UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2012 04

From The Urban Dead Wiki
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.



April 2012

User:Generaloberst 3

Verdict Incomplete
Action taken None Yet

Striking valid rulings as an invested party in an attempt to change the outcome of a vandal banning case in his favour. -- Cheese 20:16, 13 April 2012 (BST)

Not Vandalism. But my god, is he retarded. --Rosslessness 20:36, 13 April 2012 (BST)

Being handled via talk page. Ya know, like its supposed to be done. Don't fall into that trap. ~Vsig.png 20:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

WOW. He'll be lucky he did this in 2012 if he gets away with this. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 00:12, 14 April 2012 (BST)

It was pretty stupid, huh. Especially the part where he admitted he was just out trying to get to me. Meh, ops should just rule however they see fit. Not like he has ever listened to logic. ~Vsig.png 00:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
See right now is where I could be ruling vandalism, then voting to keep him around when the perma vote arises in the future. Oh well. We're coming to get you, Barbara 00:51, 14 April 2012 (BST)
I did it to get on you, but that doesn't mean that I knew it wasn't allowed. User:Generaloberst/s 8:28, 14 April 2012 (BST)

Vandalism. Tampering with vandalism votes isn't a newb mistake, and it isn't something properly dealt with with some talk page wrist-slapping. Hardball is the only viable course of action in a case as severe as this one. Principiis obsta. Sero medicina parata, cum mala per longas convaluere moras. -- Spiderzed█ 01:22, 14 April 2012 (BST)

God, I even explained in the describtion of the edit why I made the edit, it says "good faith edit. vapor has been demoted so the vote doesn't count anymore.)" with your "not a newb mistake". Describtion clearly says that the edit was made in good faith and that I didn't know it was not allowed. Oh yeah, this case is so severe, watch out, next time I will use gas. Better have me banned. User:Generaloberst/s 8:26, 14 April 2012 (BST)

User:Krazy_Monkey

Verdict Not Vandalism
Action taken None Taken

Clearly bad faith . But obviously not vandalism. User:Generaloberst/s 18:23, 9 April 2012 (BST)

Another one. Though, as said, obviously not vandalism. User:Generaloberst/s 18:30, 9 April 2012 (BST)
Third. User:Generaloberst/s 20:09, 9 April 2012 (BST)
See point 4 below. -- Cheese 20:11, 9 April 2012 (BST)
I refute these baseless accusations and provide the following evidence to act as part of my defense:
  1. As Cheeseman Muncher is my main character, I am a named party on the page.
  2. As an event page, the page in question is in the main namespace and hence not protected in the same manner as a group page.
  3. My group, The Randoms, are part of the conflict detailed on the page and as their leader and main spokesperson on the wiki am well within my rights to edit it.
  4. My group are well known for their unorthodox tactics and "wacky" nature, occasionally accompanied by material on the wiki. Examples include the Angry Hamish doll and our forays into the future. My edits were intended to represent this fact.
I also take offense to the reporting user attempting to pre-judge the case and suggests he has brought this for no other reason than to continue to spam up the admin pages and waste time. -- Cheese 18:39, 9 April 2012 (BST)
You put the rabbit on there to annoy me. Also the part that once said "This picture depicts the initial strike (click to enlarge)", refered to the image directly below the text, not to the image that is now a rabbit. User:Generaloberst/s 19:12, 9 April 2012 (BST)
The bunny is there for two three reasons: It's cute, I like bunnies and it shows the effect the attacks had on the indiginous population. Your latter point was due to a misreading on my part and I shall of course correct it. -- Cheese 19:29, 9 April 2012 (BST)
You put the rabbit on there to annoy me. And you can't know the effect on the population because you were in Buttonville, like you admitted yourself. Page says that the operation was ment to starve Williamsville most prominently. User:Generaloberst/s 20:13, 9 April 2012 (BST)
This is a wiki for an RPG. I imagine that there are other things that zombies and human survivors in the city. As a result, I am providing a bit of in-character padding to the event. Like there being bunnies in the various parks throughout the area. -- Cheese 21:01, 9 April 2012 (BST)

I'm clearly an involved party. --Rosslessness 18:36, 9 April 2012 (BST)

