UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2010 01: Difference between revisions
Cyberbob240 (talk | contribs) |
Zombie Lord (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
:Aw, shit all of a sudden it IS vandalism to remove an entire suggestion just cause I feel like it? Damn, what, does this work on some rotating basis? Like every 5 minutes it goes back and forth?{{User:Zombie Lord/sig2}} <tt>10:57 1 January 2010(UTC)</tt> | :Aw, shit all of a sudden it IS vandalism to remove an entire suggestion just cause I feel like it? Damn, what, does this work on some rotating basis? Like every 5 minutes it goes back and forth?{{User:Zombie Lord/sig2}} <tt>10:57 1 January 2010(UTC)</tt> | ||
::Verance's thing looked pretty obviously like a silly mistake (going by his edit summary he was meaning to put that inactive discussion template on it), especially given that he had moved the suggestion there one minute prior to the edit you brought here. Your edit on the other hand is pretty fucking clearly bad faith. Trying to split hairs won't work, sorry - no matter how witty you think you're being. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 11:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC) | ::Verance's thing looked pretty obviously like a silly mistake (going by his edit summary he was meaning to put that inactive discussion template on it), especially given that he had moved the suggestion there one minute prior to the edit you brought here. Your edit on the other hand is pretty fucking clearly bad faith. Trying to split hairs won't work, sorry - no matter how witty you think you're being. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 11:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
:::Not being witty. Just being right.{{User:Zombie Lord/sig2}} <tt>11:03 1 January 2010(UTC)</tt> | |||
===[[User:Verance]]=== | ===[[User:Verance]]=== |
Revision as of 11:03, 1 January 2010
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
|
Spambots
Spambots are to be reported on this page. New reports should be added to the top. Reports may be purged after one week.
January 2010
Zombie Lord (3)
Zombie Lord (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Verdict | Vandalism |
---|---|
Action taken | Warning |
Spamming the hell out of DS with those inactive discussion templates: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
Warned - both because of the really fucking obvious bad faith and because neither party in that Arby's case between him and Aichon should be touching those things until the case is over. I told him this in the case at the bottom of the page but clearly that didn't quite sink in. Cyberbob Talk 10:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Aichon isn't a party in the Arbies - it's Lelouch. Linkthewindow Talk 10:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, cause Boberton was in total good faith right? HAHAHA.--
| T | BALLS! | 10:58 1 January 2010(UTC)
Zombie Lord (2)
Zombie Lord (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Verdict | {{{1}}} |
---|---|
Action taken | {{{2}}} |
The edit - I don't want to get dragged into this mess, but come on. He removed an entire suggestion before its week was up. —Aichon— 10:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Not vandalism. Just ask Cyberbob. You're making a frivolous case.--T | BALLS! | 10:34 1 January 2010(UTC) |
Vandalism - Breaking the wiki to make a (shitty) point. Cyberbob Talk 10:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Aw, shit all of a sudden it IS vandalism to remove an entire suggestion just cause I feel like it? Damn, what, does this work on some rotating basis? Like every 5 minutes it goes back and forth?--T | BALLS! | 10:57 1 January 2010(UTC)
- Verance's thing looked pretty obviously like a silly mistake (going by his edit summary he was meaning to put that inactive discussion template on it), especially given that he had moved the suggestion there one minute prior to the edit you brought here. Your edit on the other hand is pretty fucking clearly bad faith. Trying to split hairs won't work, sorry - no matter how witty you think you're being. Cyberbob Talk 11:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
|
User:Verance
Verance (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Verdict | {{{1}}} |
---|---|
Action taken | {{{2}}} |
[9] Vandalism.--
| T | BALLS! | 07:25 1 January 2010(UTC)
Not Vandalism - Stop making these. Next time it'll be you up here for frivolous cases. Cyberbob Talk 10:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- So I can just go and remove an entire suggestion if I feel like it? Good to know.--T | BALLS! | 10:11 1 January 2010(UTC) |
User:BobBoberton
BobBoberton (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Verdict | {{{1}}} |
---|---|
Action taken | {{{2}}} |
[10] Obvious attempt at Trolling. Bad Faith edit.--
| T | BALLS! | 07:21 1 January 2010(UTC)
Not Vandalism - Stop making these. Next time it'll be you up here for frivolous cases. Cyberbob Talk 10:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
User:Zombie Lord
Zombie Lord (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Verdict | {{{1}}} |
---|---|
Action taken | {{{2}}} |
Getting to be really quite ridiculous here. Related to the Arbitration case getting underway. --Bob Boberton TF / DW 02:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- He's also been told a few times why it's happening, and since he's reverting it so quickly, he obviously has it on his Watchlist or is refreshing RC every few minutes, so I doubt he's failed to see the comments. See: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], and [16]. —Aichon— 04:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is actually vandalism because it wasn't actually a signed comment he was removing. If the suggestions haven't been commented on in a week then they can be removed as per the suggestions page rules.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 04:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- The Suggestion has not even been up two days yet, which is why I am removing the template. LeDouche and his gang have simply moved on to Phase 2 of their Troll War, that is, Arbitration and Vandal Banning attempts based on nothing in the hopes that my unpopularity will be enough to railroad through a banning. Yeah, it's pretty sad.--T | BALLS! | 04:44 1 January 2010(UTC) |
- Here you go then. --Bob Boberton TF / DW 07:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Not Vandalism, though neither party in the Arbitration case should be either adding or removing any of those templates until the case is finished. Don't do it again please. Cyberbob Talk 06:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)