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
|
October
User:Wild wild crazy
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Warned |
Vandalized The Dead. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ 
☉ 
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 04:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- I have warned them. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- This is probably them again http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Special:Contributions/Wild_Wild_Wild_Crazy. Vandalized The Globetrotters. --K 16:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Some more vandalism to the Malton Globetrotters and the Dead. I've filed this all under User:Wild Crazy as this seems to be the oldest "Wild Crazy" .-- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- You will never guess the contrib history of 4x Wild Crazy -- Spiderzed▋ 17:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Blocked accordingly. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- How are we not already at perma? http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Special:Contributions/Wild_Wild_Wild_Wild_Wild_Crazy --K 23:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Because there are no gods. No masters. Kim Jung Undead (talk) 23:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- It's getting there. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- How are we not already at perma? http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Special:Contributions/Wild_Wild_Wild_Wild_Wild_Crazy --K 23:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Blocked accordingly. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
See User:Crazy Wild, blocked. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Several more alt accounts have been created. Technically, we need a perma ban vote with 2/3 sysops to agree to perma ban the main account, unless the main account accrues 12 months worth of bans. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 13:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Not vandalism but possible ban evasion. Wild crazy made the zerg group page. http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Special:Contributions/A_Meatshielder --K 18:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
User:Clayton Carmine
| Verdict | Not Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | None |
Continues to make unsubstantiated edits to User:DangerReport/Darvall Heights
If you look at the history, he even did a same day revert of Bob's changes
http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ADangerReport%2FDarvall_Heights&diff=2406996&oldid=2406921
Clearly he is just being a sore loser and making bad faith edits as a poor attempt to troll.
I mean at least wait a day or two for the situation on the ground to actually change before just auto stomping reasonable intel updates. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ZPatriot (talk • contribs) 21:53, 12 October 2021.
- I'm not yet demoted but going to refrain from ruling. That said, I wanted to drop in and reiterate what I've said before, which is that "the suburb danger statuses are the part of the wiki most designed to be corrected/adjusted with extreme frequency by interested users. In addition, the boundaries of what constitutes what status are vague and arguable on purpose. I doubt I'd ever accept an A/VB case based on a danger status dispute, unless it's a user clearly lying and manipulating the status in order to e.g. lure players or alter their behavior." Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 22:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- That is literally what's happening. Its in Clayton's interest to have the suburb look like an active combat zone to attract people there. They are not making changes based on an actual evaluation of the status on the ground, it's a knee jerk reaction to my modification. They are simply using the wiki as a combative tool, showing their preferred status. The situation on the ground in Darvall is no different then any of the other ghost suburbs. These edits are in bad faith, 100% ZPatriot (talk) 06:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- Isn't what is happening at all so please don't put words in my mouth. Apologies for not taking your word on the state of Darvall Heights when all you had to add was "appears abandoned" as your reasonable intel update, yet we have survivors in the area and zombies sleeping in ruins around the suburb. Since this is such a sticky subject for you I'll give it a day before updating changes made to Darvall Heights Danger Report, even though the situation on the ground could change in a shorter span of time. Clayton Carmine (talk) 00:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- All I ask is that you take the time to evaluate the situation before making the change. There had been little to no activity in the area for a couple days and I did a scout around and everything was still trashed, no humans to be found, and most of our people had gotten board and wandered outward. I literally said "The Heights appear abandoned for the moment." in my summary. Since you didn't bother to put any comments on your changes, all we are left with is projection, so not sure how you can expect anything other then that to occur. ZPatriot (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- Isn't what is happening at all so please don't put words in my mouth. Apologies for not taking your word on the state of Darvall Heights when all you had to add was "appears abandoned" as your reasonable intel update, yet we have survivors in the area and zombies sleeping in ruins around the suburb. Since this is such a sticky subject for you I'll give it a day before updating changes made to Darvall Heights Danger Report, even though the situation on the ground could change in a shorter span of time. Clayton Carmine (talk) 00:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- That is literally what's happening. Its in Clayton's interest to have the suburb look like an active combat zone to attract people there. They are not making changes based on an actual evaluation of the status on the ground, it's a knee jerk reaction to my modification. They are simply using the wiki as a combative tool, showing their preferred status. The situation on the ground in Darvall is no different then any of the other ghost suburbs. These edits are in bad faith, 100% ZPatriot (talk) 06:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
This is a better fit for A/A. As I can't verify what's actually happening in this suburb, I can't say if anyone is fabricating the danger level. I'd recommend providing evidence when updating the level, or relying on the external military reports as they are more neutral. Otherwise, the edit warring will go nowhere. NV. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Not Vandalism - But it's closer to vandalism than it should be. Normally we don't rule on this kind of stuff at all because it's not the sysop's job to rule on grey areas created by interpreting the danger zones, but having quickly scouted Darvall, I would say there's essentially nothing that should classify it as Very Dangerous, let alone fighting someone in an edit war to keep it that way. That is unless the suburb went from "zombie-infested and/or massive hostile zombie mobs" to "devoid of significant survivor or zombie populations" in the two days between the edit dispute and my inspection. It's possible I guess. I'm also concerned by Clayton's reverting of Bob's report that was sourced by the EMRP and should be the most neutral and technically correct status at the time.
