UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2010 04

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.

Spambots

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

April 2010

User:G F J

G F J (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	{{{2}}}

For this bad faith use of admin pages. Putting groups up for deletion that you do not like is not a good faith use of the admin pages of this wiki, all it does is create drama and takes up time and space for no use. He blatantly lied in his deletion summary (by saying the group never existed) in an attempt to mislead voters. This was quite clearly proven when Sonny showed up and reminded us all that it's his group and still active.

We don't delete inactive groups on this wiki, we certainly don't delete active ones. Deliberately going after groups that disagree with your own and using the admin pages as a weapon to achieve this in no way improves this wiki and should be stamped on from a great height.

We'd be warning Cornholioo if he put up WWSIS for deletion and then went and collected a group of followers from a message board, this is no different. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 19:52, 19 April 2010 (BST)

Not Vandalism - There was no clear evidence of activity for the group on the wiki over the last few years, and I can see his statements as being well within the realm of reasonableness. Perhaps to the best of his knowledge the group never did exist, since it seemed to merely be a parody group. The fact that he was later proven incorrect does not make his actions malicious, merely misguided or mistaken. —Aichon— 20:57, 19 April 2010 (BST)

Not vandalism - not the best way to deal with a legitimate problem, but not bad faith either -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:56 20 April 2010 (BST)

Not VaNdaLiSM --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:27, 20 April 2010 (BST)

Am I allowed to make a statement here? If not, please feel free to delete/move the following as appropriate, I apologize for the inconvenience if this is the case.
As has been correctly guessed, I have not been aware that the "NDEM" is an active group. I had taken it to be a mere parody site, without any actual group activities, etc. going on. As had already been noted, there are several points that led me to believe it was not an active group:

• No edits to Department of Emergency Management (new) or its talk page for at least two years, and if one looks at the talk page, it is somewhat reasonable to assume that the last edit by Pdeq had not been one made by the group as well.
• The NDEM is categorized as humor, not as for example Survivor Groups.
• There is no contact information on the NDEM page that I could have used to contact any group leadership.
• Looking at the "subgroups", Axes Low is already labeled as inactive and it does look like a mere joke about or from Axes High. The Malton Sanitation Department is not labeled as inactive, however, in the last two years only a single edit had been made to it or its talk page as well, and that edit does not look like it was made by the group itself. No Malton Sanitation Department appears on the UD stats page. Of the members listed, several of them do not have Malton Sanitation Department as their group tag, and except for one person (that does not have the MSD group tag), all are striked through in-game. Coming to the forum that the MSD page links to, this is supposed to be on Brainstock (not even the "new" Brainstock that was announced on August 20, 2009, still the old one), but as anyone can verify, is not available and thus "dead" as well.

In short, I was unable to find anything that would indicate the NDEM is an active group, I had been under the impression that it is not. Hence, I did not lie. While the above is only for the current situation, I had likewise not been aware that the NDEM had ever existed in the past, that it was once an actual group and not simply a parody as the humor category suggests. Everything I could recall that I had heard about the MSD, etc. in the past was only about a joke and parody, not an actually existing group. As the consequence, I wrote "is not existing and never has" - this was to the best of my knowledge. If I have been wrong, I apologize for the confusion, but this has not been bad-faithed lying as I did not know better. You can accuse of me of having been misinformed, but not of lying.
Regarding the accusation of "getting a group of followers from a message board, etc.": I have not. If you look at the votes, you will notice that aside from myself only two DEM members have participated. Both of these are not new accounts registered just to vote, their first wiki edits go back to 2007 and 2008. If the DEM had attempted to rally its member and get them to vote, I do believe that with the UD stats page showing more than 130 members of DEM groups, we would have been able to gather more than two single participants. Once again, the DEM has not and will not attempt the "meatpuppeting" or whatever it has been called that we are sometimes accused of.
If there are any questions, please let me know.
With best regards, G F J 10:50, 20 April 2010 (BST)

Not Vandalisms - Case closed. -- Cheese 17:31, 20 April 2010 (BST)

User:Apclear

Apclear (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Permban

Some childish page tampering. Open and shut really. 19:30, 17 April 2010 (BST)

Thank you--Kikorules 19:44, 17 April 2010 (BST)

3 vandal edits, no constructive posts. Permban -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:16 18 April 2010 (BST)

User:Thaedracy (2)

Thaedracy (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	One week ban

Used an alternate account to subvert his two day ban currently in force. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:10, 12 April 2010 (BST)

Vandalism - warning should be made to Thaed and a perma to radio girl. IRL issues mean I won't be able to do this just now, so if no one has done/complained in the next few hours I will do it myself tonight. --

 

 

 

 

08:02, 13 April 2010 (BST)

