UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2010 05

From The Urban Dead Wiki
< UDWiki:Administration‎ | Vandal Banning‎ | Archive
Revision as of 20:25, 19 May 2010 by WOOT (talk | contribs) (FORGOT SIG LOL)
Jump to navigationJump to search


Administration Services

Sysop List (Check) | Guidelines | Policies (Discussion) | Promotions (Bureaucrat) | Re-Evaluations

Deletions (Scheduling) | Speedy Deletions | Undeletions | Vandal Banning (Bots) | Vandal Data (De-Escalations)

Protections (Scheduling) | Move Requests | Arbitration | Misconduct | Demotions | Discussion | Sysop Archives

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.

May 2010

User:WOOT

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

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

More Promotions Spamming. He's already received 3 escalations for doing this and doesn't seem in any hurry to stop. Going by the guidelines, it's time for a permaban vote as well. -- Cheese 8:13, 19 May 2010 (BST)

You know if you'd all treat homophobia the way you treat racism you'd not have to try to wrangle cases on minor things like this. Strength is just an accident arising from the weakness of others 16:12, 19 May 2010 (BST)
I don't know why we don't, honestly. —Aichon— 16:15, 19 May 2010 (BST)

Vandalism - He's done it before, been escalated before, and clearly hasn't learned. It's minor, but the fact that it's a repeat offense makes it pretty clear, I think. —Aichon— 16:15, 19 May 2010 (BST)

Vandalism and Humorous plus as an avid player of Risk, I'd like to add I'm a great fan of South America. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 16:16, 19 May 2010 (BST)
South America is pretty cool. Easy to get, easy to defend, and has a decent enough reward. I tend to push for North America though...--/~Rakuen~\Talk Domo.gif I Still Love Grim 20:48, 19 May 2010 (BST)
asia on the other hands is for bastards. "Well done you've secured Siam." Bastards --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 20:55, 19 May 2010 (BST)
I always place a huge army on Asia, just so I can make it look like I'm going for there, and so that if someone does go for it, they have to kick me out first.--/~Rakuen~\Talk Domo.gif I Still Love Grim 21:25, 19 May 2010 (BST)

Vandalism --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 16:37, 19 May 2010 (BST)

Perma? -- Cheese 20:26, 19 May 2010 (BST)

Narp --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 20:30, 19 May 2010 (BST)

User:VashX20

VashX20 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

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

Possibly an alt of CptWesker listed below, therefore circumventing a ban. Claiming Alt. And creating this group and listing CptWesker as leader. --Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 22:32, 17 May 2010 (BST)

So this may indicate zerging, but this is of course beyond this case, and more something for Resensitized. --Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 22:32, 17 May 2010 (BST)

IP doesn't match anything. :P --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:51, 17 May 2010 (BST)
Right. Well he did admit CptWesker was an alt of Vash, or vice versa. If you don't think that's enough then feel free to go not vandalism on this case, fine by me. --Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 22:58, 17 May 2010 (BST)
Actually, I believe he's accusing Ryan Rocksmith of being an alt of CptWesker. :P Wait a minute... He editted someone else's user page. Damn, I should really pay more attention.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:10, 17 May 2010 (BST)
Wait, I was right the first time. Realistically, he hasn't done anything to be accused of.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:11, 17 May 2010 (BST)
Considering I haven't accused him of vandalism that's true in itself.--Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 23:17, 17 May 2010 (BST)

Not Vandalism - As above.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:19, 17 May 2010 (BST)