Unlike Oberst, I'm clearly an evolved party. We're coming to get you, Barbara 19:00, 9 April 2012 (BST)

Are we speaking Darwinian or pokemonian evolution? -- Cheese 19:07, 9 April 2012 (BST)
Pearl Jamian. We're coming to get you, Barbara 19:10, 9 April 2012 (BST)

Not Canibalism. Cute bunnies are always good faith. They're the reason for the season~Vsig.png 19:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

So at the slightest possible chance you have to vote in my disfavor, you do it, and when there is no way around you abstain from voting? User:Generaloberst/s 19:15, 9 April 2012 (BST)
The bunny made me do it. ~Vsig.png 19:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

This is for arbitration as the existence of a case there shows and thus not vandalism. Also, it's an event and neutrality on an event page is actually part of the content, specifically content of the page is neutral to the parties involved and the picture of the bunny fits in with the lighthearted attitude generally present in events involving the Randoms as much as the name, etc. reflects the presence of the opposing group. There is no bad faith in lightening up the event page by removing pictures that would otherwise discourage reading the article. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 21:39, 9 April 2012 (BST)

This is just disagreement about the content on a mainspace event page, and thus not vandalism, but rather a case for arbies. And Oberst, if you really want to keep control of your "event" pages, just create them in your group space or user space, where you have full control over who can edit them and who can't. -- Spiderzed█ 22:30, 9 April 2012 (BST)

Since there is an ongoing arbitration case about this, I believe a proper ruling cannot be met until after arbitration proceedings have been completed. Please complete arbitration proceedings first and resubmit this case again in the future if Cheese breaks the verdict of said arbitration case. That said, I'm sure it is quite clear that I am withholding my verdict on this case. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 04:21, 10 April 2012 (BST)

Uninvolved party's comments moved to talk -- boxy 13:07, 12 April 2012 (BST)

User:Generaloberst 2

Verdict Incomplete
Action taken None Yet

I've only just returned from a stint away from UD and the wiki, and already I'm sick of listening to this. Spamming admin pages with racist bullshit, that is of no relevance to either UD, or the wiki -- boxy 12:45, 5 April 2012 (BST)

While I don't support the rule and thus never reported people to VB for 'racism', I will when this gets voted as vandalism, for your comment on this section (vote #31). Quote: "such epic fail in the field of wiki coding, basic grammar and unintentional irony only serves to highlight the obvious inferiority of the aryan race" - Boxy. This is what I mean by bias. Do I really need to explain anything more than this?? User:Generaloberst/s 20:54, 5 April 2012 (BST)
A single throwaway comment is not even close to the same as an almost endless stream of abuse based on the ideology of a long dead lunatic. -- Cheese 22:52, 5 April 2012 (BST)
No Cheese, racism is forbidden by wiki law. Doing it one time is just as much breaking the rules. You know this, but yet you bring it up so that I will get a warning again. And that is why you are biased. User:Generaloberst/s 10:03, 6 April 2012 (BST)
Thank you for your "input". -- Cheese 10:43, 6 April 2012 (BST)
Thank you for "elaborating". User:Generaloberst/s 12:12, 6 April 2012 (BST)
Like I said, Boxy sarcastically deriding your opinion is not racism. You continually spouting the manifesto of the Nazi party however, is. I am not biased, I just don't like people thinking they have the right in this day and age to persecute a group of people because they happen to be Jewish. -- Cheese 13:10, 6 April 2012 (BST)
Rules don't say that sarcastic racist comments are not punishable. You are biased. User:Generaloberst/s 13:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
No, you just appear to be blind or unable to do basic mathematics. One individual comment meant to show you how stupid your position is much smaller than (and a completely different kettle of fish to) the constant stream of "FUCKING JEWS" that inhabit the majority of your posts. -- Cheese 16:11, 6 April 2012 (BST)
Again: rules don't say one individual comment meant to show whatever is not punishable.
It's always funny how humans tend to start swearing and screaming when the opponent makes a point. I bet if we were having this conversation in real life you would punch me in the face. And I would only take it as a compliment. User:Generaloberst/s 18:29, 6 April 2012 (BST)

