UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning
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
|
Februrary 2015
User:Jack Yocum
| 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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). ~
- 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 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 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)
User:ZergingZerger
| 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
| 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)
February 2014
User:Misanthropy
That fucking string of ass piss again
| 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)
January 2014
User:Reddit survivors
| 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)
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)
- 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.) ~
- 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)
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)
Warned -- boxy 04:42, 13 March 2014 (BST)
N_O_T_R_E_D_N_A_G
| 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)
Suifdhsei
| 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
|
Vandal Banning Archive | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