Not vandalism - your iwitness report seems to indicate that they are coordinating closely, but not the same person. It's rather difficult (not impossible) to get two alts to make alternating attacks like that in such a short timeframe -- boxy talk • teh rulz 03:30 18 May 2010 (BST)

and your logic behind Thad's bolded link where he admits he's Vash? -- 03:35, 18 May 2010 (BST)
Bullshitting an enemy? Attention seeking behaviour? Anyway, it's not enough evidence for mine, but we can keep an eye on it, and apply a warning for the below if needed -- boxy talk • teh rulz 03:47 18 May 2010 (BST)
In all honesty I'm not too sure there's enough here for a vandalism ruling but I'd keep a damn close eye on him in the future just in case. I ran a check user and it came up with nothing though. Strength is just an accident arising from the weakness of others 03:57, 18 May 2010 (BST)
"The below" was permabanned bro. -- 08:51, 18 May 2010 (BST)
Yes, because of the 3 edit rule. However, if they turn out to be the same person, Vash did make a number of somewhat contributory edits before that (the page was deleted, however when he wiped the page to make their new group). If they are one in the same, Vash should get a warning for creating a vandal alt, and Wesker remains banned either way -- boxy talk • teh rulz 08:59 18 May 2010 (BST)
No he fucking shouldn't, if a user gets permabanned and makes an account a week later to evade the ban, makes an account and makes a "contributory" edit (in this case, making his own group page) then he should be banned again. 3page and Izumi did the same thing; making "contributory edits" over the last year then reveal they were vandal alts just to see how we would handle it and they were banned, this shouldn't be any different. Having an account here is a privilege, not a right, and that's how we always deal with vandal alts. If this account was around before Whesker I'd agree, but since it wasn't then there shouldn't be a second doubt about it. Jesus Christ Boxy, those last two comments I made above were open ended to allow you to dig yourself out a hole from the stupid comments you made before them, and you just made even dumber calls, no idea what you're smoking tonight dude :/ -- 12:31, 18 May 2010 (BST)
Actually, Vash was made first, but the page he'd been editting was deleted. That would mean that he should get a warning for the vandalisms, as with when people create a vandal alt, I think. i could be wrong, but that's how I remember it.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 12:54, 18 May 2010 (BST)
My apologies to Boxy then. I thought he was tripping balls or something :( -- 13:31, 18 May 2010 (BST)

So both users were created on or around the tenth? Not enough proof yet, so Not Vandalism--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 13:16, 18 May 2010 (BST)

Looking more closely, vask was created less than an hour after the other account went on its vandalism spree. Pretty close to convinving, but not their yet. Saying that We'll be watching Vsk like a hawk --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 13:18, 18 May 2010 (BST)

User:CptWesker

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

Verdict Vandalism
Action taken Permanent Ban (3 Edit Rule)

Too many to bother listing individually. I hate doing the three-edit thing, someone just verify shit for me. Strength is just an accident arising from the weakness of others 01:02, 10 May 2010 (BST)

I know I'm no sysop so you'd just have to trust me ;D But yeah, bad bad boy needs perma >=[ This should have been on the talk page I know but it might mean Mis has a better chance of seeing it. -- 01:08, 10 May 2010 (BST)
Dones. Strength is just an accident arising from the weakness of others 01:09, 10 May 2010 (BST)

User:Shazam

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

Verdict Vandalism
Action taken Warned

Please evaluate this change to Necronauts. As it looks like Shazam is not part of the Necronauts (and judging from his other edits is actually owning or affiliated with two of the profiles he removed - "Zumm Zero" and "what's happened"), the edit seems questionable. G F J 17:11, 8 May 2010 (BST)

Vandalism - I'm not seeing any evidence that he's a member of the Necronauts and it looks like those characters are his. I'll see what the others say though before warning him. -- Cheese 17:16, 8 May 2010 (BST)
Vandalism - Yep, pretty cut-and-dry. Warned. —Aichon— 02:30, 9 May 2010 (BST)

User:Cornholioo (2)

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

Verdict Vandalism
Action taken Week ban

Racism. He is blatenly abusing the jewish race here. --Michalesonbadge.pngTCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 16:45, 7 May 2010 (BST)

Vandalism - Fuck it, I banned Woot for something similar, may as well be consistent. Strength is just an accident arising from the weakness of others 16:47, 7 May 2010 (BST)

Damnit, Michaelson beat me. Let me dish out the precedents of non-vulgar racism... if something this dumb can constitute vandalism even when a joke, then doing the exact same thing in a serious manner in all ways should too. --

