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
|
August
User:EmPathetic BiII
| Verdict | Vandal alt |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Permaban |
| Verdict | Vandal alt |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Permaban |
[1] Impersonation character. [2] Impersonation character
Even Pathetic Bill is amused at these.--EmPathetic Bill (talk) 09:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- Same /24 IP block as the previous ones. I'm going to go ahead and permaban these ones as vandal alts, then will ban the /24 IP range being used as well. —Aichon— 18:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
My brother and I have characters named this. I explained on the other page an nd have to go Soon.
We aren't impersonating anyone and just wanted to make bio pages.
I can provide the. Up id's.
Pls unlock turn as you can see by reading them we 're our own characters. So since the game let us make then we want to add them here.
User:The Goth Store Owner
| Verdict | Not Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Proxies perma'd |
Replacing a link to a profile, on a group page, with an obviously new, impersonation character -- boxy 22:22, 23 August 2015 (BST)
Uh yeah Im a real person and i an the real character ingame. i can meet you in game if you need proof. i find it interesting you are attempting to delete me when you shadow edit a revision without just cause.
i have been running the store ingame since 2/2015 and goth store owner has not been seen around at all until i did the edit to update the page to add myself.
thats what this site is for. to keep track of the current owner. not let someone with an obvious zerg alt tag their name here forever without being active or even have a right to it.
goth store owner is no more the creator of the page than i am but hasnt been seen around for years until zerging the mall this week. its allk over the news.
i had already open discusions on my user page and realsiege22 user page before Boxy did his/her shadow edit.
And realsiege22 is a new account yet does eiditing like someone who has been on here a long time. Something suspicious is going on here and investigating is needed for someone(S) other than just me. please investigate this. The Goth Store Owner (talk) 10:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- I investigated it. That's a group page, as evidenced by the box on the right side discussing group numbers, leadership, etc., which means that it is owned by the group members, even if they are no longer around. Moreover, did you really think we wouldn't notice your poor attempt at hiding behind a proxy IP address? Nice try. I'll be banning those IPs in a moment and blocking at least part of that IP range as well (let me guess: you were using Hide My Ass?). Even so, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt with regards to this being vandalism, since no one seems to have laid it out clearly for you why you aren't allowed to edit that page, and I lack evidence that's conclusive enough to link you to everything else that's been going on these last few weeks, even though your modus operandi matches. So, Not Vandalism and Permaban on Proxies. —Aichon— 16:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
The reason i consider this guy an impersonator is because at this point in game, the Yocum group is conducting a smear campaign against the real Goth Store Owner player (http://urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=1555072). How i know this? Well because i've been attacked several times by Yocums in game and he stated he believed i was an alt of that player. At the same time, Yocum tried to impersonate me on wiki: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User:Siege22. He's consistent in his modus operandi and there's obviously some kind of conflict between him and Goth Store Owner. That is why when i noticed the new Goth Store account on wiki and the changes he made (replacing the old profile with a new low level one), i thought this was fishy and reverted his edits. Unless he can bring solid evidence that he's the real group owner, this looks like an abuse.--Real Siege22 (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with you about what it looks like, but sysops are required to "assume good faith" when it comes to matters here. Unless he does something more, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, even though I don't think he's deserving of it. —Aichon— 16:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
With Not a character the original goth store owner posting, (along with his edits going back to the pages creation) It's now fairly clear this in an imposter. Combined with my own homework 
,
and 
it's clear someone is trying to claim they're an alt of a forgotten password character when both alts are active. --RosslessnessWant to complete a dangerous mission? 15:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- Given that both are active in your contact list, the "opps forgot passwerd lel" story doesn't fly with me. The real question is, can we use blatant in-game impersonation to punsih someone on the wiki? I see no policy immediately that allows to do, but I am very open to persuasion. -- Spiderzed▋ 22:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- The Jack Yocum group were griefing the original Goth Store Owner using their usual butthurt tactics of creating imposter accounts (Like the Bill clones, the bpell clones, the walter clones) and then camping an area tagging and such. All the characters the give "The Jack Yocum" the finger have been cloned and "The Goth Store Owner" is most likely another one. Given he is hiding behind an IP proxy (or trying to) it doesn't say a lot of his intentions. Celmere is that you ? --EmPathetic Bill (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- Um....is this considered a neutral comment, or are blatant lies, undeserved bias, and wholly inaccurate assumptions allowed to be used to defame and erroneously convict our group?