TLDR; It's not fair to assume every one of Clayton's reverts in the past were based on a bad faith interpretations of Extremely Dangerous, especially since not all of them were to change the status to Extremely Dangerous anyway. I think that kind of history would be required to call this behaviour vandalism. But it definitely felt closer to bad-faith than the typical dispute. I think if the status isn't clear cut, your idea of waiting a little longer before changing it may be good Clayton. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 06:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
March
User:Fistbump Jackson
| Verdict | Not Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | None |
Well I guess we're seeing how this plays out. Has redirected his talk page to a category page despite the notice provided after the discussion below. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 12:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Well if you want to pull the trigger, go ahead, but I won't look. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- I was warned against redirecting to groups and users. Not categories. Check the history. Furthermore, I asked to be pointed to a specific rule or any kind of precedent and received none. Fistbump Jackson (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- If the rule and/or precedent is “hi I’m DDR/Bob Moncrief and I rule by fiat” then cool but I’d like you to at least say that. Fistbump Jackson (talk)|
- Based on the below case, most active sysops made clear their position was that any redirect of a user talk page produces an unreasonable barrier to contacting that user.
Vandalism.revised, see below Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 13:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)- well good job linking me to the discussion! i didn’t know this page, or that discussion, even existed until yesterday Fistbump Jackson (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Based on the below case, most active sysops made clear their position was that any redirect of a user talk page produces an unreasonable barrier to contacting that user.
Easy. Concluded as Not Vandalism. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 02:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
User:Dragnshardz
| Verdict | 3eV Impersonation |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Perma |
Based on IP data & edits, a clear attempt at impersonating User:Dragonshardz. I've blocked the user based on IP data which indicates they are absolutely not the same user, about to revert the edits (which are all userspace & talk page messages, hence the 3eV), but would love a sysop to double-check me before I block the IP and delete the user/talk/sig pages. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 17:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yep, all good. Deleted. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 23:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- As the party they were trying to affect: lmao, owned, idiot. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ ☉ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 23:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
User:Dragonshardz
| Verdict | Not Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | None |
Has repeatedly replaced their user talk page with a redirect to a group talk page, including after being told that that is not allowed as users need to be contactable on their talk pages. Has also done so on another user's talk page after that redirect was reverted by me DDR as well.