16:49, 7 May 2010 (BST)

lolvandalism -- boxy talk • teh rulz 17:24 7 May 2010 (BST)

sigh Vandalism --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 18:28, 7 May 2010 (BST)

Vandalism and Week ban - I was planning to bring this here myself after I read some of what he was posting in the last 24 hours. —Aichon— 21:21, 7 May 2010 (BST)

User:Cornholioo

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

Verdict Vandalism
Action taken Month ban

Breaking arbies ruling here preventing him to make arbies cases without neutral arbitrater Yonnua's go-ahead. Said case which breached ruling is here.

Before anyone suspects that I actually baited Cornholioo into this, I don't bait users into A/VB cases (I was just fucking about with him) and honestly, I actually forgot the ruling myself until Spiderzed mentioned it to Yonnua.

But really. Hey Cornholioo, you were right, sure looks like you won in this one.

You always win.--

15:38, 7 May 2010 (BST)

Frankly, I think it's counter productive to limit drama magnets like Corni from creating arbies cases via such rulings. Despite his agreement with the ruling, I feel that the ruling was outside the scope of the case in question. It would have been smart for Corni to actually gain approval before the case, but he does need to have arbies open to him, to stop people abusing his talk page (if he can actually prove abuse).
Not vandalism - invalid arbies ruling -- boxy talk • teh rulz 16:10 7 May 2010 (BST)

It wasn't a banning of his use of A/A, he just had to ask Yonnua the go ahead. Yonnua isn't an unfairly minded user, he probably would have allowed it to go through. The only time I remember arbies rulings being overturned in A/VB was when Anime and Sonny raped Terminalfailure, which was justified because of its basis of trolling and bullying but I don't believe this is. It means ruling not vandalism can be done, but I don't think the same purpose applies to this case at all. The ruling was in no way harsh, unfair or draconian and it is incredibly easy to follow for Corn... -- 16:23, 7 May 2010 (BST)
Actually I know for certain that arbies rulings have been overturned in at least 1 other case on the basis of placing ufair/unrealistic demands. --Honestmistake 10:08, 14 May 2010 (BST)
I always welcome other examples or precedents but without elaborating or providing any actual links your claim is mostly insubstantial. -- 13:59, 14 May 2010 (BST)
And it doesn't exactly affect my argument since I used the precedent to actually demonstrate that ruling against A/A rulings was possible but (imo) not necessary or just in this case. -- 14:00, 14 May 2010 (BST)

Vandalism - As DDR kindly explained. Strength is just an accident arising from the weakness of others 16:47, 7 May 2010 (BST)

Vandalism - Cornholioo could've simply waited until next week before starting the arbitration proceedings (there was no reason why he needed to start it today), or could have easily gone through Yonnua, who has already said that he would have allowed the case to go forward. Had he asked Yonnua, been denied for shady reasons, and then posted it anyway, I would have agreed that it was not vandalism. Had he even questioned the rightness of the ruling itself when it was handed down, he may have had a case. But the fact that he didn't make any attempt to honor the ruling while also never contesting it tells me that he voluntarily chose to ignore it, and that constitutes vandalism. —Aichon— 21:45, 7 May 2010 (BST)

I consider myself an involved party so I won't be ruling. Just to clear that up.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 15:39, 9 May 2010 (BST)

Sigh. Corn accepted the arbies ruling, and complied with the process in the past, as Yonnua's archive shows. Much as it pains me to say, Vandalisms. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 20:38, 9 May 2010 (BST)

Given the quick succession of cases against Corni, and the fact that they both deal with the same arbies case, I'd suggest that this case and the one above be treated as one, and no further escalation is required -- boxy talk • teh rulz 03:36 10 May 2010 (BST)