- The Jack Yocum group were griefing the original Goth Store Owner using their usual butthurt tactics of creating imposter accounts (Like the Bill clones, the bpell clones, the walter clones) and then camping an area tagging and such. All the characters the give "The Jack Yocum" the finger have been cloned and "The Goth Store Owner" is most likely another one. Given he is hiding behind an IP proxy (or trying to) it doesn't say a lot of his intentions. Celmere is that you ? --EmPathetic Bill (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- And I'm just going to say my piece here as the official response of our group:
- We didn't make the any clones, nor grief The Goth Store page. We have our own griefers doing the same, and I'll post them on our page, and I believe Pathetic Bill's page had listed the same issue. So this isn't something new, nor is it unthinkable that such a group of unscupulos players would be targetted. Honestly, I'm surprised it didn't happen soon given how they act.
- That is an official statement.
- We do NOT have a dog in this GOTH STORE OWNER/THE GOTH STORE OWNER race other than the same pwnt zergs desperately attempt to bring us into everything that ever happens in this game. Being a professional gamer, for some time now, I can say those actions occur when you expose cheaters, dominate them in a game...despite their cheating, and get completely in their heads. It's just natural, because that kind of immaturity needs to find a way to justify (inaccurately) why they simply aren't on the same level. I suppose we should take this as flattery, but still seems like there should be a bit more disgression on certain pages?
- You will notice that the same person who originally griefed our page as User:Hunter of America (a member of our group ingame who did NOT make that user name here), had the same type of vitrol as the one who made the false "Jack Yocum" page before I joined. In fact, the zerg (known as mldhoc/mark dugan/Tim Dobbins bragging about it ingame, and that was what originally spurred me to make our page. Before that we just took care of business, winning the RIGHT way, and only using this site for the basic features like map/items/clothes/ect. And I'm sure emP Bill can attest to knowing Hunter of America as he has personally PKed Bill, for zerging, over 50x already!
- Anyway, seems interesting that the person who created Siege22 also made those mldhoc alts.
- Perhaps it is the same griefer that was posing as Jack Yocum/Hunter of America... The Jack Yocum (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Frankly, neither you nor Bill should be commenting here unless you have something material to add (e.g. links to evidence) to the case at hand, since, as you said, this case doesn't concern you. We're happy to look into other matters if they need looking into, but those would be other matters and would be best dealt with as a separate case. This case is closed, so unless you have new information that can help positively identify the person behind the account in question, I'll ask that you both refrain from cluttering this space with additional back-and-forth. —Aichon— 19:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'd like some clarification on you and Ross' thought process here because I think I've missed something. Hasn't the above accused Goth Store owner account just stated that he's a separate account that has taken over the group page because the original has since gone inactive? Where did he say that he is the original that lost his password? A ZOMBIE ANT 00:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Not that it matters for the wiki but the original owner has been zerg griefed since at least June last year and then conveniently when he gives up a new "owner" appears. The Goth update was in 2007 or so wasn't it so the new person thinks he had it in 2005, or he meant 2007...or 2008 or 2009. The password\original owner is referenced in his UD profile that Ross has loaded to this page - you need anything else darling ? --EmPathetic Bill (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- The most malicious thing he's done on the wiki is (probably) lying about whether he is another character... I don't think it's that big of a deal. A ZOMBIE ANT 04:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- If he's made the claim anywhere on the wiki that he's the original Goth Store Owner, I'd be up for permabanning it as a vandal alt intended for the sole purpose of impersonating a known character, given that it's well-established that he is not, in fact, the original Goth Store Owner. But as far as on-wiki punishments for in-game actions, nope, not our domain. We won't tolerate them engaging in those activities here, but we won't punish them for what they do elsewhere, though we will use it as evidence against them if need be. —Aichon— 14:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- It's down to that grey area of changing the profiles on the page. As referenced elsewhere I've protected the goth store page in it's original format, so we'll see what else occurs. --RosslessnessWant to complete a dangerous mission? 17:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- If he's made the claim anywhere on the wiki that he's the original Goth Store Owner, I'd be up for permabanning it as a vandal alt intended for the sole purpose of impersonating a known character, given that it's well-established that he is not, in fact, the original Goth Store Owner. But as far as on-wiki punishments for in-game actions, nope, not our domain. We won't tolerate them engaging in those activities here, but we won't punish them for what they do elsewhere, though we will use it as evidence against them if need be. —Aichon— 14:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Nothing convienient about it Bill, at least to those with a modicum of intelliegnce. He zerg attacked us first, and then ran out of town for an extended period. Can't understand why that logic would escape you unless you are on a specific witch hunt agenda for being exposed, and dominated, ingame.
