UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2012 04

Template:A/VBsub

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.

April 2012

Yes. It is quite possible that he has an alt at the specific location and did not notice any Nazi Zombies. Which is why everyone is saying the same thing. Change it back and stick a note on the talk page. If he does it again, bring an A/A case. Yes, it's annoying, but it's how things work. -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 00:46, 5 April 2012 (BST)

Pownan

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

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None Taken

Obvious vandalism, though I wonder what kind of stupid ass reason you guys will make up this time to vote it as not vandalism. Especially you Vapor. Some ideas: newb mistake, minor vandalism where revert is enough, 1 april joke, etc. Tip: search for the Corn vs Colonel case, lots of bullshit reasons in there, might give you some inspiration. User:Generaloberst/s 22:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean this?. An edit to a public namespace page? Rather than going direct to vandal banning, this is the perfect example of the kind of thing you could find out about on Pownan's talk page. Not Vandalism. --Ross^lessness 22:22, 4 April 2012 (BST)

Complex edit conflicts in public namespace covering a public event are rarely covered by A/VB. If you have an edit conflict under such circumstances, you better use A/A. Or even better yet, ask on the talk page of the user, and then go to A/A when it can't be resolved otherwise. tl;dr: Not Vandalism. -- Spiderzed█ 23:01, 4 April 2012 (BST)

And they did it again! Now it's a "public namespace" while the page clearly reads: "If you apply yourself for Malton's End, please update the buildings that your group will be attacking." so it's pretty obvious that users are only allowed to add or remove their own group. If everybody is allowed to randomly add or remove other people's group then the page is gonna be a mess. But of course I will now get some kind of response like "you can't make the rules on this wiki oberst!" Keep it comming guys. It will only fill my coffers of evidence that I have which proves you are all biased. I bet even if someone blanks my userpage you guys will be able to find some reason why it's not vandalism. I'm disappointed Ross, I expected more from you. User:Generaloberst/s 23:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

What you describe is a classic example of A/A material. If you do that and he still edits, then you got a vandal case. This shit is not complex. -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 23:45, 4 April 2012 (BST)

If you want to control the content of Malton's End, make it a group subpage of Nazi Zombies by requesting a move on A/MR. Else,it is just a mainspace event page open to editting by everyone. -- Spiderzed█ 23:48, 4 April 2012 (BST)

I will try to explain it one more time to your stupid faces. Are you honestly trying to say that everybody is randomly allowed to add or remove other people's groups from the page? If yes then the page is gonna be a mess and you are both dumb. Lets say what if I blank all the groups now and replace them with 'None yet'. Would you then vote not vandalism as well? User:Generaloberst/s 23:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I bet that if I revert the edit now without bringing it to A/A first you guys will bring me to vandal banning and then vote it as vandalism hahah. This site is really run by a bunch of cancer patients honestly. User:Generaloberst/s 23:44, 5 April 2012 (BST)

The sad thing is, that absolutely won't happen. You are displaying two things: firstly, an incessantly asinine knowledge of the rules of thumb in circumstances like this on the wiki, and secondly, an embarrassingly large paranoia complex. This isn't vandalism, it's something that you should revert, then talk to the user (or probably better yet, leave it on the talk page of the actual article) explaining why you reverted it, with sufficient evidence (which shouldn't be difficult). If that fails, which I doubt it will, then you may have a vandalism case but either way you will have an arbitration case. This is how a wiki works when there aren't freaks bouncing off the walls at the sign of something as scary as a 'differing opinion'. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 23:55, 4 April 2012 (BST)

There is no opinion involved. I'm representing Nazi Zombies he's not even a member of Nazi Zombies. How the heck can he know if we won't attack the building anymore? Stop hiding behind incessantly asinine excuses and answer my question: "will you bring me to vandal banning for blanking all the groups and replacing them with 'none yet', Yes or No?" User:Generaloberst/s 00:04, 5 April 2012 (BST)

Mainspace = Free for all edits. You wanna settle something in the mainspace, go to Arby's. Not Vandalism. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 23:54, 4 April 2012 (BST)

How about I'm gonna replace random pages on this wiki with crap? That's mainspace too, so obviously not vandalism. Everything would have to go through arbitration first. You guys have driven yourself in a corner and now there is no way out anymore. I could wreck your wiki if I wanted. User:Generaloberst/s 00:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

We define vandalism as an edit made in bad faith. You go ahead and blank mass amounts of pages. I don't know about you, but blanking mass amounts of pages for the purposes of proving something? I call that bad faith, and thus A/VB material. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 00:21, 5 April 2012 (BST)

I didn't say blank, i said crap. If I'd say Monroeville has 100 survivors alive right now, is that vandalism? Yes or No? No stupid excuses. Yes or No User:Generaloberst/s 0:32, 5 April 2012 (BST)

You seem to miss the difference between a potentially good faith edit and general stupidity. Are you honestly too stupid to see the difference? Yes or No? And I'm not a sysop, so I can't answer your questions. -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 00:37, 5 April 2012 (BST)

I'm not a sysop either but I can answer with yes or no. And the answer is No. So do you see what Pownan did as potentially good faith, Yes or No? If I blank all the groups now and replace them with None yet, do you see it as potentially good faith, Yes or No? User:Generaloberst/s 0:45, 5 April 2012 (BST)

Yes. It is quite possible that he has an alt at the specific location and did not notice any Nazi Zombies. Which is why everyone is saying the same thing. Change it back and stick a note on the talk page. If he does it again, bring an A/A case. Yes, it's annoying, but it's how things work. If you blank all the groups, since you have specifically said you would be doing it to prove a point, yes it would be vandalism. -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 00:46, 5 April 2012 (BST)