Um, one is about racism/anti-semetism, the other is about the breach of a valid arbitration ruling. Why should they be conflated? Strength is just an accident arising from the weakness of others 03:41, 10 May 2010 (BST)
Agreed. But even if we do as boxy says, then the right thing to do would be to make another case with a list of every other anti-semitic comment he made that day, since there were plenty to choose from that were worthy of escalation, not all of which were on A/A. I treated the above racism case as handling all of those other comments as well (since it would have been ludicrous to take each one here). If we're going to roll these two into one and treat it as an arbies issue, then there needs to be another case to deal with the racist comments that weren't on A/A. It'll be the same outcome either way, since many of his other comments were much more racist than the one cited in the above case. —Aichon— 03:56, 10 May 2010 (BST)
Some quick examples of other comments from that day: [1], [2]. [3], [4]. Though the last one is from A/A, it's not his initial post there and I'd say it's a separate issue since he went back in and deliberately added the "Jewish childmurderers- and rapists" part later, just for additional effect. Long story short, the racism issue needed to be handled separately, just as it has been. —Aichon— 04:11, 10 May 2010 (BST)
One last additional note, I know Google Translate isn't perfect, and I don't speak Dutch, but I think you can get a sense of what he was saying in one of those comments I linked. —Aichon— 04:15, 10 May 2010 (BST)
Well, I guess if there's other pages he's added his racist trolling to, then go for it. Month ban anyone? -- boxy talk • teh rulz 10:54 10 May 2010 (BST)
Aye. Might give us some piece and quiet for a bit at any rate. -- Cheese 14:48, 10 May 2010 (BST)
Don't forget about the racism I quoted in my A/A case against him. -Poodle of DoomM! Fear is only as deep as the mind will allow it be.T 15:16, 10 May 2010 (BST)

Has anyone actually added on the ban time, or are we waiting for him to be unbanned first?--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 17:20, 13 May 2010 (BST)

No one's applied it yet. I'm waiting until it's a bit closer. Personally, I don't have a problem if we shave off just a few hours by applying it in advance a bit, but I'd prefer to do it as close as possible to when his other one expires, just to be as fair as possible. —Aichon— 19:26, 13 May 2010 (BST)
Why don't we just add the ban time from this one to the end of his current one? That would seem the most logical to me. :P --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 19:53, 13 May 2010 (BST)
Sounds great! If you can tell me how to do it, I'll get right on it. :P —Aichon— 22:41, 13 May 2010 (BST)
I dunno. The "other" field on the dropdown maybe? If we worked out how much he had left and added a month to that, then stuck it in the box, that should theoretically sort it out, right?--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:55, 13 May 2010 (BST)
I know it's not my place to get involved in such things, but it seems to me that I've heard somewhere else that the ban length/time limit begins counting down from the moment its awarded, and can't be tacked onto the end of another... I could be wrong though. -Poodle of DoomM! Fear is only as deep as the mind will allow it be.T 23:56, 13 May 2010 (BST)
Yes, but if you add the amount left to the amount needing to be given, it'll give the overall time. I just don't understand the "other" field which I'd need to use, because I've never banned anyone before.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 00:02, 14 May 2010 (BST)
That doesn't make any sense, because it would negate the length of the ban before it, and not only that, but the ops could easily just wait until the first bans over before applying the second ban making that precedent rubbish anyway. Yonnua, fiddle with the "other" tag on yourself (you can unban yourself as a sysop even when banned so you won't accidentally perma yourself) until you can work out how it works? -- 01:20, 14 May 2010 (BST)
Ooh, good call. I'll fool around with that and will write up my findings after applying the new ban, assuming I figure anything out. —Aichon— 02:03, 14 May 2010 (BST)
Done. He's now blocked for an additional month. I was off by one minute, meaning that he'll technically get one minute shy of a full month's ban time, so you can Misconduct me for that, since I have no intention of trying to fix it. As for how you use the "other" field, I just entered something like "1 month, 19 hours, 7 minutes" with the commas like that and the numbers as digits. Seems to have worked fine, since the expiry it's showing is correct (aside from being one minute off). —Aichon— 02:17, 14 May 2010 (BST)

User:The_Colonel

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

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

Posting on my talk page after told not to.