- It is interesting that you would know we hadn't seen him for said extendede time, since we don't bother looking for ants when they leave the picnic (nor does any person of reason).
- So if you have no relation to this character, how do you know such intimate details?--EmPathetic Bill (talk) 19:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I hadn't even realized we were part of this discussion until a radio broadcast ingame alerted our group. Though can't say I'm surprised, since we're such rockstars :P, but since I'm here I decided to take a closer look. The Jack Yocum (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Here is something else I'm also wondering: If the Goth Store page is a group page, then why is it not represented as such on the main Ackland page? Instead it seems to be using a sort of hidden link on that page (Goth Clothes) to give the illusion it is the actual ingame store rather than only a group. I don't see The Kilt Store page being allowed to do that, and what would happen if another group made a Goth Store page? Would they ALSO be allowed to have the same link representation on the main page? Let's say, hypothetically, since I've been drawn into this moronic mess, that I now want to crate a Jack Yocum Goth Store page. I would expect to be allowed to have just as much representation, otherwise there would seem to be a perceived bias. Just saying. I think a Sysop needs to correct that link and have the group more accurately represented.
Also, how is it that the page was not modfied back to the original creation, since Not A Player is not the creator of the page, and only took "ownership" of the page only in 2009? So it seems that either Goth Store Owner will need to share the claim of being owner through similar links on the Ackland page, or neither one should be incorrectly linked from there. And I'll add that I had no interested wasting very valuable time with this whole mess, when I could be otherwise living my enjoyable life, but certain disreputable elements of the community felt the overwhelming (fanatical?) need to include my group in this discusiion. So, since I'm here, I figured I'd bring with me the two most important, and sorely needed, weapons on this site: truth and common sense. In fact, if we had not been included in said discussion, I wouldn't have even bothered to offer my opinion, even though it is decidedly accurate. Ask and you shall receive. The Jack Yocum (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Words are not weapons my dear fellow, they are tools, I reverted back to the original version of the group page, because I was asked to. There is a player who created the Goth Store group, and it is correct to call him the leader of said group. In addition to your other question, the Kilt store (group) does exactly the same thing. My opinion is to always side with the original creator, especially when the secondary account pretends to be him. --RosslessnessWant to complete a dangerous mission? 16:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oh your baby teeth are coming through - how cute. Great to see you back Yocum. When all your group characters (and your impersonator accounts of the cool kidz) went inactive for a few days we thought maybe something had happened. But as your all now active again hopefully it was just a technical glitch in your team speak. Hopefully you and the goth impersonator can defend your claim to the wiki while the Bills and I keep the Goth Store Owner (the real dealz) in fresh supply of gimp masks. --EmPathetic Bill (talk) 19:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- It's either a group page, in which case your zergs don't get to take control of it just because you chose a similar name to it's owner, or it's a community page, in which case your zergs don't get to take control of it, because community pages don't have anything to do with leaders or owners. Pick an option, douchebag -- boxy 23:18, 29 August 2015 (BST)
- The group listing for each suburb is entirely optional and voluntary, and is up to each group to handle for themselves. The vast majority of active groups either don't care about being listed or actively choose not to be listed, for various reasons. And if a main space page isn't neutral, it isn't the job of the sysops to clean it up. It's anyone's job. The sysops are here to deal with rule-breakers and the things that normal users are unable to fix, but for everything else, it's everyone's job. When it comes to the content of pages though, we really don't get involved unless the page is in dispute, in which case we'll either do our duty as a regular user, or we'll protect the page until everyone cools down and sorts things out on their own.
