UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2010 01

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search


Administration Services

Sysop List (Check) | 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.



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

User:Iscariot

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

I consider this an attack policy that serves nothing and is absolutely frivolous/stupid considering the fact that there are about 7 ZL cases pending on several admin pages including A/A and A/VB, making this was drama for drama's sake. --

02:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Vandalism Cyberbob  Talk  06:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Why, oh why, am I not surprised by the actions of the Southern Cross Club yet again?

Apart from the fact there has never been an escalation given for any policy, see Jorm's paradox policy. They find me guilty of bad faith for one contribution even though both are aware and have been for some time that Zombie Lord is abusing Developing Suggestions due to his repeated statement that he's never going to take anything to the main system. He gets to continually abuse that page and attack other users in one of the main systems in this community and there is not one case for this, I propose a new cycling policy, that I'd yet to hear any objection to from other users or these two when mentioned before on talk pages and T:S and I get escalated.

Regardless that this will fix the problem now that Zombie Lord is browbeating users into leaving his suggestions unopposed through the use of unlimited arbitration rulings and is trying to systematically make T:S into his own personal user space and bury the legitimate use of the page by other users under the mass of multiple versions of his own 'work'.

For months Zombie Lord has acted in bad faith on that page and neither of these sysops even though they aware of this bad faith usage make a single case against him, I attempt to create a new cycling criteria to prevent this mass attack on the page, that has to be approved by the users of the system being abused and there's an instant case.... -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 06:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration is the place for such disagreements, not suggestion policy. That's not the place to take disagreements with single users. Still, not vandalism, just, because it's still just a talk page -- boxy talkteh rulz 07:15 2 January 2010 (BST)
Talk page? He tried to use policy to forbid a user he has daily disagreements with from using the suggestions system with unrealistic demands that were both unsavoury and uncalled for. The fact he used the right place to do it (which was by coincidence a talk page) is as bad as using A/PD. -- 08:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
You linked it, it's a category talk page. Would you like a diagram? Also, unsavoury? How exactly? Unless you are inventing a new meaning for this word. I am attempting to stop someone who is abusing their right to edit that page from filling it with pointless volume. DS is specifically for refining and feedback on ideas before taking them into the main system. Zombie Lord has repeatedly said he has no intention in putting any of his suggestions into the system as per the entire point of DS. Stopping him from continuing bad faith edits by using the established method to enact a cycling policy does not equal unsavoury, at least in the English language.
And uncalled for? The majority of those involved in the suggestions system have tried to reason, debate and explain things to him. Many have said or intimated that the page would work better without his involvement, it was certainly called for.
Months of bad faith contributions by Zombie Lord and you've done nothing to attempt to stop him, what business does a user who has no intention of putting his ideas on the main system have with placing ideas on a page designed for feedback or refinement? Do tell me, because I have no idea. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 08:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Dare I say "that's just like, your opinion, man"? ZL has done less bad faith contributions on this wiki in 09 than you but that's my opinion and I don't flaunt it around forcing it on people. 3000 characters in the last couple of hours Iscariot, you've really fought your way out of this one. A/M coming up soon? -- 10:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Kudos on the ref, just remember to link next thyme ;) xoxo 09:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


While I still have my powers, not fucking vandalism. As box and this. Making attack policies are okay ddr, remember?-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 08:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If you think that the difference between that and this is small enough to warrant precedent then you are deluded. -- 08:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
So when does badging other sysops that disagree with your attempt to escalate me stop being good faith and start becoming harassment? -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 08:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Badgering? LoL, I don't think you want to go there -- boxy talkteh rulz 09:02 2 January 2010 (BST)
Lold -- 10:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Not Vandalism Welcome to the world of arbitration. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 11:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Not Vandalism - Serious attempt to stop a genuine problem, though not handled overly brilliantly. When I fall, I'll weep for happiness 14:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Penguinpyro

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

We take a break from your regularly scheduled ZL drama to bring you a user who puts on his own page that he's the "Head recruiter and publicist for AZS".

I'm betting he doesn't have permission to be editing the group page of a group based on wiping out his survivor group. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 00:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Warned --

01:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Zombie Lord (4)

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

I don't want to get too involved here, so I'll leave at whatever ruling comes out here. Anyway, I am bringing him for spamming up admin pages, the page in question Admin/arbitration. Note that the case made by Lelouch against Zombie Lord isn't involved here, at least not directly. This is about the 3 separate cases Zombie Lord made against, in order, Verance, against Bobboberton and against Lelouch. If you read the cases you'll see that all 3 of them are worded almost identically and that they all resolve around the same thing; Zombie Lord request that the users I named above are no longer to be allowed to give their comments on his (Zombie L's) suggestions on Developing Suggestions.