To support this I want to bring this. White regards, CORNH卐LIOO REMEMBER WHAT THE FIGHT IS FOR 14/88!!! 9:30, 7 May 2010 (BST)

Administration, Approved Policies, Administration Guidelines, a search for the word "harassment".
There, go look through those, and let me know when you can tell me what rule he supposedly broke. I know Ross may have said one thing, but I cordially disagree with his statement since I can't find anything to back up the idea of "harassment" being vandalism. We've already told you that this is Not Vandalism several times, and it shouldn't need to be repeated. When it comes to harassment as an official matter, sysops aren't allowed to bully around other users by using their status as a badge, which doesn't apply to the people listed on your page, and "harassment of any user through administration pages may result in vandal escalations," which seems as if it might apply soon if you keep this up. —Aichon— 10:08, 7 May 2010 (BST)

Not vandalism - do you see a pattern forming here, Corni? Go to arbitration and show reason why they should be banned from your page. Telling you not to spam recent changes is not harassment, it's what your talk page is for, so that people can contact you. Banning everyone who says something you don't want to hear is not reasonable (try not being a douchebag instead) -- boxy talk • teh rulz 09:44 7 May 2010 (BST)

As boxy. There's a surprise. Theres at least two sysops telling you that it may be a case. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 10:23, 7 May 2010 (BST)
... and a third one that actually told me to get these people to vandal banning. Rings any bells Rosslessness? --CORNH卐LIOO REMEMBER WHAT THE FIGHT IS FOR 14/88!!! 12:18, 7 May 2010 (BST)

User:Spiderzed

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

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

Posting on my talk page after told not to. White regards,Cornholioo 17:16, 2 May 2010 (BST)

I have only to add the following: I'm aware of not being welcome on that talk page. For that reason, I've kept my comment short, to the point, factual, and have done it in good faith (to point out an oversight I assumed Cornholioo had at that time). That being said, I'll gladly receive an official warning if the sys-ops deem that this hasn't been sufficient reason and damage control. --Spiderzed 17:32, 2 May 2010 (BST)
Just avoid it entirely. Strength is just an accident arising from the weakness of others 17:33, 2 May 2010 (BST)

Vandalism. Will you guys all just not do things any more? Strength is just an accident arising from the weakness of others 17:30, 2 May 2010 (BST)

Fuck it, Acorn makes sense, Not Vandalism. Strength is just an accident arising from the weakness of others 20:08, 2 May 2010 (BST)

Not Vandalism - As we explained last time this came up with Cornholioo, until it goes through arbitration, there are no teeth to it. —Aichon— 20:04, 2 May 2010 (BST)

NV -- boxy talk • teh rulz 09:04 3 May 2010 (BST)

User:Oidar

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

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

I take highly offence of this: Image:Adolflikedchildren.png. Vandalism? --Cornholioo 14:45, 1 May 2010 (BST)

Category:Humorous Images Oidar 14:48, 1 May 2010 (BST)
Humorous? How dare you call that humorous? --Cornholioo 14:49, 1 May 2010 (BST)
Would you mind explaining exactly what it is that you find offensive? Oidar 14:54, 1 May 2010 (BST)
I found it funny--Michalesonbadge.pngTCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 14:54, 1 May 2010 (BST)
Please take it to a talk page somewhere -- boxy talk • teh rulz 14:55 1 May 2010 (BST)
Tough. Not vandalism -- boxy talk • teh rulz 14:51 1 May 2010 (BST)

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACornholioo&diff=1702380&oldid=1701661 --Cornholioo 15:10, 1 May 2010 (BST)

This is ridiculous. Not vandalism and I'll drop a train full of precedence on you if I need to. Strength is just an accident arising from the weakness of others 15:44, 1 May 2010 (BST)

Not Vandalism. Open and shut case. —Aichon— 23:15, 1 May 2010 (BST)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2010_05&oldid=1711514"