I'd do it the other way around, but yeah, Vandalism. 12:10, 13 April 2010 (BST)

well, technically, the new one is the 'alt' since it was made first. and hey, even though she uses the "old main", banning the "new alt" as a vandal alt and keeping the "vandal main" (after banning for a week as per escalations) only inconveniences her more. And when it comes to a retard using an alt to vandalise for personal lols, the less concessions the better. And I'm demoting tomorow, so bring on the A/M cases ;D --

 

 

 

 

13:31, 13 April 2010 (BST)

CISMONDUCT! 13:32, 13 April 2010 (BST)

DDR is right. The Thaed account was created first and the RG account is the one guilty of vandalism with these edits (namely circumventing the ban to the primary account). RG needs perma-ing and Thaed needs a week adding to his go away clause. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 13:45, 13 April 2010 (BST)

User:Thaedracy

Thaedracy (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	2 Day Ban

Blanking userpages. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 05:37, 11 April 2010 (BST)

banned for 48. Looks like he didn't learn from that 24 hour ban, eh iscariot!! ;D ;D If only it were two days from the getgo! ;D ;D --

 

 

 

 

06:07, 11 April 2010 (BST)

That 24 hour ban stopped him for three weeks it seems, looks like the duration doesn't need to be increased :P -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:13, 11 April 2010 (BST)

IP check brings up User:Radio Girl with same IPs. God knows which one is the dedicated vandal account *sarcasm* --

 

 

 

 

06:35, 11 April 2010 (BST)

User:Cornholioo(2)

Cornholioo (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warning

Cornholioo has repetedly ([1] [2] [3]) removed this template from this page. Infrastructure 14:12, 10 April 2010 (BST)

Not Vandalisms - For now. -- Cheese 14:37, 10 April 2010 (BST)

Vandalism - Ignoring requests to leave the page as is so I'm assuming he's now just doing this to piss all those involved off. -- Cheese 15:03, 10 April 2010 (BST)

What the fuck is this shit. Seriously. 14:41, 10 April 2010 (BST)

At this point Corn appears to have finally decided on an acceptable arbiter on his initial Battle of Krinks page. With that in mind it may be prudent to protect this page as a larger part of that case, as it seems to be basically the same issue. Thoughts? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 14:43, 10 April 2010 (BST)

That would be giving him attention, which is all he actually wants. 14:46, 10 April 2010 (BST)

That is a fair point, but I think it's just a page he's made to work around the fact that he can't edit the other one. =/ I get the feeling we should stop "battle of..." pages being made while the conflict is ongoing. Wait until they're done before writing anything up. -- Cheese 14:48, 10 April 2010 (BST)

What the.. Infrastructure 14:59, 10 April 2010 (BST)

If it's reverted again, I'll protect it. -- Cheese 15:03, 10 April 2010 (BST)

Vandalism in light of this. But seriously, from now on, ignore the troll. 15:05, 10 April 2010 (BST)

Oh someone's warned him already. Either way, I'm adding to the manpile. Vandalism. --

 

 

 

 

15:33, 10 April 2010 (BST)

User:Sgt Raiden

Sgt Raiden (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	24hr Ban

Blanking sections of another user's talk page. This includes several comments that were not his own. 05:26, 10 April 2010 (BST)

Vandalism - He's been warned for a blanking incident before (albeit, that one was more significant), so he should know better. You can't go blanking parts of someone's page. —Aichon— 05:55, 10 April 2010 (BST)

When it comes to wiki griefing, this guy fails. Vandalism, and so it comes to a 24hour ban. --

 

 

 

 

06:08, 10 April 2010 (BST)

User:Boom12389

Boom12389 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Rule 10 of the suggestions system. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:05, 5 April 2010 (BST)

Warned. --

 

 

 

 

05:29, 6 April 2010 (BST)

User:Cornholioo

Cornholioo (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	{{{2}}}

Probably not the right place/way to do this, but.. What the heck. Cornholioo edited a user's archive. I'm not a very good reader, but from what I can see that's against the rules. Infrastructure 14:51, 3 April 2010 (BST)

Sigh. Not Vandalism, just petty. The classic "wait until the other person has left and then think of what you wanted to say to them that would have been cool". I assume that the user in question will ignore the comment as its in an archive. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:06, 4 April 2010 (BST)

Not Vandalism - But only barely, since it may not be clear that new comments are not welcome on that page. It's a user page for a user with whom he is currently in conflict and whose page he has previously vandalized (and been warned for). He was also soft warned over a similar issue, but the fact that the page holds comments for a recent line of discussion that was moved there quickly may have led to the confusion over what was proper. Another soft warning, I think, since it's not clear that it was bad faith. —Aichon— 21:02, 4 April 2010 (BST)

Not Vandalism - However, for peace of mind to Zyckde, I undid the edit, as it was archived by him for a reason. --

 

 

 

 

02:02, 5 April 2010 (BST)