zerging, I just state that I don't care if my group does and if they must, they should only use humans. That is just a suggestion

Jack Yocum (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The fact that you're advertising a group that openly condones zerging is, in and of itself, promoting the act of zerging. —Aichon— 02:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

But I am not advertising in the sense of trying desperately trying to gain new members. I am simply telling the truth regarding our stance on zerging. Banning us here won't change the fact we exist in game. Is therr a way you would suggest I state this without lying? I am trying to cooperate with you. That isn't something a vandal does. Jack Yocum (talk) 03:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

If you change it in such a way that it interferes with any of your zerging activities, that would be an improvement. A NPOV description of what your group does, where they are active, followed by say, a list of your "members", would do. You could use Save the yeti as a guide. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The advertising was done when you added the group to the group listings for those two suburbs and then linked them to a page suggesting zerging is perfectly fine and that others should feel free to engage in it too. —Aichon— 08:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The game bans characters for zerging. The wiki accounts created promote zerging. The accounts haven't done anything else. Ban the accounts. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 14:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

We tolerate the players who engage in prohibited activities, not their actions. A vandal is welcome here so long as they are on good behavior, but the moment they start vandalizing, we cease tolerating what they're doing. I have never had a problem with us tolerating known zergers, but zerging is an activity that is outright prohibited by the game (and as AHLG said, the wiki exists for the game), so the moment the wiki is used to facilitate zerging, as is happening here right now, a line has been crossed.

I'll reiterate: I believe a warning is warranted. —Aichon— 16:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

We enforce the rules of the wiki, not the rules of the game. Not vandalism -- boxy 01:42, 17 February 2015 (BST)

Vandalism is defined as anything that is not a good-faith effort to improve the wiki. Can you honestly say that what he's doing here is either in good faith or improving the wiki? We may not be (read: we aren't) enforcers of the game's rules, but the wiki exists as a resource for the game, so facilitating something that runs in direct opposition to the very nature of the game is, by definition, not an improvement to the wiki. —Aichon— 02:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The wiki exists to inform players about the situation "in-game". There are zerging "groups" in-game. If he is honestly stating the in-game situation in regards to his group, then it is a good faith, and on topic, edit, as long as it's restricted to the group page. Others can add context (via the NPOV section of the group page) or remove the page (via deletions). The closest he came to vanadlism due to "encouraging zerging" is his edits to a suburb page, stating that people should zerg. That is a NPOV zone, where dubious group "interpretations" are not allowed. I removed this edit, and would have probably VBed him, if he repeated it -- boxy 10:25, 17 February 2015 (BST)

Jack, what do you have to say about the claims made against you on the page User:CarelessWill? It would seem some think you have some history with the wiki already. ~ _{05:12, 17 February 2015, The year of our lord (UTC)}

Well to tell you the truth which you won't believe anyway, I am NOT the real Jack Yocum. I am a resident of Shearbank and saw these idiots saying and spraypainting all around the burb "Jack Yocum restored Shearbank. You're welcome!" and saying we don't care if you zerg, PK, etc. So I decided to make this here parody account and parody group to say basically whaf he said in game here on the wiki. Take that for what you will. If this gets deleted, at least the truth got out. Jack Yocum (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I.e. You're admitting to creating a wiki account with the express intent of impersonating another wiki user. That's grounds for a permaban on your account. —Aichon— 08:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

No, not impersonating a wiki user, just an in game UD character. But go ahead and ban this account I don't care. Jack Yocum (talk) 09:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

User:ZergingZerger

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

Verdict	Incomplete
Action taken	None Yet

As above, bad faith attempt to encourage breaking game rules. Similar MO as User:Jack Yocum. Suspect these two are alts. ~ _{04:21, 16 February 2015, The year of our lord (UTC)}

March 2014

User:Raining Fire

• Raining Fire (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Blanked The Burchell Arms, The Burchell Arms Regulars and associated talk pages of both. Twice. ~ _{06:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)}

Warned -- boxy 04:17, 13 March 2014 (BST)

Dangit, boxy, I was in the middle of typing up a snarky warning when I refreshed the page and saw you beat me to it by a few minutes. —Aichon— 04:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