These cases are pretty much the same and there is no reason these 3 cases should all be treated separately, in fact, that would be insane. Now, Linkthewindow and I have repeatedly asked Zombie Lord to merge said cases, which he did, only to unmerge them later on and apparently refusing to merge them again. This seems to be an attempt to stir up as much work/drama as possible. I am not sure if this is Vandalism, I'll leave it up to the Sops, but I will urge them to merge said cases. --Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 22:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism - Obvious troll is obvious. -- Cheese 22:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You should be brought up on Vandalism for disrupting ongoing cases.-- | T | BALLS! | 22:54 1 January 2010(UTC)

Clearly my decision to split the cases proved correct, as the Boberton case has been finished already due to it. Now if LeDouche will stop dragging his feet we can finish this up. User:Krazy_Monkey should be brought up on Misconduct or Vandalism for his interference and this Warning should be struck.--

| T | BALLS! | 23:04 1 January 2010(UTC)

That would be misconduct, you're free to bring Cheese up there yourself. See A/M. Better hurry though, if all these 4 vandal cases against you end up ruled vandalism (which I doubt though)) you're looking at an 48hour ban. *snarks* --Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 23:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

For reference, this is how it looked before Cheese went through with the troll-buster.--Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 23:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Not Vandalism - People use A/A for a playground worse than this. Also, see: User:Amazing. Warning struck until further vote. Jeez, Cheese. --

01:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Not Vandalism - Meh. Cyberbob  Talk  06:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Not vandalism - why don't you keep your nose out of it, Thad, unless he accepts you as arbitrator -- boxy talkteh rulz 07:11 2 January 2010 (BST)

Don't tell me what I can and can't do especially since it's well within my rights. I don't care about the drama surrounding DS anyway, but I did find it stupid to have 3 cases about the same subject. --Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 10:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Just because you can doesn't mean you should, hope this helps Cyberbob  Talk  10:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I gave my reason, if you think I shouldn't have, go build a timemachine and revert the past. Or you know, rule not vandalism and close the case. I merely asked for sysops input, giving input is part of the job, if that input is not V then I'm perfectly fine with that but don't go harass me because I asked for your opinion. --Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 10:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
What a load of shit. Making A/VB cases has always been seen as an act with intentions, you can't try and pretend like that mysteriously doesn't apply to you - particularly given your *snerks* comment above. Cyberbob  Talk  11:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps actual reading isn't your thing since I already pointed out my intentions; I didn't like the fact he made 3 cases about the same thing, I asked him to merge and he refused, I a/vb him, and I come here asking you if that counts as spamming up admin pages, you say no it isn't, I am perfectly fine with that, thanks in fact, I know it now for the future. BUT, don't tell I shouldn't have brought it here when I have done nothing wrong. --Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 12:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
If you were really only after the sysops' opinion you would have asked us on our talk pages. Please don't try and absolve yourself of trying to involve yourself in this situation, it's not working very well and only makes you look dishonest as well as intrusive. Cyberbob  Talk  12:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
...amIthatmisunderstood? I meant what I said about my intentions, sorry if I come over as a drama-whore if that's what you're saying I am. I was unaware that you think so low about me that you automatically assume bad-faith here. Jeez...--Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 19:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Zombie Lord (3)

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

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)
My mistake. Cyberbob  Talk  11:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, cause Boberton was in total good faith right? HAHAHA.--

| T | BALLS! | 10:58 1 January 2010(UTC)

When did I say anything about his edits? Cyberbob  Talk  11:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, yeah, I know he gets a pass.-- | T | BALLS! | 11:04 1 January 2010(UTC)
Oh, you're talking about the case below. That was one (1) template, and he didn't include a snarky edit summary. Take him to Arbies for something like that. Cyberbob  Talk  11:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Zombie Lord (2)

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

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)
Not being witty. Just being right.-- | T | BALLS! | 11:03 1 January 2010(UTC)
Awesome. Let me know how that one works out for you. Cyberbob  Talk  11:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Works out great, thanks.-- | T | BALLS! | 11:05 1 January 2010(UTC)
BTW, Verance removed the new suggestion (with changes) and put back the old one (without changes). Clearly he did not intend simply put a template on the new. But whatever.-- | T | BALLS! | 11:09 1 January 2010(UTC)

Vandalism - Bad faith removal of others' contents and talk comments. When I fall, I'll weep for happiness 17:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism - As the bob. --

01:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Warned--The General T Sys U! P! F! 03:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You're a fucking idiot. Learn how to update A/VD please. Cyberbob  Talk  06:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot about that. I intended to do it but it slipped my mind. My mistake, thanks for spotting it.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 13:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
See the talk page Cyberbob  Talk  09:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Verance

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

[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)

Vandalism - He's been on DS before and what he did is clear-cut considering the surrounding drama. --

01:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism -- boxy talkteh rulz 07:09 2 January 2010 (BST)

User:BobBoberton

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

[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)

Not Vandalism - You'll be the one up for vandalism if you continue making frivolous cases.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 11:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

yeah! Like Bob said right? yay for originality. Where did you get this parrot Bob?-- | T | BALLS! | 11:11 1 January 2010(UTC)

User:Zombie Lord

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

Getting to be really quite ridiculous here. Related to the Arbitration case getting underway. --Bob Boberton TF / DW Littlemudkipsig.gif 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)
See the talk page Cyberbob  Talk  06:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Here you go then. --Bob Boberton TF / DW Littlemudkipsig.gif 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)

My mistake, I didn't know he'd already been told not to mess with that stuff. Vandalism Cyberbob  Talk  06:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism - Has been told that contentious edits are left as is during arbitration, and continues to disrupt the flow of the arbitration(s) he's involved in. Knows fine rightly what he's doing. When I fall, I'll weep for happiness 17:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism --

01:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Banned for 24 hours. Cyberbob  Talk  06:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)