Moved to talk

Throw in the fact he ignored the soft warning Karek gave for continuing an already closed case. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 13:40, 5 April 2012 (BST)

Moved to talk
So when you do that are to bring Rosslessness to VB too or are you going to be biased? User:Generaloberst/s 21:27, 5 April 2012 (BST)
Feel free. --Rosslessness 22:42, 5 April 2012 (BST)

Not vandalism. Fuck sake, you guys never let the cows stick around long enough to get milked. We're coming to get you, Barbara 23:17, 5 April 2012 (BST)

He's been around for a significant amount of time, was soft-warned before, has actively broken the rules. He's had more than enough time to get milked, Vandalism. Also, by all means if you want to continue to try to bash me that's what my talk page is for, I don't even delete it like most others do.--Karekmaps 2.0?! 03:26, 6 April 2012 (BST)
Please provide a link to where I got soft warned, Mr. Bias. For racism that is. User:Generaloberst/s 10:06, 6 April 2012 (BST)
As mentioned previously on this page. If you're going to try and rules lawyer you might as well try to understand the case and the rule being used first. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 11:25, 6 April 2012 (BST)
Message says "Continued harassment of the ruling sysops or spamming of the case will result in escalation via the previously established notices (...) this is your first last and only soft warning on this matter." Says nothing about racism specific. All it says is 'continued harassment'. So I assume you mean I thereby have a soft warning for 'everything'. Don't you realise how stupid that sounds? I also have to mention that you closed the case with the soft warning, which also sounds kinda weak in my eyes. Like you are afraid of my response. That you now try to enforce the soft warning on this case too while it clearly has nothing to do with this case only makes that image stronger. User:Generaloberst/s 12:20, 6 April 2012 (BST)
Moved to talk

Moved to talk

Permaban. Give him the gass. ~Vsig.png 03:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Moved to talk
Yes, why bother being consistent or act in according with the rules when you can abuse your powers? -- Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 09:40, 6 April 2012 (BST)
He's going to be demoted in a couple of days, so, as you said, why bother? User:Generaloberst/s 10:26, 6 April 2012 (BST)

Moved to talk

Not vandalism. In the case of admin page spam, the first thing to do is to move it on the talk page, not to invoke A/VB. If you move it and Generalobest can't take a clue, then you might have a VB case. Not earlier. -- Spiderzed█ 16:14, 6 April 2012 (BST)

Wrong. This case is about racist comments, talk pages don't have anything to do with it.- Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 16:46, 6 April 2012 (BST)
Seems this case is about two things. Aichon says it's about the response. Boxy says it's about racism. Spider says it's about the response. Oakley says it's about racism. Learn to make seperate cases of things guys. Might even give you the chance to warn me twice, which is what you guys want anyway. User:Generaloberst/s 16:53, 6 April 2012 (BST)
I'm going by Boxy's case creation, which was about the racism. Somewhere along the way the fact that you commented/spammed on a closed case got thrown in as well.-- Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 17:19, 6 April 2012 (BST)
Moved to talk

That you guys keep this case open for so long is also bias. Cases that lean in my disfavor always have a verdict within a few days or even on the same day. User:Generaloberst/s 20;10, 10 April 2012 (BST)

Technically this does lean in your disfavor and would be closed as Vandalism but for Boxy choosing not to report-warn(which is a good thing). It's still open because it's sitting at 2-2 and sysops like Axe Hack haven't ruled to break the tie yet. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 22:22, 10 April 2012 (BST)
Heck, since you asked so nicely, and since I'm still an op, might as well weigh in. Oberst was given a warning about it, then immediately followed up with a response doing exactly as he was warned not to do. Bad Oberst. Bad. Vandalism. ~Vsig.png 22:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
It saddens me a very lot to say this, but your vote doesn't exactly count anymore. Since you've been demoted. Mis gone, Vapor gone, now when Boxy is also gone and I will give out free gas (as if I wasn't before). Either way... see you in Valhalla, fucktard. :D User:Generaloberst/s 17:21, 13 April 2012 (BST)
This case has been open for as long as a spider's foreskin. Don't bother complaining about it because its length so far is about as standard as they come. All you've done is successfully projected your anxiety about the possible outcome of the case. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 00:07, 11 April 2012 (BST)