- As for the hypothetical group page stuff, leave it hypothetical. There's no sense in dealing with problems that don't exist. We have enough problems as it is.
- Finally, I'll kindly ask that all non-sysops refrain from commenting here unless they are directly involved in the case or have something material to add. A random A/VB case is absolutely not the place to hash out this nonsense. Deal with it elsewhere. —Aichon— 19:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- I reported it so guess I am involved ?
- http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki%3AAdministration%2FVandal_Banning&diff=2254900&oldid=2252442
- --EmPathetic Bill (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Setting aside that that's a separate case, discussions about off-wiki stuff should be taken to the talk page or kept to the minimum amount necessary (i.e. state the facts and move on; don't get drawn into arguments). These cases operate more smoothly when the evidence isn't hidden in walls of text, and we have in the past taken action against folks who clog up the admin pages. We do read the talk pages as well (*waves at Hagnat*), but the main page should be reserved for stuff that is of immediate relevance to the case at hand. —Aichon— 15:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Zerging Imposters United
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Permaban |
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Permaban |
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Permaban |
Mommy can I kill some obvious impersonation accounts tonight? -- Spiderzed▋ 20:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Check user,suggests a lot more accounts could be added to this list. --RosslessnessWant to complete a dangerous mission? 22:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- It does indeed, but I don't see them being impersonation accounts. Although, if we count account creation as edit, maybe they could be nailed under the 3 edit rule. -- Spiderzed▋ 19:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- The following are all impersonation accounts and not the actual in-game player.
- (User creation log); 01:57 . . User account Bpell (Talk | contribs) was created
- (User creation log); 01:54 . . User account The Real Spad (Talk | contribs) was created
- (User creation log); 01:40 . . User account ZHU (Talk | contribs) was created
- (User creation log); 01:39 . . User account Malton Teachers Union (Talk | contribs) was created
- (User creation log); 01:34 . . User account Malton Teacher's Union (Talk | contribs) was created
- (User creation log); 01:31 . . User account Tim Dobbins (Talk | contribs) was created
- (User creation log); 01:24 . . User account Mark dugan (Talk | contribs) was created
- (User creation log); 01:14 . . User account Mldhoc (Talk | contribs) was created
- --EmPathetic Bill (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- The following are all impersonation accounts and not the actual in-game player.
- Great to see the fast action on the edit layout Aichon. Another fake wiki account claiming other peoples characters.I'd be impressed if his trolling ability was better than a 12 year olds.
http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Siege22 --EmPathetic Bill (talk) 23:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User:Saint_Giambi
It can only be made by Alwayz the ignore list zerger.--EmPathetic Bill (talk) 09:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
So, now that I've finally had a chance to sift through eveyerthing, it's quite evident that all of these (Siege and Giambi included) are vandal alts created for the sole purpose of impersonating other people, so I'm going to go ahead and ban the lot of them in just a moment. Check user shows they're all linked, most of them were created within minutes of each other, in-game profiles are being used to corroborate claims that these accounts are being used in bad faith, and while it's fine for someone to want to have the same username as someone else, it's absolutely NOT fine to create a massive number of accounts in order to post false claims using those names, which is what they've been doing here.
