UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2009 01

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.

January 2009

User:Sexylegsread

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

Allowing vandalism to take place without doing anything to try and prevent it. Indeed, he actively supported it. I can't be arsed linking to the various pieces of evidence, pretty much everyone knows what went down anyway. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 04:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Id' say not candanalism in itselsf but ppoor form noetheless. I am quire drnk ans L';m dix shit speilling in eth morningfd --

Cheese 04:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC):

What the hell? Please say that was a joke Cheese...-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 04:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I should clarify that, please tell me the way you fucked everything up like you're drunk was a joke.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 04:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheese, he outright admitted to getting a "friend" to do it. He was as involved in it as is possible without actually pushing the button. This "poor form" shit is a cop-out, nothing more. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 05:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

excuse me? I never said I "got someone" to do it for me. It was never even my idea I just told the girl to go ahead, it will be funny. Last I checked regular users don't have an obligation to prevent account creation. Our group of friends all play UD. Only 3 of us wiki it. This person is one of those I'd people.not me. It is not an offence to not stop someone else from doing something. Whether I encourage it or not is irrelevant, it would have happened with or without by input. --CyberRead240 09:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, it isn't irrelevant whether you encourage it or not. Hell, even if you didn't encourage it your knowledge of it is in itself vandalism as you didn't do anything to forewarn the sysops. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 09:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said, with or without me, it would have happened. But if you really want to pull all of this out your arse and make a song and dance guys, I'm happy to watch you hoo-hah about it, dw about that. Give me the escalation if you can link the appropriate rules, and I will cop it. Wiki is boring now anyway, its the same old same olds who can't take a joke. I miss grim.--CyberRead240 10:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If you really hate it here so much, feel free to ask for a permaban. I'm sure they'll be only too happy to oblige. Or are you simply talking shit again? --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 10:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I don't want to ask for a perma ban, that is why I haven't. Does that suffice? I don't know about you, but I find it easy to go outside and enjoy life, my wiki use is sporadic as a result. But if I ever truly get back into UD, I would like to be able to edit pages that may be of relevance. For now, I am happy doing what I do, but my interest is declining, thats for sure.--CyberRead240 10:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Two points. Firstly, you're absolutely right that you don't know about me, so passive-aggressive shit like that isn't going to be very effective. Secondly, you use this wiki plenty so your attempt to paint yourself as just a casual internet user is pretty obviously a lie. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 10:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Please include the relevant links next time, bob.

• I can assure you it wasn't anyone I know --Sexylegsread 13:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC).
• On msn with them, I said, yes, it would be lulz to do this. And so far it has lived up to my expectations.--Sexylegsread 11:45 30 December 2008 (UTC).

I think it's clear that if we even accept his story that it was some faceless neighbor, and not him doing it, he was complicit in the vandalism. He was asked, should I do this, and he said yes, it will be lulz. He then proceeded to lulz it up on the vandal talk page, A/VB and A/M, lying about it all the way, depending on what could be proven at the time -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:51 1 January 2009 (BST)

Meatpuppet vandalism is still vandalism.--Karek^maps?! 08:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, I'm now sober and have had a chance to think. Vandalism -- Cheese 10:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that looks like a 48hr ban, then. Done -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:55 1 January 2009 (BST)

This is ridiculous. Vandalism is a bad-faith edit. Talking to someone in RL is not an "edit" and, thus, cannot be vandalism. Not Vandalism.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are the links to bad faith edits to increase the disruption caused by this vandal impersonation that he coordinated with his "friend".

1. Posts on the sock account talk page to make sure that bob sees it on RC.
2. Taunting bob once he sees it and reports it on A/VB.
3. He fails to see how it's obvious, despite knowing the intent of the vandal, by his own admission later.
4. Assures us it is no one he knows.

It was a coordinated act of vandalism, so the next escalation is a 2 day ban. I can't help it if he's a persistent vandal who's used up all his warnings -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:16 2 January 2009 (BST)

Driving your buddies to make throw away accounts to make bad faith edits is as much vandalism as doing it yourself via proxy filters.--Karek^maps?! 21:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)