UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2012 Q4

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Administration Services

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

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

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

This page is for the reporting of vandalism within the Urban Dead wiki, as defined by vandalism policy. On this wiki, the punishment for Vandalism is temporary banning, but due to security concerns, the ability to mete out this punishment is restricted to System Operators. As such, regular users will need to lodge a report for a Vandal to be banned from the wiki. For consistency and accountability, System Operators are requested to note on this board their actions in dealing with Vandals.

Guidelines for Vandalism Reporting

In dealing with Vandalism, time is often of the essence. As such, we ask that all users include the following information in a Vandalism report:

  • A link to the pages in question.
Preferably bolded for visibility. If the Vandalism is occurring over a sufficiently large number of pages, instead include a time range of the vandalism attempt, or alternatively, a link to the first vandalised page. This allows us to quickly find the damage so we can quickly assess the situation.
  • The user name of the Vandal.
This allows us to more easily identify the culprit, and to check details.
  • A signed datestamp.
For accountability purposes, we ask that you record in your request your user name and the time you lodged the report.
  • Please report at the top.
There's conflict with where to post and a lot of the reports are missed. If it's placed at the top of the page it's probably going to be seen and dealt with.

If you see Vandalism in progress, don't wait for System Operators to deal with it, as there may be no System Operator online at the time. Lodge the report, then start reverting pages back to their original form. This can be done by going to the "History" tab at the top of the page, and finding the last edit before the Vandal's attack. When a System Operator is available, they'll assess the situation, and if the report is legitimate, we will take steps to either warn the vandal, or ban them if they are on their second warning.

If the page is long, you can add new reports by editing the top report and placing your new report above its header in the edit screen.

Before Submitting a Report

  • This page, Vandal Banning, deals with bad-faith breaches of official policy.
  • Interpersonal complaints are better sorted out at UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration.
  • As much as is practical, assume good faith and try to iron out problems with other users one to one, only using this page as a last resort.
  • Avoid submitting reports which are petty.



Vandalism Report Space

Administration Notice
Talk with the user before reporting or accusing someone of vandalism for small edits. In most cases it's simply a case of a new user that doesn't know how this wiki works. Sometimes assuming good faith and speaking with others can avoid a lot of drama, and can even help newbies feel part of this community.
Administration Notice
If you are not a System Operator, the user who made the vandal report, the user being reported, or directly involved in the case, the administration asks that you use the talk page for further discussion. Free-for-all commenting can lead to a less respectful environment.
Administration Notice
Warned users can remove one entry of their warning history every one month and 250 edits after their last warning. Remember to ask a sysop to remove them in due time. You are as responsible for keeping track of your history as the sysops are; In case of a sysop wrongly punishing you due to an outdated history, he might not be punished for his actions.


November 2012

Poopman10

Ban evasion. See below. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 04:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Well. It's not ban evasion anymore...Now it's just a regular vandal edit using an alt... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 04:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
So ban the alt and escalate the main.--Ross Less Ness Enter Stranger... 22:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
We banned the alt, but didn't escalate the main (an additional time) since he hadn't received a warning yet, and this was all part of a single series of edits. It seemed fair to give him a warning and let him respond to it before applying the extra escalation. Aichon 22:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok. Anyone know if poopman is the seriel poop zerger who spent years in molebank? --Ross Less Ness Enter Stranger... 22:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
He's not. He's just the wiki's most hated noob of 2006-2007. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 04:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Poopman9

Applied a temp ban since it looked at a glance like he was starting something. Unbanning him in a moment since it looks like I overreacted a bit. Aichon 04:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and it should be noted that his contribs are misleading, since they were wiped with the wiki history wipe. Check his A/VD record if you need evidence that he's not a new account. Aichon 04:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
It's the wiki's most hated noob of mid-2006 to early 2007. I would rule vandalism, except I am biased in this matter 'cause I hate this obnoxious brat. So out I sit for this rulings segment. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 04:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I'll say this. He does have wiki experience. He wouldn't be the most hated noob of 2006-2007 if he didn't, now would he? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 04:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Plus vandal edit to Aichon's userpage. Can I just go ahead and permaban him? Pleeeeeeeease? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 04:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Since this is clearly vandalism, and his next escalation is a 1 month ban with a permaban vote, I'm going to go ahead and apply the month ban. I'll start the vote in a sec. Aichon 04:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm biased, so I should really sit out for that vote. But if he does get the perma, I want to be the one to give it. :3 --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 04:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Rules haven't stopped this sysop group before. Might as well do it A ZOMBIE ANT 08:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, for crying out loud. Apparently I can't read A/VD since it's been so long since I've actually had to deal with it. One of his warnings was apparently stricken for an inexplicable reason, so he's actually due for a warning, not a ban. Reverting the block and giving him a fair chance to respond to a warning before he hangs himself with whatever he's likely to do next. Aichon 04:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