As a final note to cover my ass, whether the individual accounts have edits or not shouldn't matter. The person behind this effort was clearly acting in bad faith when they launched this account creation attack campaign, thus making each of these accounts a vandal account subject to immediate permaban. Also, while it's not policy, this document is a helpful reminder of how things are supposed to work around here. —Aichon— 17:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot --EmPathetic Bill (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Another possible one - http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User:The_Goth_Store_Owner
Goth Store Owner (real) reported being targetted by Jack Yocum group and given the surge in impersonation accounts I'll leave it to your judgement.
--EmPathetic Bill (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
July
User:Kerkel
| Verdict | Ye Guilty |
|---|---|
| Action taken | 48 hour ban |
Removing content from a group and an user page he has no ownership of. Was escalated back in 2009 for the very same edits. -- Spiderzed▋ 22:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Watch out, Spiderzed! He might PK you in-game if you ban him!--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- As some day after filing the case none of you other fuckers have been on the ball and the user has been repeatedly vandalising the same pages, I have blocked him as Vandalism. Will take the misconduct charge later if (when) it becomes necessary. -- Spiderzed▋ 20:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Escalate obvious vandals yourself. There is no need to wait for confirmation unless you are unsure if it's vandalism -- boxy 13:03, 9 July 2015 (BST)
- As there was a large time gap between the edits of the user, I had decided to wait to handle it properly by waiting for other ops. It is sometimes better to be too soft and to have the vandals hang themselves with the rope provided for all the community to see, rather than to jump the gun and never know if the vandal would be stupid enough to repeat a reverted vandalism hours later. -- Spiderzed▋ 22:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- It's good to see you guys aren't letting the drama llama leave the premises without at least a little fight. ;) —Aichon— 16:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Aichons, I hope you feel bad about your egregious posting on this case in a humourous manner with no bearing on the decision. Prepare your body for Misconduct.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 17:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- It's good to see you guys aren't letting the drama llama leave the premises without at least a little fight. ;) —Aichon— 16:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- As there was a large time gap between the edits of the user, I had decided to wait to handle it properly by waiting for other ops. It is sometimes better to be too soft and to have the vandals hang themselves with the rope provided for all the community to see, rather than to jump the gun and never know if the vandal would be stupid enough to repeat a reverted vandalism hours later. -- Spiderzed▋ 22:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Escalate obvious vandals yourself. There is no need to wait for confirmation unless you are unsure if it's vandalism -- boxy 13:03, 9 July 2015 (BST)
20:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)- Isn't there some 3 vandal edit permaban rule? I clicked 2 links and didn't find it, so I gave up. --K 21:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Alts whose sole contributions are three or more edits of vandalism go straight to a permanent ban. 21:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- A single constructive edit is enough to offset the 3 edit rule, unfortunately. -- Spiderzed▋ 21:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Alts whose sole contributions are three or more edits of vandalism go straight to a permanent ban.
- As some day after filing the case none of you other fuckers have been on the ball and the user has been repeatedly vandalising the same pages, I have blocked him as Vandalism. Will take the misconduct charge later if (when) it becomes necessary. -- Spiderzed▋ 20:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Less than 24 hours between reporting and completing the case yourself? MISCONBRIATION. Obviously I agree with your actions. Worth semi protecting the targeted pages? --RosslessnessWant to complete a dangerous mission? 21:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- I wouldn't jump the gun yet on semi-protecting, as especially the PK kill list gets edited by low-edit wiki accounts who would be equally hurt. After two more bouts of this it is off the permaban vote land anyway. -- Spiderzed▋ 22:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
April
User:Shazam
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Bans all around |