Ruling? -- boxy 13:01, 12 April 2012 (BST)

Still waiting on a tiebreaker it's 2 vandalism(Vapor, Karek) and 2 Note Vandalism(Misanthropy, Spiderzed). Most likely available would be Ross I'd think since he's active assuming we don't count you, and you know my views on that by now. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 22:57, 12 April 2012 (BST)
The way I see it, this is two cases in one. Vandalism on the response to a closed case after getting a soft warning for continuing it, but Not vandalism for the racist remarks. Racism is everywhere in life. There's no avoiding that fact. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 00:17, 13 April 2012 (BST)
So Vandalism, considering that the racist remarks are inconsequential anyway and vandalism overrules not vandalism since one requires intent to commit? --Karekmaps 2.0?! 05:36, 13 April 2012 (BST)
On the topic of racism, we first have to ask ourselves, "Exactly how much racism is actually acceptable in wiki society?" Racism is a part of everyday life, no matter how you look at it. It is always going to be there. But for it to be a punishable offense, where do we draw the line? These are the type of things we have to consider. Remember, whatever we decide here will become precedent for future cases yet to come. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 05:48, 13 April 2012 (BST)
Likely not considering what's involved and that not being quite how precedent should be treated. Racism is one of those things with a relative line to the individual but with an end point generally consistent to either the warping of the platform, it's message, or community standards. Since we refuse to accept the second as a matter of course we're left with the first two. To violate the first racism would have to essentially become a call to arms unconnected to the game, to violate the second the racism would have to be directly hostile to members. Specifically spamming pages with nazi slogans and actively seeking out members to spam anti-semetic etc. remarks on their userspaces or in other-words it'd have to become a contextual ToS violation. In this particular case the racist remarks were the vehicle for a separate policy violation not the violation itself although, with his actions to some users it is actually getting close to also pushing the lines of ToS acceptable behavior.

The point being that essentially we already have tons of precedent of blatantly ignoring soft warnings being a cause for escalation in the case of administration page spam being vandalism. The racism is incidental, and while it's a conversation worth having it doesn't have an impact on this case or future related cases in any significant way, the separate conversation on the matter will, however, help to inform such future cases but is in no way, and never has been, binding to the ruling of them.--Karekmaps 2.0?! 09:10, 13 April 2012 (BST)
Erm you do realise that we've already made several precedents and any one of them would have this count as vandalism? (sept maybe the one where mis called woot a dirty mex) DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 09:47, 13 April 2012 (BST)
I'm still wondering what happened to the J3D precedence. He got the boot plenty of times for using racism, in an ironic sense no less instead of being "serious" like our nazi fuckwit, guess when this case closes as not vandalism that's suddenly kosher again? -- Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 11:02, 13 April 2012 (BST)

You know what, Oberst is absolutely correct. Soft warnings are weak, and clearly open to too much debate. Vandalism. --Rosslessness 12:02, 13 April 2012 (BST)

How is this not bias? Heck, I'm not even going to explain why. You're just pissed that I got mis demoted and made fun of vapor's demotion. :D User:Generaloberst/s 17:35, 13 Apri 2012 (BST)

Pownan

Verdict Not Vandalism
Action taken None Taken

Obvious vandalism, though I wonder what kind of stupid ass reason you guys will make up this time to vote it as not vandalism. Especially you Vapor. Some ideas: newb mistake, minor vandalism where revert is enough, 1 april joke, etc. Tip: search for the Corn vs Colonel case, lots of bullshit reasons in there, might give you some inspiration. User:Generaloberst/s 22:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean this?. An edit to a public namespace page? Rather than going direct to vandal banning, this is the perfect example of the kind of thing you could find out about on Pownan's talk page. Not Vandalism. --Rosslessness 22:22, 4 April 2012 (BST)

Complex edit conflicts in public namespace covering a public event are rarely covered by A/VB. If you have an edit conflict under such circumstances, you better use A/A. Or even better yet, ask on the talk page of the user, and then go to A/A when it can't be resolved otherwise. tl;dr: Not Vandalism. -- Spiderzed█ 23:01, 4 April 2012 (BST)