I'm not bring Fistbump to A/VB since they only made the redirect once and Dragonshardz did so the second time, but will keep monitoring. How do people feel about me protecting the talk pages in non-redirected state while the case is carried out to prevent an unnecessary edit war? (nvm, see below) (And for reference Dragonshardz currently has two warnings from previous cases, so this would be a 24 hour ban.) Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 18:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, nevermind on the protecting talk page issue. I'm looking back through precedent and think protecting the page would be self-defeating; I'll continue to revert the redirects, if needed, until this case is concluded. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 19:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Per the Specific Case Editing Guidelines, my talk page belongs solely to me, and I can do whatever the hell I damn well please on it. I logically cannot be vandalizing my own property, and the person who would be able to accuse me of "vandalizing" Fistbump's Talk page is Fistbump. Not you. There is no policy on the wiki that requires my Talk page to be "usable to contact" me, or that I cannot redirect it to another Talk page as I wish. In short, go soak your head. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ ☉ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 19:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Also, every time you revert my edit to my talk page, I get notified that I have a "new message" which is something I clearly do not want, as evidenced by the redirect existing, the change summaries, and my request to RadicalWhig to please not mess with my talk page. He's able to abide by that, why can't you? Or do you simply want to harass me with constant notifications of blank text? --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ ☉ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 19:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- To the sysop team: I'm currently collating the relevant precedent to link here. (Also making a longer version in my userspace.) I can't find anything specific about redirects, but there is widespread precedent that User Talk pages must be usable by both sysops and the general community to contact the user, and obstructions to its usability for this are not allowed. Feel free to hold on ruling til I get that together, hopefully in about an hour. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 21:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Per the Specific Case Editing Guidelines, my talk page belongs solely to me, and I can do whatever the hell I damn well please on it. I logically cannot be vandalizing my own property, and the person who would be able to accuse me of "vandalizing" Fistbump's Talk page is Fistbump. Not you. There is no policy on the wiki that requires my Talk page to be "usable to contact" me, or that I cannot redirect it to another Talk page as I wish. In short, go soak your head. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉
Ok, here it is: There has long been a guiding principle to rulings that user talk pages must be usable to contact that user by both the sysops and the userbase at large, with the sole exception of banned users, whose talk pages are protected. The user talk page is the first stop for anyone discussing edits elsewhere on the wiki. There are innumerable examples of "take this to the admin talk page or your talk page" if you go back through the A/VB and other admin archives. The user talk page is the place to have discussion, including discussion the user in question doesn't like.
A user making their talk page unusable is not allowed.[1] Doing so is vandalism if it is intentional, but not if it is an honest coding mistake.[2] This includes to the extent that others may e.g. reduce image size in order to make a user's talk pages useable.[3] Users can request that their talk page be deleted, but cannot, for example, demand their talk pages remain deleted/uncreated by other users, as they are needed as a point of contact.[4] I don't believe a user has previously attempted to use redirecting to circumvent this, but it stands in clear comparison to the prior examples. (This is excerpted from a much longer text I just collated in my userspace if you want more details.) Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 21:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Neither precedent or principle are policy. Redirecting my talk page to another page doesn't make my talk page unusable. It encourages people not to use it. And again, logically, it is not possible to vandalize something that belongs to you. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ ☉ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 22:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Precedent is a big part of how the wiki has operated since 2006. If you're opposed to that, I encourage you to craft a policy proposal that invalidates precedent and requires all policies to be explicit.
- Redirecting your talk page significantly hinders a user's ability to edit or post on it. Also, you absolutely can vandalize your own user talk page, for example by posting something that violates TOS there.[5] Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 22:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Also the VERY FIRST CASE you link to in order to back up that your claim that my edits to my talk page are vandalism was ruled to not be vandalism. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ ☉ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 22:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- AND that case is about having text or other material outside the normal page area, which is not what a redirect does, so it's not even barely fucking related! --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ ☉ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 22:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- It has the same effect of hindering a user's ability to post on your talk page. If anything, making a page a redirect makes it more difficult to do so, especially for those who have less familiarity with wiki operations like the (+) button. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 22:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- It requires them to click a single clearly visible link to go back to the talk page. It's not that hard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dragonshardz (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.
- It has the same effect of hindering a user's ability to post on your talk page. If anything, making a page a redirect makes it more difficult to do so, especially for those who have less familiarity with wiki operations like the (+) button. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 22:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Not Vandalism - Dragonshardz wants to do something with their talk page and clearly believes they have the right to do it. I can't in good faith have them warned/banned right away for something they don't realise they can't do. However, Bob is right, user talk pages must be reasonably accessible for the function of the wiki. That essentially overrules talk page rules or any other personal touches one wants to add to their home page.
Some relevant precedent. A user cannot have their talk page protected for periods that they are actually active on the wiki, for the specific reason that it their obligation to be contactable if they are contributing to this wonderful website. Users like Finis Valorum thus needed to request talk page protections only when declaring they were to be absent from the wiki and their talk pages would have to be unprotected once they returned. Iscariot's talk page had stupid rules in an attempt to literally forbid admins from posting on his page "or he would misconduct them". It didn't work and as I recall he never bothered testing it cause even he knew it was dumb. He removed them a year or so later.