Blanking the same pages he was in 2011. Last escalation was a weeks ban, looks like zumm zero is a clear multi and should be banned? --RosslessnessWant to complete a dangerous mission? 17:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yup, very clearly the same person for both accounts, and very clearly vandalism. We'll be consolidating the vandal data and banning one of them as a vandal alt, though given the history's of the accounts and the names he seems to go by, I'm kinda more inclined to ban Shazam as the vandal alt, while moving all of the escalations to Zumm Zero and banning Zumm Zero for a month. —Aichon— 20:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sensible. Some semi protection as well?--RosslessnessWant to complete a dangerous mission? 22:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- Vandalism. I agree with consolidiation (with Shazam as vandal alt), month ban for Zumm Zero and semi-protection for threatened pages. (Also, I had no time for anything but a quick one-click reverting at the time I noticed ZZ's renewed vandalism. He has been warned just days ago for the exact same thing, so no more kids gloves despite the age of the player's in-game account.) -- Spiderzed▋ 23:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sensible. Some semi protection as well?--RosslessnessWant to complete a dangerous mission? 22:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Right. Banned, perma'd, pages semiprotected. Now can someone check I've correctly merged the Vandal Data and issue the warning. I'm super busy. --RosslessnessWant to complete a dangerous mission? 17:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Put up the notice on his talk page, rearranged A/VD data a bit and did some other tidying on the page. Everything should be done now. —Aichon— 18:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
March 2015
User:JoshCz
| Verdict | Presumed wikinewb |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Soft warning |
Eeeh. Having a hard time assuming good faith here. --Janus talk 13:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Based on what was said, I get the strong impression it's nothing more than a person leaving their computer unlocked in a public place. Even if it's not, it's not worth a warning. Soft warning is the appropriate response. —Aichon— 18:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Zumm Zero
| Verdict | Deleting stuff |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Warning |
Deleted group page stuff. Warned him for now. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- That was generous of you. Guy creates account and for his first 10 or so edits does nothing but delete content that mentions him from others' pages. I'd be more inclined to 3ev him. I'm glad you got to him first. —Aichon— 06:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- The vice unit stuff looks like he may have been a member of the group. I reverted it, but it may be a reasonable edit, so I agree with gnome. --Rosslessness 06:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- I gave him the benefit of the doubt. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 15:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- Zumm Zero is an old player (he is mentioned as far back as 2006), not a simple throwaway account. For that reason alone I err rather towards Warning than invoking the three edit rule. There is also the Vice Unit stuff that is possibly constructive. -- Spiderzed▋ 17:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Februrary 2015
User:Jack Yocum
| Verdict | Impersonation |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Permban |
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)
- Wahahaha, after all these years I see my name is still mud struck whenever convenience arises. Being compared to TZH or Izumi is laugable, it was never blatant and my slate was cleaned just during my first sysops bid. Never change UDwiki :'). --Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:08, 21 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)
- 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)
- 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. ~
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- Well, apparently, there is a previous account going by this name (without the space). You probably was unaware of this, so I would be in favour of this account being permbanned, however, not having that ban being carried over to any new account they may wish to sign up to. This is technical impersonation, however, not intentional impersonation of a wiki account. Worth a warning (for any new account) -- boxy 10:32, 17 February 2015 (BST)
- 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)
- 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)
- Did you make the account User:ZergingZerger too? ~ 13:55, 17 February 2015, The year of our lord (UTC)
- It appears dear Mr Jack Yocum has left. And he didn't bother answering my last question. So what is this? Impersonation? Self ban request? Warning for bad faith? And what about the ZergingZerger account? What does the IP data suggest? Is there evidence of proxy use? ~ 01:56, 20 February 2015, The year of our lord (UTC)
- If no one says otherwise, I'll permaban it this weekend as an impersonation account. As per boxy and Spider, we'll need to warn someone for the impersonation as well (and I still think a warning is due for the zerging stuff, even if it wasn't spelled out before, since encouraging cheating is always bad faith), but see below for why applying warnings to other accounts may be an interesting conundrum. —Aichon— 02:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- It appears dear Mr Jack Yocum has left. And he didn't bother answering my last question. So what is this? Impersonation? Self ban request? Warning for bad faith? And what about the ZergingZerger account? What does the IP data suggest? Is there evidence of proxy use? ~
- Did you make the account User:ZergingZerger too? ~
So, in an interesting twist, one of the confirmed Jack Yocum zergs in-game just contacted me in-game to claim that the Jack Yocum here in this case is actually CarelessWill. I caught it in real-time and was posting it to Talk:Jack Yocum as it was happening, but I'm reposting the links here since they're of relevance to everything that's going on.