And they did it again! Now it's a "public namespace" while the page clearly reads: "If you apply yourself for Malton's End, please update the buildings that your group will be attacking." so it's pretty obvious that users are only allowed to add or remove their own group. If everybody is allowed to randomly add or remove other people's group then the page is gonna be a mess. But of course I will now get some kind of response like "you can't make the rules on this wiki oberst!" Keep it comming guys. It will only fill my coffers of evidence that I have which proves you are all biased. I bet even if someone blanks my userpage you guys will be able to find some reason why it's not vandalism. I'm disappointed Ross, I expected more from you. User:Generaloberst/s 23:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
What you describe is a classic example of A/A material. If you do that and he still edits, then you got a vandal case. This shit is not complex. --Open the Box Org XIII Alts 23:45, 4 April 2012 (BST)
If you want to control the content of Malton's End, make it a group subpage of Nazi Zombies by requesting a move on A/MR. Else,it is just a mainspace event page open to editting by everyone. -- Spiderzed█ 23:48, 4 April 2012 (BST)
I will try to explain it one more time to your stupid faces. Are you honestly trying to say that everybody is randomly allowed to add or remove other people's groups from the page? If yes then the page is gonna be a mess and you are both dumb. Lets say what if I blank all the groups now and replace them with 'None yet'. Would you then vote not vandalism as well? User:Generaloberst/s 23:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I bet that if I revert the edit now without bringing it to A/A first you guys will bring me to vandal banning and then vote it as vandalism hahah. This site is really run by a bunch of cancer patients honestly. User:Generaloberst/s 23:44, 5 April 2012 (BST)
The sad thing is, that absolutely won't happen. You are displaying two things: firstly, an incessantly asinine knowledge of the rules of thumb in circumstances like this on the wiki, and secondly, an embarrassingly large paranoia complex. This isn't vandalism, it's something that you should revert, then talk to the user (or probably better yet, leave it on the talk page of the actual article) explaining why you reverted it, with sufficient evidence (which shouldn't be difficult). If that fails, which I doubt it will, then you may have a vandalism case but either way you will have an arbitration case. This is how a wiki works when there aren't freaks bouncing off the walls at the sign of something as scary as a 'differing opinion'. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 23:55, 4 April 2012 (BST)
There is no opinion involved. I'm representing Nazi Zombies he's not even a member of Nazi Zombies. How the heck can he know if we won't attack the building anymore? Stop hiding behind incessantly asinine excuses and answer my question: "will you bring me to vandal banning for blanking all the groups and replacing them with 'none yet', Yes or No?" User:Generaloberst/s 00:04, 5 April 2012 (BST)
Hiding? Lol. You never asked me in the first place. Am I hiding behind my Jewish heritage? Lol. The answer is no because I don't tend to report people unless its clear cut but if "I were an op I would rule vandalism because you are doing it for a shitty point ie bad faith. If you had proof however it would be a totally different story.", but again you fail to see the inherent difference between this scenario and your hypothetical and thats why you'll never be able to comprehend the logic of this wiki. I still don't understand why you play these games and expect us to follow suite to your paranoia. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS)
I take that as No so you're just retarded. User:Generaloberst/s 12:16, 5 April 2012 (BST)
what in good fuck's name are you even talking about DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 13:06, 5 April 2012 (BST)

Mainspace = Free for all edits. You wanna settle something in the mainspace, go to Arby's. Not Vandalism. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 23:54, 4 April 2012 (BST)