User:Misanthropy

That fucking string of ass piss again

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

Verdict	Silliness
Action taken	Soft warning

For having, just, like the biggest scrotum. It's ungainly. It's probably the number-four reason why there is zero fun to be had any more, because its light-bending bulk is blocking out all of the available funlight. I recommend public frogmarching and/or solitary confinement with Kendra James. Throw the book at that silly motherfucker. 06:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Jesus man. Just have it reduced. --Rosslessness 15:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. —Aichon— 16:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

hee hee. this is what I stick around for. lol--User:Sexualharrison03:53, 19 February 2014

He should get a soft warning for shitting up admin pages -- boxy 04:24, 13 March 2014 (BST)

Works for me, and seems suitable. I'll leave that one to you. —Aichon— 04:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

User:Reddit survivors

• Reddit survivors (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Blanked the Reddit Survivors page. M.O. very, very similar to this 2011 case. Technically not a 3EV, but user was banned back then based on impersonation. -- Spiderzed▋ 22:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Definitely vandalism. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 23:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism, worth a warning - Also worth noting, that previous case had quite a few misstatements. For instance, proxy use, in and of itself, is not a valid grounds for an escalation. It's merely cause for banning an IP address, and it's only if they're later discovered to be a banned user that we can escalate them for circumventing a ban. And banning him for impersonation seems a bit shady, to be honest. —Aichon— 23:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

While proxy use may not be vandalism in itself, when it is used by accounts like these (who do nothing but vandalism/impersonation), it can be considered as further evidence that the account is created with only the intent to vandalise the wiki. I wouldn't have a problem with either of them being deemed 3ER accounts, despite them (intentionally?) only posting twice. They violate the spirit of the rule, if not the letter -- boxy 10:08, 31 January 2014 (BST)

I'm not in favor of a 3ev ruling, as that's a rule that's very explicit and not really open to a "spirit, not letter" interpretation. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 01:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Heh, that was a bit of a long stretch looking back. It probably should have been handled as ban/escalation evasion by Leo Decroix. The result would have been the same. Ban the alt, escalate the user if I'm not mistaken. Point is, someone (very likely Leo Decroix) created an account with the express intent to vandalize a group page. We've banned alt users under similar circumstances before (Cornholioo, Izumi, etc.) ~ _{20:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)}

Bump. Warning is still my thought, particularly since this guy seems to be a really infrequent vandal. —Aichon— 16:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

It would be really silly not to consider this ban evasion. Just my two cents. ~ _{07:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)}

This is a clear perma. Impersonation, ban evasion - pick your poison. Anything softer than that would be ridiculous. -- Spiderzed▋ 14:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems like I could go either way, but favor warning; boxy could go either way, but favors banning; you strongly favor banning; and Bob strongly favors warning. Where's Ross? —Aichon— 04:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Use his talk page? ~ _{15:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)}

Warned -- boxy 04:42, 13 March 2014 (BST)

N_O_T_R_E_D_N_A_G

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

Verdict	3-edit vandal
Action taken	perma

Spamming of multiple pages, including the News Template. Multiple other pages are listed under user contribs. I'll try revert some of these but this user needs to be dealt with. --Wez 19:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

And just as we were getting cozy... I have pre-emtively perma'd that one and all known wiki alts and IPs as obvious 3 edit vandal. Go and misconduct me. -- Spiderzed▋ 20:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Spiderzed, a quick response indeed! No argument here, that was blatant vandalism. Some people are just bad losers after all. --Wez 20:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, my name is Aichon, and I would vote Not Misconduct. —Aichon— 21:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I now see how voting works, thanks Aichon. Excuse my ignorance. --Wez 21:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm? You're fine. I don't see anything here that could be construed as a vote on your part, and even if there was, we'd simply un-bold it and ignore it for the purpose of deciding what course of action we pursued. —Aichon— 22:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Same, not misconduct. Oh, also vandalism on NOTREDNAG and alts. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 21:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Suifdhsei

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

Verdict	3-edit vandal
Action taken	perma

Has repeatedly vandalised the ZHU page by changing the appeal tinyURL from a link to the Resensitized forums to one to Something Awful. I request a perma as a 3-edit-vandal. -- Spiderzed▋ 20:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Perma - Seems pretty clear to me, but I'd rather not pull the trigger, due to past mistakes on my part. Any objections? —Aichon— 20:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Perma'd as a 3ev. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 17:17, 9 January 2014 (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