- http://ispy.dxavier.net/1204266162.html (I had just moved to a different block, but I stepped back to where I had been when I realized he was talking in real-time)
- http://ispy.dxavier.net/1277738337.html
- http://ispy.dxavier.net/1627097766.html
- http://ispy.dxavier.net/1465242637.html
- http://ispy.dxavier.net/1897779198.html
If this is true, then it adds a wrinkle, in that this Jack Yocum would have been fully aware of the prior one and their history here on the wiki, suggesting the impersonation would not exactly be a benign one. Of course, it could also just be a case of us dealing with the real Jack Yocum all along, and now he's trying to cast some blame on someone who called him out years ago. I can't confirm or refute any of the claims he's making.
Anyway, something to think about. —Aichon— 02:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- So, the plot thickens? -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- So, the bullshit thickens? ~ 16:10, 21 February 2015, The year of our lord (UTC)
OK, I think we've given it enough time. I'm permbanning this account, and deleting it's page (as vandalism), as it is a self admitted impersonation account -- boxy 21:20, 21 February 2015 (BST)
- If any clear evidence of who owns this alt comes to light in the future, they should also get a warning -- boxy 21:32, 21 February 2015 (BST)
- I have strong reasons to believe it really was Jack Yocum and not just some random person, though admittedly there's no hard evidence to back that up. It's just too convenient that the in-game JY found Aichon in-game just a few days after this case started and acted as if he'd been following along the whole time. It sounded just like he was continuing this conversation in-game, and nothing like he was a third party just making an observation. Also, I've spoken with Spad and I am thoroughly convinced he was not behind it as in-game JY alleged. Other things like the second account, the proxy use, his claim of leadership, and his attempted justification for the group's actions all lend weight to the notion that this was the actual Jack Yocum. I'm glad that he has been banned, but I don't think impersonation was the right call. ~ 06:03, 22 February 2015, The year of our lord (UTC)
- I have strong reasons to believe it really was Jack Yocum and not just some random person, though admittedly there's no hard evidence to back that up. It's just too convenient that the in-game JY found Aichon in-game just a few days after this case started and acted as if he'd been following along the whole time. It sounded just like he was continuing this conversation in-game, and nothing like he was a third party just making an observation. Also, I've spoken with Spad and I am thoroughly convinced he was not behind it as in-game JY alleged. Other things like the second account, the proxy use, his claim of leadership, and his attempted justification for the group's actions all lend weight to the notion that this was the actual Jack Yocum. I'm glad that he has been banned, but I don't think impersonation was the right call. ~
Apparently I have a knack for checking on my account right as real-time stuff is happening:
And my response:
To say the least, I doubt we will be taking action on this, given that it's a user page, but I wanted to share it with everyone, regardless. —Aichon— 18:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Annnnd, one last response from him: http://ispy.dxavier.net/1276672063.html. —Aichon— 02:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
User:ZergingZerger
| Verdict | Vandal alt |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Permbanned |
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)
I'd be inclined to ban this one too. Given the timing, content, and activity level, it's very likely to be the same as the case above -- boxy 21:32, 21 February 2015 (BST)
Let's not forget this case in all the excitement over Yocum. Checkuser information isn't conclusive, but this user has edited from an open proxy solely. That raises enough flags with me to consider it to be editing in bad faith, and possibly evading a former ban. I'm inclined to go for a 3 edit perma for three edits using a proxy (making them non-constructive by definition), plus the proxy use itself. No additional escalation for Jack Yocum, as there is no conclusive proof of a connection between the two accounts. Additionally, the proxy IP will be perma'd as is standard practice for proxies. Everyone on board for this? -- Spiderzed▋ 01:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Permbanned -- boxy 11:15, 26 February 2015 (BST)
Archives
|
Vandal Banning Archive | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