How about I'm gonna replace random pages on this wiki with crap? That's mainspace too, so obviously not vandalism. Everything would have to go through arbitration first. You guys have driven yourself in a corner and now there is no way out anymore. I could wreck your wiki if I wanted. User:Generaloberst/s 00:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
We define vandalism as an edit made in bad faith. You go ahead and blank mass amounts of pages. I don't know about you, but blanking mass amounts of pages for the purposes of proving something? I call that bad faith, and thus A/VB material. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 00:21, 5 April 2012 (BST)
I didn't say blank, i said crap. If I'd say Monroeville has 100 survivors alive right now, is that vandalism? Yes or No? No stupid excuses. Yes or No User:Generaloberst/s 0:32, 5 April 2012 (BST)
You seem to miss the difference between a potentially good faith edit and general stupidity. Are you honestly too stupid to see the difference? Yes or No? And I'm not a sysop, so I can't answer your questions. --Open the Box Org XIII Alts 00:37, 5 April 2012 (BST)
I'm not a sysop either but I can answer with yes or no. And the answer is No. So do you see what Pownan did as potentially good faith, Yes or No? If I blank all the groups now and replace them with None yet, do you see it as potentially good faith, Yes or No? User:Generaloberst/s 0:45, 5 April 2012 (BST)
Yes. It is quite possible that he has an alt at the specific location and did not notice any Nazi Zombies. Which is why everyone is saying the same thing. Change it back and stick a note on the talk page. If he does it again, bring an A/A case. Yes, it's annoying, but it's how things work. If you blank all the groups, since you have specifically said you would be doing it to prove a point, yes it would be vandalism. --Open the Box Org XIII Alts 00:46, 5 April 2012 (BST)
So all you are trying to say is that as long as you make a potentially good faith edit to a mainspace page it's not vandalism, right? And who is to decide what is potentially good faith and what is not? The sysops. It just happens the sysops always vote against me. Even if what you say is true and the sysops are not making up some idiotic excuse to vote this not vandalism and simply have to draw a line somewhere then that line always seems to be not in my favour, it's still just too much of a coincidence again. But yeah, why would you care. User:Generaloberst/s 0:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
As far as insufferable edjits go, you don't just take the biscuit, you take the whole bleeding packet. Are you seriously that deluded that you can't tell the different between a good faith edit likely made as a result of an in-game observation and you going around wiping a ton of content of a page to "prove a point". Adding this on top of your pathetic neo-nazi bullshit, I'm surprised you've survived on the wiki this long. Do us all a favour and leave. You contribute nothing. You piss people off. If this were the real world you'd likely have a couple of black eyes and broken nose for some of the crap you spout.
More on topic however, this is blatantly not vandalism (not a ruling) and is exactly what arbies are for. Learn the rules, kid. -- Cheese 09:31, 5 April 2012 (BST)

Seriously? The top of this page says to assume good faith. You're supposed to do so. I just left a note on their talk page and reverted the edit. That's how you deal with the "situation". I'm disappointed no one else did it before me. If you get into an edit war, take it to A/A. It's only vandalism when someone vandalizes, but differences of opinion are not inherently vandalism, nor are changing edits made by other groups on mainspace pages. Also, as a side note, group pages are considered to be in the group's space, not mainspace, so your earlier arguments about groups editing each other wouldn't fly. Those pages are owned by their groups. —Aichon— 00:54, 5 April 2012 (BST)

As far as I'm concerned he's not a member of the group and is thus not able to know if we won't strike the building anymore. There's no 'opinion' involved. He isn't able to know, and the page said only to update your own group. Simple. So for that reason it is already vandalism in my eyes. If you disagree with me on that for any reason and say you can edit mainspace pages in good faith, you have to draw a line on where something is good faith or general stupidity (as Kirsty Cotton calls it), my guess is that he was near the Usher Building ingame, saw no nazi zombies (obviously, because were in the Blitz), then went to the page, didn't read or didn't understand that it described the strike would occur later, and then made the edit. And yes I would consider that general stupidity. Come on, Aichon, you would too. User:Generaloberst/s 1:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
you really need to get a life.--User:Sexualharrison02:28, 5 April 2012

So a few things, a few points, and a note of fact:

  1. Clearly you have not contacted the user in question and have assumed intent without proven intent there is no case for vandalism.
  2. Arbitration is the appropriate venue for intent-less content disputes.
  3. We do not appreciate it when you provide diffs with diffs between them, it's generally treated as obfuscation. This has been fixed since I first saw this case ruled on but going forward don't do it.
  4. The page lends itself very clearly to the intent of listings as buildings currently nonfunctional and that was probably what was assumed.