And there's also the general "function of the wiki" precedents that come into play here. Kind of. You can't do certain things on this wiki that make the function of the wiki more difficult for general users. same goes for random crap that breaks basic wiki functions. These examples aren't directly related obviously. But they are examples of the Sysop's mandate to ensure the wiki can run smoothly, as it's intended, at the base level.
Basically, it's unfair to ban you for something you didn't know for sure that you couldn't do. But, like the predecent Bob posted above, now you do. That means if you continue with this edit war I'll vote vandalism next time. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 22:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Redirecting the page doesn't make it more difficult for general users to leave a message. There's a link right under the title of the page it redirects to that takes you back to my talk page without being redirected. I'm not doing anything that prevents people from editing my talk page, just encouraging them to not. It's absolutely ridiculous to state that it's possible for me to vandalize my own talk page. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ ☉ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 22:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Vandalism isn't something that can only occur on some pages and not on others. It's literally just a bad faith edit. It can be done by anyone, anywhere. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 22:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- A redirect on a talk page which by WIKI LAW belongs to me is a bad faith edit based on what policy, exactly? --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ ☉ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 23:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- The creation of that redirect was not vandalism. I said so above. The continuing to do so after being told it goes against the sysop's interpretation of past precedent & policy, is bad faith. Policy dictates sysops are allowed to interpret on a case-by-case basis to this degree. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 23:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- There is no policy that I cannot redirect my own talk page, nor is there precedent for this specific issue. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ ☉ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 00:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Exactly. So the decision is 100% up to the interpretation by the sysops as explicitly stated in the guidelines, my reasoning of which is collated in the above links and examples provided by myself and Bob. You are welcome to your interpretation and it is entirely your choice to push it as hard as you are pushing it. I expect the result of that will be that by the end of this endeavour you will have helped create the precedent you seem so interested in us producing. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 00:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- There is no policy that I cannot redirect my own talk page, nor is there precedent for this specific issue. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉
- The creation of that redirect was not vandalism. I said so above. The continuing to do so after being told it goes against the sysop's interpretation of past precedent & policy, is bad faith. Policy dictates sysops are allowed to interpret on a case-by-case basis to this degree. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 23:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Y'all's argument is the same as telling someone that they cannot paint the inside of their owned home a specific color, and now that they have been told this, they will go to jail if they paint the inside of their house a specific color. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ ☉ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 23:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- All I'm reading here is that you think I should have voted vandalism straight away because that fits the standards of real-life criminal justice more. This is not real life, your talk page is not your house. It's a wiki. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 23:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- My talk page is my talk page. Why is choosing to redirect it to a different talk page such a big fucking deal in the first place? --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ ☉ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 00:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- It's not a big deal at all. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 00:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- If it's not a big deal, why bother making a VB case about it? Eh, Bob? --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ ☉ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 01:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- If it's not a big deal, why bother making a VB case about it? Eh, Bob? --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉
- It's not a big deal at all. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 00:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- My talk page is my talk page. Why is choosing to redirect it to a different talk page such a big fucking deal in the first place? --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉
- All I'm reading here is that you think I should have voted vandalism straight away because that fits the standards of real-life criminal justice more. This is not real life, your talk page is not your house. It's a wiki. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 23:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- The user talk page is more like the mailbox on the front of your house (which is your userpage) — you own it but legally it has to be functional to receive mail there. And I live in a city where by ordinance our mailboxes have to be one of a specific set of colors (mine is dark green). Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 01:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- And in this case, you're the neighborhood Karen on the HOA making a big fuss about my shade of green being oh-so-slightly off. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ ☉ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 02:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- There's no policy against being a Karen. ;) Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 14:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Nobody likes a Karen, Karen. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ ☉ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 15:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- I do! At worst I find them entertaining, at best a challenge to out-Karen. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 19:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- You find white women who call the cops on Black people for having a cookout entertaining. This explains an uncomfortable number of things about you. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ ☉ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 00:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- That's not what a Karen is, that's called a racist. Or if that's your definition of Karen then I'm definitely not, I think rules-monger is a much more accurate appellation. Also I think this conversation would at this point be better held on a user talk page rather than on A/VB, so will continue on one if you like. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 01:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- You find white women who call the cops on Black people for having a cookout entertaining. This explains an uncomfortable number of things about you. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉
