UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2010 03
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.
March 2010
User:Nezhaulcoyotl_II
Nezhaulcoyotl_II (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Verdict | {{{1}}} |
---|---|
Action taken | {{{2}}} |
Alt of the above. Follows the exact same MO as the last version, create userpage with mythic image immediately uploaded. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oh man, got any checkuser data to back this up, or just a simple series of edits? If I created a user and made a userpage edit and uploaded an image would I get permabanned? --
- 20 minutes after admitting that one alt had been caught (roughly the time it was taking for him to sort proxies on the mass vandalism attack the other night) a 'new' user shows up with exactly the same MO and writing style....
04:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Don't I remember J3D getting demoted for making sarky comments instead of dealing with a vandal account? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Don't I remember J3D's demotion being a culmination of his terrible behaviour as a sysop because he defended his friends (one of which, sexylegsread, actually made the alt account in question, as a direct attack on another user? Oh, not to mention the IP evidence against said alt account which was more than enough evidence to ban on sight unlike this one)? Oh yes, that's perfect precedence. But you know misconduct when you see it, why not send me to A/M now? Do the honours, sherlock. --
- All this crying and still no ruling? Go ahead and say not vandalism, I enjoy the 'I told you so' song. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- When I squint that almost sounds like backseat modding, hmm. I'm not ruling yet because I'm not sure, and only because I've spent more effort in my day responding to your trolling than actually checking this user out fully. You are an energy sapper, you. --
- stop arguing over me guys its embarrassing, nothing has been stopped FA18hornet 05:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
04:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- When I squint that almost sounds like backseat modding, hmm. I'm not ruling yet because I'm not sure, and only because I've spent more effort in my day responding to your trolling than actually checking this user out fully. You are an energy sapper, you. --
04:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- All this crying and still no ruling? Go ahead and say not vandalism, I enjoy the 'I told you so' song. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Don't I remember J3D's demotion being a culmination of his terrible behaviour as a sysop because he defended his friends (one of which, sexylegsread, actually made the alt account in question, as a direct attack on another user? Oh, not to mention the IP evidence against said alt account which was more than enough evidence to ban on sight unlike this one)? Oh yes, that's perfect precedence. But you know misconduct when you see it, why not send me to A/M now? Do the honours, sherlock. --
- Don't I remember J3D getting demoted for making sarky comments instead of dealing with a vandal account? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Check user shows nothing, but then again, it wouldn't. I'm going to rule vandalism on suspicion and good circumstantial evidence. 23:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm ruling Not Vandalism. All it takes is for the above vandal to see we are making a fuss out of this account and claim it is his, to see if we are so paranoid we ban this one too. I'm not saying I'll be surprised if it is, but I'm not going gun-ho on all suspect accounts when there is no evidence, I'd rather wait for it to do an act of (easily reversible) vandalism first, to make sure. I'll happily admit if I'm wrong. --
23:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Six fucking days to rule, and now you decide to so I have to move it into the new archive. Thanks. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Boo-fucking hoo. I was waiting for the impending vandalism you promised the account would make. Goes to show what happens when I listen to you. -- 23:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Vandalism. DDR, quit doing things because you don't like the user who brought the case.--Big Cat 22:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)