UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2009 02

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

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.

February 2009

User:King Leonidas

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

Hugely humorous vandalism. If you lived in 2006. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 23:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

ha! Liberty 23:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Delta Nitroxs LP

Delta Nitroxs LP (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Warned for below vandalism through sockpuppet. -- Cheese 17:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Newwarship

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

Verdict	Sock Puppet
Action taken	Permaban

Warned for this edit to a group page. -- Cheese 17:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I really should run checkuser before I warn these one edit guys. Permabanned as a sock of User:Delta Nitroxs LP and main has been warned. -- Cheese 17:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Iscariot

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

Verdict	{{{1}}}
Action taken	{{{2}}}

For continuing to troll admin pages with petty cases and his continued refusal to follow the process for submitting a report. -- Cheese 17:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Others have ignored process before, and haven't had anything happen to them. And if he gets V/B'd for petty cases, I expect Bob to get an escalation as well. That said, its not like we're too overloaded with work to simply just say NV and be done with it on the petty cases that have no basis. Anyway, Iscariot, please don't put something like that up. If you looked through previous promotion bid archives, you'd see a few other Sysops have put themselves up for a review on it. Precedent doesn't always have to be followed, but sometimes its a good idea.--BFFs +SA+NSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSAN 4 EVA!!! 22:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure Bob has been warned for this before himself. Him and J3D had a thing going here once, maybe you heard of it. He's filing a case he knows has no merit, thus why this got reported. Not to mention he's been talked to about such petty cases in the past too. --Karek^maps?! 08:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I read through it all. I kinda face palmed. I figured this would serve as a last chance to both of them about this, without screwing other sysops over by giving an actual ruling.--BFFs +SA+NSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSAN 4 EVA!!! 13:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, soft warn him then -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:23 8 February 2009 (BST)

I'm not going to soft warn him because I didn't soft warn Cyberbob for submitting a petty case either. It was more of a last chance (and being that it was said from my point of view, it would mean it was a last chance for both Iscariot and Cyberbob in my eyes. Someone else can feel the deserve another chance here or there, but I'm not giving any more slack with these petty cases), as I said. I wasn't ruling because I had just let Bob go unpunished for a petty case, and it'd look like I was showing bias. I am not. I simply stated my opinion, and showed what my further actions will be with cases like this from these users, while leaving other sysops to weigh in how they want, using my opinion how they want to.--BFFs +SA+NSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSAN 4 EVA!!! 06:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

My point was that in any jump of the imagination he has been given far more chances than he should have, he's been soft warned for this in the past, he's been actually escalated for this type of thing in the past, he knows exactly why he shouldn't be doing it and what will happen if he does. Do we really need to give the guy who threatened to harass a newbie off the wiki if he didn't get his way in an arbitration case more leeway than we already have? --Karek^maps?! 02:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This is one of two things.

1. A user ignoring the process and posting a case without talking to the person or
2. Another example in an obvious pattern of harassment.

The case is being presented as 1 which probably won't get a vandalism ruling. I would be very curious what results an actual case based on 2 would yield. However, it seems no one either has the desire to start the drama or has reached the point where they think he needs a permaban for the protection of the wiki. Until such time it seems like he will be nickeled and dimed down the VB road.--– Nubis ^NWO 21:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Karek

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

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None Required

For this action.

Karek puts himself up for 're-promotion'. This is quite simply impossible. If we examine the words he uses, 'promotion' - "An advancing in rank or position" and 're' - " meaning back or again". Just so we are clear, it is impossible for Karek to be promoted again as he has never been demoted. He clearly knows and understands this from his opening statement, yet still puts up a completely pointless case. What purpose does the case serve given that Karek cannot be promoted?

If anyone else had placed a case on an admin page that served no purpose due to the result already being in effect they would be escalated for spamming up the admin pages with a pointless case. This is no different than bringing Amazing here to A/VB over an edit, putting a deleted page up for deletion or J3D going to A/DM and requesting demotion.

The only thing this serves is to take up space on an admin page, as the result will be meaningless. Karek should be escalated for this and the case immediately removed. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Not Vandalism, as he probably means reassessment instead of "re-promotion". Should he come here and say that what he was expecting was a promotion to a higher level other than 'crat, or is wanting to be demoted and re-promoted, I will change my ruling.--BFFs +SA+NSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSAN 4 EVA!!! 02:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that the title of the page he put the case on was Administration/Reassessment. Also, that sig serious causes a page break when viewing the differences, please to be templating or adding some spaces kthxbi. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

And yet we've done it at least three times in the past. Petty is as petty does and reporting for A/VB for this is pretty petty and appropriately ill-informed for a complaint from you. --Karek^maps?! 02:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

We've also had Wikigate and a coup attempt, should we have them as well? That page is for promotions bids, you cannot be promoted, therefore it has to be a pointless case to spam up the page. Basic logic might not enter in your hypocrisy. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope you realize that you've managed to ignore all 4 of the 'before submitting a report' bullets... --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Not Vandalism -- Cheese 17:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

J3D

J3D (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Not Vandalismsmsms
Action taken	None Required

Shitting up an admin page with his trolling. I'm happy to move non-trolling comments by uninvolved users, but not this crap. --Cyberbob 05:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Look at the case below you and please report everyone for the sake of the wiki and not your bitchfights, Bob. Liberty 22:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Not Vandalism, as there are less relevant comments on this page that I don't think require any administrative action.