- I do! At worst I find them entertaining, at best a challenge to out-Karen. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 19:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Nobody likes a Karen, Karen. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉
- There's no policy against being a Karen. ;) Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 14:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- And in this case, you're the neighborhood Karen on the HOA making a big fuss about my shade of green being oh-so-slightly off. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉
- A redirect on a talk page which by WIKI LAW belongs to me is a bad faith edit based on what policy, exactly? --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉
- Vandalism isn't something that can only occur on some pages and not on others. It's literally just a bad faith edit. It can be done by anyone, anywhere. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 22:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- I'm a-ok with this. Would love at least one other sysop to agree with DDR (not vandalism but this is precedent that you cannot redirect your user talk page going forwards) before I officially withdraw the case. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 01:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Imagine spending hors of your free time to scroll back through 16 years worth of vandal banning data just to stick it to someone who doesn't operate their talk page in the way that you want. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ ☉ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 02:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Imagine spending hors of your free time to scroll back through 16 years worth of vandal banning data just to stick it to someone who doesn't operate their talk page in the way that you want. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉
- Bob's argument rests on whether changing Dragonshardz's talk page to a redirect makes it impossible (or at least difficult) to contact Dragonshardz directly. However, it takes a single click on (Redirected from User talk:Dragonshardz) to go back onto their page and make a comment, so it's certainly still possible to contact them; it's just mildly annoying and not difficult. Any user is allowed make edits to Dragonshardz's talk page in this manner, and Dragonshardz can revert these talk page edits if they wish. Both of these users can make these edits back and forth endlessly, and neither of the user's edits would be vandalism. If Dragonshardz doesn't want a specific user from using their talk page, they can make an A/A case. They could also try to make an A/A case to block any and all users on the wiki from using their talk page, but I don't think an arbitrator would rule in their favour and I'm not sure how such a case would work mechanistically anyways.
- I think a stronger argument is that the redirect could prevent an inexperienced user from directly contacting Dragonshardz, but that's speculative. They may or may not notice the redirect, or understand what a redirect is.
- It matters where the redirect goes to and what is on the page. A point in Dragonshardz's favour is that the redirect directs people to Talk:The Dead, a group of which they are a member (so far as I understand). If the page contained elements that blocked the redirect message, or linked to the main page of an unrelated group (for example), I'd change my conclusion here.
- It's best to not assume that Dragonshardz is being deliberately disruptive. Perhaps they prefer the redirect because "I get notified that I have a "new message" which is something I clearly do not want" (Dragonshardz).
- Not vandalism. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 15:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- I'm glad somebody gets it. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ ☉ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 17:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- I understand this — I disagree in that I do think the redirect click constitutes making it difficult to post on the user's talk page, but I'm cool with this ruling. Before we wrap and so I understand, if a user talk page redirected to, say, Talk:Main Page, would that be obstructive enough to count as vandalism? Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 19:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- I probably wouldn't bother ruling it as such, unless it became common for people trying to reach Drangonshardz to post on Talk:Main Page by mistake. Call it a pointless redirect, in that case
. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- I probably wouldn't bother ruling it as such, unless it became common for people trying to reach Drangonshardz to post on Talk:Main Page by mistake. Call it a pointless redirect, in that case
As DDR RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 19:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Closed as not vandalism, although I will be removing the redirect according to the majority of sysop feedback. Same for Fistbump Jackson. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 04:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
User:Bob Moncrief
| Verdict | Not Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | None |
Has repeatedly reverted edits to my talk page despite clear indications that I do not wish for the redirect on it to be removed. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ ☉ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 20:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- My response is basically the outcome of the above vandalism case, so it should be dealt with before this one. Undoing the edits is a basic administrative action to undo vandalism (the redirect) and thus isn't vandalism. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 21:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Not vandalism DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 22:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
At best this is a good faith attempt to revert vandalism; at worst it's an edit war. Not vandalism. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 13:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Not vandalism As the Gnome RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 19:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Closed as not vandalism. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 04:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Archives
|
Vandal Banning Archive | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