In case anyone wants to take me to task over this, he was banned in total for 17 minutes (4 for a temp ban while I looked at things + 13 for when I thought he was due a 1 month ban to when I realized he wasn't yet). Aichon 04:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I will happily take the misconduct (other than possibly be the first non-sysop to get one, yay) I pointed Aichon in the direction of Poopman as it appeared he was getting ready for a vandal spree. Now, whether or not you hold him accountable for listening to me, as that does indeed reek of questionable judgment, is up to you. --Open the Box Org XIII Alts 22:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism and banned for a month. His last ban was for a month, and he's back wiping the suburb page and user pages -- boxy 21:06, 9 November 2012 (BST)

He didn't have a second warning until I gave him one for this case. I.e. He was due a warning, which is what we just gave him. I'm guessing you looked at his A/VD, saw two warnings, didn't check their timestamps, and thought he was due for a ban. If you check the timestamp on the warnings though, you'll see that the second one is for this case, so what you've effectively just done is give him a warning AND a ban. I'll be undoing the ban for now since I don't want to leave someone blocked if they're not supposed to be, even if he does deserve it. Aichon 21:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Permaban vote

disregard this section

  1. Perma - The first thing he does after being gone for 6 years is vandalize. Hell, I thought he was a brand new account about to get slapped with a TEV permaban, up until I figured I'd check for A/VD since the name sounded familiar. Aichon 04:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    Maybe you remember him from this ~Vsig.png 04:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. Not yet - see what happens after this ban expires -- boxy 21:06, 9 November 2012 (BST)
  3. Kill it with fire ᚱᛖᚢᛖᚾᚨᚾ 06:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
    There is no vote happening, since the proper escalation turned out to be a warning. The perma vote comes next time. Aichon 07:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I've struck the section title and all votes to prevent similar accidents, and to make it clearer at a glance that no Perma vote is happening. -- Spiderzed 17:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Zombieman12

Our monthly visit from Zombieman. Looks like he skipped October. Which means October 2012 was the first month in UDWiki history without a single vandal case. ~Vsig.png 17:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Funny thing is, his main account isn't even permabanned. Why he keeps making alts that get insta-perma'd is beyond me, though we may want to rectify the fact that his main account is still useful, no? Aichon 03:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Of course. Any banned vandal must have any other accounts banned for the same amount of time. A ZOMBIE ANT 08:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
That's not strictly true. We'll permaban alt accounts that are clearly intended to be used for vandalism while leaving the main intact. That said, we do usually give it an escalation, which is what we forgot to do here, it would seem. So, I'd suggest we remedy that. Aichon 04:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
When someone makes upwards of 20 accounts a day for whatever reason I find it difficult bringing myself to calling any of them a "main". In these circumstances I consider them all throwaway vandal accounts including the first one made. But you're right. He should have been escalated for every instance of proxy vandalism which also = month ban and a perma vote at the most, which is what would happen if we wanted to do things straight by the rules. and most of you don't, so someone might as well perma it for the sake of consistency ;) A ZOMBIE ANT 07:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Fuck, this just gets so old... A ZOMBIE ANT 08:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Since no one else is chiming in (where are you all?), I'm going to cycle this as vandalism with an escalation on the main Zombieman account. As such, his main account will have a 1 month ban applied. Aichon 04:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)



Spambots

Spambots are to be reported on this page. New reports should be added to the top. Reports may be purged after one week.


Archives

Vandal Banning Archive

2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Q3 Q4
2013 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Years 2014 2015 2016 2017
Personal tools
project wonderful
column-okay