UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2012 04: Difference between revisions
Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
'''Not Vandalism'''. Complex page ownership questions are better resolved by arbies, while you need to give us a darn good wiki-related reason when you want to see checkuser data released to the public. --'''<span style="font-family:monospace; background-color:#222222">[[User:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime"> Spiderzed</span>]][[User talk:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime">█ </span>]]</span>''' 16:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC) | '''Not Vandalism'''. Complex page ownership questions are better resolved by arbies, while you need to give us a darn good wiki-related reason when you want to see checkuser data released to the public. --'''<span style="font-family:monospace; background-color:#222222">[[User:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime"> Spiderzed</span>]][[User talk:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime">█ </span>]]</span>''' 16:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC) | ||
::I created the page in my own group's userspace. How can an arbitration possibly resolve the case as Fascist Italian's possession? This is none-sense. This is seriously the biggest bunch of bullshit combined I've ever seen on this wiki. It's my page, he edited my page, I take issue. Period. {{User:Generaloberst/s}} 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
===[[User:Zombieman1i]]=== | ===[[User:Zombieman1i]]=== |
Revision as of 16:56, 23 January 2012
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
|
January 2012
User:Fascist_Italian
Verdict | Incomplete |
---|---|
Action taken | None Yet |
Since he disappeared without a trace from Urban Dead, the wiki and his mail I suspect this person of being an infiltrant. For that reason, I now take issue that he previously edited a page not his own. User:Generaloberst/s 23:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Need more than just a vague feeling that he may have been an infiltrator. Doesn't seem to have done anything on the wiki to harm you or your group. Not vandalism -- boxy 05:41, 23 January 2012 (BST)
- This in combination with said things gives me a strong indication that he's an infiltrator. At the time, I didn't like that he started to edit our page 'out of the blue' in steat of offering the alliance first. I didn't take issue with it at the time because I hoped for the best. I should've known better. The NSU had been infiltrated before. I hope you change your vote now, boxy. And I hope you realise if you don't then you're indirectly supporting actions like this (infiltrations). I want to sort this out, and I want to know who this guy actually is. Any one of you that still has the guts to vote this as not-vandalism is not a hair better than what they always doom me to be (a zerger, a returned banned vandal and the other stuff). And if the infiltrator turns out to be a sysop that votes Not Vandalism here then that's just too sick for words. My guess is that it's either Harrison or this one. User:Generaloberst/s 9:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah man I was just fucking with you. I don't know who that guy is nor do I really care. And you said it yourself, you considered it good faith. Why should we do otherwise. If you disagree with the edits, go ahead and remove them now. And if this is some ploy to bait us into revealing info garnered from checkuser, then i say to you again, stop shitting up A/VB. ~ 15:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oh and it case it wasn't obvious from my comments above, Not Vandalism ~ 15:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- So if I had a problem with the edits at the time then you would have voted Vandalism? So in other words it's Not Vandalism now because the initial infiltration was succesful? Do you honestly think I wouldn't have brought him to vandal banning if I knew that he was an infiltrator at the time? This is seriously the shitties argument I've seen a sysop make so far in order not to give me what I want. Of course, Vapor, just go ahead and say that you was fucking around with me, bring up a nice excuse. I'm sure that right now your prive-message box is pretty full of mails from other sysops saying "don't ever leak that information again Vapor! You almost blew his cover!" I don't even have to give a valid reason why I don't want him to edit my pages. Whether it is that I suspect him of being an infiltrant or not, it doesn't matter. I take issue with his edits right now. Period. Sure, I'd like to know who he is. But if that guy has gathered any personal information about my group, the members of my group or myself and he's going to publish that elsewhere on the internet then every sysop on this wiki is responsible for that, because you all knew beforehand and did nothing about it. You should all resign immediately. This seriously exceeds every limit. User:Generaloberst/s 16:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- No, you're just being a paranoid sycophant. Nobody cares about your plans for "world domination". Seriously. NOBODY CARES and nobody is trying to infiltrate anything. Stop deluding yourself, man. Yes I trolled you. No, nobody told me not to reveal anything. Nobody cares about that, either. After all, everyone loves a good Misconduct case. ~ 16:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Do you understand these words? Or do I fucking need to spell this out for you? I-TAKE-ISSUE. EVERYTHING-ELSE-DOES-NOT-MATTER. Just like any other vandal banning case. Since when do we even need to give a reason to take issue? I T-A-K-E I-S-S-U-E. PERIOD. User:Generaloberst/s 16:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- No, you're just being a paranoid sycophant. Nobody cares about your plans for "world domination". Seriously. NOBODY CARES and nobody is trying to infiltrate anything. Stop deluding yourself, man. Yes I trolled you. No, nobody told me not to reveal anything. Nobody cares about that, either. After all, everyone loves a good Misconduct case. ~ 16:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- So if I had a problem with the edits at the time then you would have voted Vandalism? So in other words it's Not Vandalism now because the initial infiltration was succesful? Do you honestly think I wouldn't have brought him to vandal banning if I knew that he was an infiltrator at the time? This is seriously the shitties argument I've seen a sysop make so far in order not to give me what I want. Of course, Vapor, just go ahead and say that you was fucking around with me, bring up a nice excuse. I'm sure that right now your prive-message box is pretty full of mails from other sysops saying "don't ever leak that information again Vapor! You almost blew his cover!" I don't even have to give a valid reason why I don't want him to edit my pages. Whether it is that I suspect him of being an infiltrant