But a friendly reminder to everyone, while it is only a guideline, the rest (not me or Nubis) of the Sysops team kindly asks you to place your less-than-urgent comments under a relevant header on the talk page. It does make it easier to sort through everything after all.--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 00:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

the rest (not me) of the Sysops team You don't speak for me. Please amend that statement to say the rest (except Nubis) of the Sysops team. Thank you in advance.---– Nubis ^NWO 13:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, my apologies in assuming your views. :) --Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 14:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You're new. It's ok. Clearly it will take some time for you to learn the ropes and my opinions on adding worthless stupid comments to a conversation that should have ended four posts ago. :)---– Nubis ^NWO 14:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Eh, to be frank, when I wrote that, I wasn't thinking of you. I was thinking of when Grim would move everything. Dead thread FTW.--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 14:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

WOOT

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

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Posting random shit on EVERYONE'S talk pages. Check his contribs, he has to be breaking some policy.--SirArgo ^Talk 02:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

here, here, here, here, and here. Thats just a few. I do know that whilst its spam it isnt vandalism, the first one on Karek's page is something that I thought could only constitute spam and hence why I think WOOT should be tried here on VB. Liberty 03:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

VB Spammage Linkthewindow  Talk  03:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

A little more VB Spam--SirArgo ^Talk 03:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Last one isn't spamage you douche! I was defending myself! --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 03:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Neither are the first two! I'm spreading the love of the Uranium ((enter)) :BOMBS --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 03:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Desu is relevant to my interests.--Karek^maps?! 04:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I wish I had gotten desu instead of bombs...:'( --Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 04:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll SAGE bomb you next time... mkay?--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 04:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh now I understand what you did on my page. But spamming is fun, so I wouldnt care.--Thadeous Oakley 08:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone appreciates spammage, so it is vandalism. Unfortunately for you, you were only a few posts away from getting your last warning struck too -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:34 2 February 2009 (BST)

Boo-fucking-hoo--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 23:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually there's precedent that says this is OK provided you spammed under 20 talk pages, which you did. If you care enough to track it down feel free, i can't find where it is. I do remember it being referenced in relation to user:nallan spamming people's user pages with invited to the ALiM Party but i don't recall where it was discussed...--xoxo 04:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I just worked through all of the archives, and I didn't see any cases of Nallan getting V/B'd for it. :/ --Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 00:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

<3 --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 23:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah i did the same, not sure if i'm going crazy or if it was discussed on a talk page. It's come up in relation to other people too, some guy wanting people to join a group or some shit i think...anyway it doesn't really matter. I think karek has something to do with it, then again i could be making up this entire thing... :| --xoxo 00:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably ruled on it or addressed a ruling on it. I have on similar cases in the past, spamming is against the rules when it's obviously spam. When it's not and more along the lines of mass recruiting the general rule of thumb is ~20. The example that would probably stand out the most for my involvement is WelcomeNewbie, there have been at least two cases, one where I reported it under the ~20 rule and one where I reported a user because he was spamming WelcomeNewbie templates on users who had obviously been gone for a year or more. --Karek^maps?! 00:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

lol airborne.--xoxo 00:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yea.... maybe if I cared enough... thanks anyway--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 00:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Blackboard

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None Required

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

Vandalizing the user page of the vandal below. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 15:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I plead no contest. Guy below me there wanted people to look at his page to see his weird spam message, so I thought I'd get rid of it; as above, don't wait for a sysop to get involved etc. and just go back to reverting pages - which I did for some others of his, though someone beat me to the punch in a few of the cases. In retrospect, I probably should have just reverted his page to being blank - or course, I'm assuming creating the page was an act of vandalism to begin with. It just didn't occur to me at the time; my priority was getting rid of his vandalism. The fact that it's back there now on "his" page is just plain irritating. Just trying to cut through some red tape and keep the wiki clean-ish. --Blackboard 19:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Purely because it was an active vandal, and only because it was an active vandal I'm going to rule not Vandalism. However, please do not do it again otherwise it will result in an escalation. -- Cheese 22:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Since the page was deleted, meaning Midianian's diff link won't work I've copy pasted the page changes due to the ability to see deleted pages so we have a full record on this page. -- Cheese 22:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

PsychophillKILLER said:

I am Sorry for the Vandalism But we now have no choice... Psychophill Must be stopped. He has discovered a way to give himself infinite time on the server and infinite AP. He plans on killing everyone in the city once and for all and destroying this game. We must stop him. I encourage everyone to tune their radios to 27.77 To hear a city wide announcement on Wednesday at 7:00 PM Eastern Standard time. Thank you for you time. P.S. I do not encourage vandalism but I was left with no choice. Monitors if you wish you may delete this account just make sure this message reaches as many people as possible. Thank you again --PsychophillKILLER 15:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• changed to

Blackboard said:

CRAP. --Blackboard 15:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Slap me on the wrist for this, I don't give a shit.

-- Cheese 22:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Getting rid of the spam (that was repeated on many other pages) would count as reverting vandalism, even on the vandals user page (when it's an obvious permban candidate like this), however replacing it with your own message, especially the abuse ("CRAP") was not a wise move, and can indeed be seen as vandalism, as you seem to understand -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:44 2 February 2009 (BST)

PsychophillKILLER

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Permaban

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

Vandal spree. Oh, and the FAQ really should be cut into smaller pieces, I had trouble reverting it. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 15:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Mass vandalage. Perma. Also, more then three edits, no contribution in any way, shape, or form that betters the wiki. just that same spammy warning.--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 16:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)