So all you are trying to say is that as long as you make a potentially good faith edit to a mainspace page it's not vandalism, right? And who is to decide what is potentially good faith and what is not? The sysops. It just happens the sysops always vote against me. Even if what you say is true and the sysops are not making up some idiotic excuse to vote this not vandalism and simply have to draw a line somewhere then that line always seems to be not in my favour, it's still just too much of a coincidence again. But yeah, why would you care. User:Generaloberst/s 0:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? The top of this page says to assume good faith. You're supposed to do so. I just left a note on their talk page and reverted the edit. That's how you deal with the "situation". I'm disappointed no one else did it before me. If you get into an edit war, take it to A/A. It's only vandalism when someone vandalizes, but differences of opinion are not inherently vandalism, nor are changing edits made by other groups on mainspace pages. Also, as a side note, group pages are considered to be in the group's space, not mainspace, so your earlier arguments about groups editing each other wouldn't fly. Those pages are owned by their groups. —Aichon— 00:54, 5 April 2012 (BST)

As far as I'm concerned he's not a member of the group and is thus not able to know if we won't strike the building anymore. There's no 'opinion' involved. He isn't able to know, and the page said only to update your own group. Simple. So for that reason it is already vandalism in my eyes. If you disagree with me on that for any reason and say you can edit mainspace pages in good faith, you have to draw a line on where something is good faith or general stupidity (as Kirsty Cotton calls it), my guess is that he was near the Usher Building ingame, saw no nazi zombies (obviously, because were in the Blitz), then went to the page, didn't read or didn't understand that it described the strike would occur later, and then made the edit. And yes I would consider that general stupidity. Come on, Aichon, you would too. User:Generaloberst/s 1:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

you really need to get a life.--User:Sexualharrison02:28, 5 April 2012

So a few things, a few points, and a note of fact:

1. Clearly you have not contacted the user in question and have assumed intent without proven intent there is no case for vandalism.
2. Arbitration is the appropriate venue for intent-less content disputes.
3. We do not appreciate it when you provide diffs with diffs between them, it's generally treated as obfuscation. This has been fixed since I first saw this case ruled on but going forward don't do it.
4. The page lends itself very clearly to the intent of listings as buildings currently nonfunctional and that was probably what was assumed.

The case has been repeatedly decided as NOT VANDALISM. It's over, walk away and if you want to take it up again you can try A/A. That being said you also have the right to revert the edits as you're clearly the person running the event. Continued harassment of the ruling sysops or spamming of the case will result in escalation via the previously established notices; There is no active case and you have no reason to further spam this page, we're done tolerating it in this case and at this level going forward, this is your first last and only soft warning on this matter. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 04:20, 5 April 2012 (BST)

Generaloberst

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

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

I'm making this case for Sexualharrison who thinks the discussion on the bottom of this page is hate speech from my side and that I should be banned. User:Generaloberst/s 13:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Stop reporting yourself to A/VB, dipshit. ~ _{16:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)}

Pretty sure we've ruled that in itself as vandalism before if I recall correctly. -- Cheese 16:35, 1 April 2012 (BST)

Yeah, its the "Shitting up A/VB" rule. Excessive misuse of an admin page. ~ _{16:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)}

He's already been wrist-slapped about self-reporting on A/VB once. Time for an actual warning? -- Spiderzed█ 16:59, 1 April 2012 (BST)

Considering Arbies is also an admin page. If you put aside the wiki's stance on free speech and just look at the fact that he's used an arbitration case opened to prevent harassment against harrison to further harass him and then consider self reporting on A/VB, I'd say he's up for a warning. Vandalism for excessive misuse of admin pages. ~ _{17:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)}

Although I'm downright disgusted by the fact that Vapor calls it 'harassment' that I denounce the fact that sexualharrison killed several people (in real life), I want to say that everybody can see the page Spiderzed links to was ruled as not vandalism. So how is it not biased to bring up something like that? It is irrelevant to link to the page, as no soft warning was given. There is no form of 'wrist-slapping'. Same for Vapor, the case on Arbitration was never completed, therefore I never officially 'harassed' sexualharrison. So how is it possible to "further harass him" if I never did so in the first place? So also for you, how is this not bias? I think this is the great unmasking of both Spiderzed and Vapor. Now, I think I'm going to throw up. Go ahead and vote this vandalism. I don't even understand why I debate with morally sick people. You are inferior humans. I'm not going to look at this anymore. User:Generaloberst/s 19:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The linked case was ruled not vandalism because it was deemed not to be excessive by the ruling sysops at the time. A/VB is the page used to report vandalism as defined by the vandalism policy. It is not Generaloberst's personal space for trying to expose bias within the sysop team. A/A is the page used to settle conflict between users on the wiki. It is not Generaloberst's personal space to further long-standing conflicts. I won't even get into A/PM, which I also saw as just another platform for you and your sysop hate. Learn to use the admin pages for their intended purposes or don't use them at all. ~ _{20:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)}

Excuse me, who says I'm making this case to proof that you're biased? I just said that you are. Harrison stated that what I said is hate speech and that I should be banned, that's why I made the case. But I wasn't going to read here anymore. User:Generaloberst/s 23:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

LOL i think this is an April fools joke. --User:Sexualharrison21:13, 1 April 2012

Oh fuck off and stop making drama for drama's sake. Warn the faggot. Karek get down here mofo. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:01, 2 April 2012 (BST)

Yup, this nonsense is done Warned. If you say you're vandalizing who are we to disagree. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 07:47, 2 April 2012 (BST)

I have no regrets over anything I said or did. User:Generaloberst/s 15:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I won't rule as I have been an involved party in SH's arbies case. -- Spiderzed█ 18:56, 2 April 2012 (BST)

which i will not comment on anymore.. get to work spidey.--User:Sexualharrison19:52, 2 April 2012

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

e 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 2018 2019 2020