or not, it doesn't matter. I take issue with his edits right now. Period. Sure, I'd like to know who he is. But if that guy has gathered any personal information about my group, the members of my group or myself and he's going to publish that elsewhere on the internet then every sysop on this wiki is responsible for that, because you all knew beforehand and did nothing about it. You should all resign immediately. This seriously exceeds every limit. User:Generaloberst/s 16:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- This in combination with said things gives me a strong indication that he's an infiltrator. At the time, I didn't like that he started to edit our page 'out of the blue' in steat of offering the alliance first. I didn't take issue with it at the time because I hoped for the best. I should've known better. The NSU had been infiltrated before. I hope you change your vote now, boxy. And I hope you realise if you don't then you're indirectly supporting actions like this (infiltrations). I want to sort this out, and I want to know who this guy actually is. Any one of you that still has the guts to vote this as not-vandalism is not a hair better than what they always doom me to be (a zerger, a returned banned vandal and the other stuff). And if the infiltrator turns out to be a sysop that votes Not Vandalism here then that's just too sick for words. My guess is that it's either Harrison or this one. User:Generaloberst/s 9:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Not Vandalism. Complex page ownership questions are better resolved by arbies, while you need to give us a darn good wiki-related reason when you want to see checkuser data released to the public. -- Spiderzed█ 16:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- I created the page in my own group's userspace. How can an arbitration possibly resolve the case as Fascist Italian's possession? This is none-sense. This is seriously the biggest bunch of bullshit combined I've ever seen on this wiki. It's my page, he edited my page, I take issue. Period. User:Generaloberst/s 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
User:Zombieman1i
Verdict | Vandal Alt |
---|---|
Action taken | Permaban |
Zombieman 11 has graced us with his presence once more. Vandal alt perma'd. ~ 01:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Star wars invasion squad
add new ones to the top, plz
23rd Jan
- Star wars invasion squad angry armada (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss) --THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens 07:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
21st Jan
- Star wars invasion squad more attacks (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss) --THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens 19:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Star wars invasion squad peace is a lie (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss) -- boxy 10:26, 21 January 2012 (BST)
- Bioware peace treaty (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss) banned --Rosslessness 09:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Star wars invasion squad still here (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss) -- boxy 09:05, 21 January 2012 (BST)
- Star wars invasion squad yet again (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss) -- boxy 08:59, 21 January 2012 (BST)
- Star wars invasion squad again (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss) banned as well. --Rosslessness 08:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Star wars invasion squad infinite siege (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss) -- boxy 08:47, 21 January 2012 (BST)
- Star wars invasion squad small attack (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss), perma'ed -- boxy 08:46, 21 January 2012 (BST)
- Star wars invasion squad night attack (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Verdict | Vandal alt |
---|---|
Action taken | perma |
Another alt. Some sysops can rollback the edits in a few seconds. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 07:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- He's been going at it for a while, I wouldn't bother if you're not a sysops with rollback, it's well over a 100 pages now.-- Thadeous Oakley Talk 07:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
20th Jan
Verdict | Vandal Alt |
---|---|
Action taken | Permaban |
More Star Wars fun. Vapor has already perma'd it. -- Spiderzed█ 00:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Str wars invasion squad the unkillable (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Verdict | Vandal Alt |
---|---|
Action taken | Permaban |
--Shortround 23:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Obvious Vandal Alt is obvious. Perma'd. And thanks for rolling back. -- Spiderzed█ 23:19, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- No problem. Nice job on the ban, I could have been stuck there for a while. :) --Shortround 23:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- why dont you guys look this guy ip and get in touch with the swtor wiki admin staff and arrange to have him banned there unless he stops vandalizing here ? --hagnat 01:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Proxy IPs, otherwise he would have stayed banned when we perma'd his main, who is presumably Zombieman11. ~ 01:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- The latest ones might be proxy, but i doubt he was that smart with his first vandal ;) --hagnat 13:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- LOL DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Proxy IPs, otherwise he would have stayed banned when we perma'd his main, who is presumably Zombieman11. ~ 01:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- why dont you guys look this guy ip and get in touch with the swtor wiki admin staff and arrange to have him banned there unless he stops vandalizing here ? --hagnat 01:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- No problem. Nice job on the ban, I could have been stuck there for a while. :) --Shortround 23:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
17th Jan
Verdict | Vandal Alt |
---|---|
Action taken | Permaban |
See the other Star Wars invasions on this page. -- Spiderzed█ 00:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
14 Jan
- Star wars invasion squad third attack (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Verdict | Vandal Alt |
---|---|
Action taken | Permaban |
Perma'd. ~ 01:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
6th Jan
- Star wars invasion squad second attack (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Verdict | Vandal Alt |
---|---|
Action taken | Perma |
See here. Went on a short vandal spree. Perma'd as vandal alt. ~ 22:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
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
Vandal Banning Archive | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|