The case has been repeatedly decided as NOT VANDALISM. It's over, walk away and if you want to take it up again you can try A/A. That being said you also have the right to revert the edits as you're clearly the person running the event. Continued harassment of the ruling sysops or spamming of the case will result in escalation via the previously established notices; There is no active case and you have no reason to further spam this page, we're done tolerating it in this case and at this level going forward, this is your first last and only soft warning on this matter. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 04:20, 5 April 2012 (BST)

Just like I predicted. It's a intent-less 'newb mistake'. No bad faith involved indeed. In steat I get threatened with a soft warning and when Corn edits the Urban Guerillas page that however is vandalism. You could say that Corn edited a group page but the Malton's End page also clearly stated to only add or remove your own group and thus should be treated like a group page. Don't treat it like a group page, and the page still described that the strike would occur later which makes his edit general stupidity. I win either way. User:Generaloberst/s 12:32, 5 April 2012 (BST)
Lol. Clearly states it isn't a group page in his own argument. Did Wargames teach you nothing? --Rosslessness 13:29, 5 April 2012 (BST)
And oh god, I'm shaking in my boots by your threats. That you threaten me only proves that you feel cornered. A cornered Jew makes weird jumps indeed. User:Generaloberst/s 12:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Generaloberst

Verdict Vandalism
Action taken Warned

I'm making this case for Sexualharrison who thinks the discussion on the bottom of this page is hate speech from my side and that I should be banned. User:Generaloberst/s 13:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Stop reporting yourself to A/VB, dipshit. ~Vsig.png 16:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Pretty sure we've ruled that in itself as vandalism before if I recall correctly. -- Cheese 16:35, 1 April 2012 (BST)
Yeah, its the "Shitting up A/VB" rule. Excessive misuse of an admin page. ~Vsig.png 16:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
He's already been wrist-slapped about self-reporting on A/VB once. Time for an actual warning? -- Spiderzed█ 16:59, 1 April 2012 (BST)
Considering Arbies is also an admin page. If you put aside the wiki's stance on free speech and just look at the fact that he's used an arbitration case opened to prevent harassment against harrison to further harass him and then consider self reporting on A/VB, I'd say he's up for a warning. Vandalism for excessive misuse of admin pages. ~Vsig.png 17:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Although I'm downright disgusted by the fact that Vapor calls it 'harassment' that I denounce the fact that sexualharrison killed several people (in real life), I want to say that everybody can see the page Spiderzed links to was ruled as not vandalism. So how is it not biased to bring up something like that? It is irrelevant to link to the page, as no soft warning was given. There is no form of 'wrist-slapping'. Same for Vapor, the case on Arbitration was never completed, therefore I never officially 'harassed' sexualharrison. So how is it possible to "further harass him" if I never did so in the first place? So also for you, how is this not bias? I think this is the great unmasking of both Spiderzed and Vapor. Now, I think I'm going to throw up. Go ahead and vote this vandalism. I don't even understand why I debate with morally sick people. You are inferior humans. I'm not going to look at this anymore. User:Generaloberst/s 19:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
The linked case was ruled not vandalism because it was deemed not to be excessive by the ruling sysops at the time. A/VB is the page used to report vandalism as defined by the vandalism policy. It is not Generaloberst's personal space for trying to expose bias within the sysop team. A/A is the page used to settle conflict between users on the wiki. It is not Generaloberst's personal space to further long-standing conflicts. I won't even get into A/PM, which I also saw as just another platform for you and your sysop hate. Learn to use the admin pages for their intended purposes or don't use them at all. ~Vsig.png 20:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me, who says I'm making this case to proof that you're biased? I just said that you are. Harrison stated that what I said is hate speech and that I should be banned, that's why I made the case. But I wasn't going to read here anymore. User:Generaloberst/s 23:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
LOL i think this is an April fools joke. --User:Sexualharrison21:13, 1 April 2012

Oh fuck off and stop making drama for drama's sake. Warn the faggot. Karek get down here mofo. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:01, 2 April 2012 (BST)

Yup, this nonsense is done Warned. If you say you're vandalizing who are we to disagree. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 07:47, 2 April 2012 (BST)


I have no regrets over anything I said or did. User:Generaloberst/s 15:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I won't rule as I have been an involved party in SH's arbies case. -- Spiderzed█ 18:56, 2 April 2012 (BST)

which i will not comment on anymore.. get to work spidey.--User:Sexualharrison19:52, 2 April 2012


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.


Archives

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
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2012_04&oldid=1994724"