UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2009 12: Difference between revisions
Rosslessness (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
I wonder if my immediate suspect was clever enough to use a proxy...? -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 20:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC) | I wonder if my immediate suspect was clever enough to use a proxy...? -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 20:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
w8, physical harm? relax, dude, theirs no need 2 take everything ad liberam. | w8, physical harm? relax, dude, theirs no need 2 take everything ad liberam. -- {{unsigned|Lk7300}} | ||
:Checkuser did indeed show up no one of any interest. Lets see, abusing a user, a spam edit and then he knows to check VB to argue his case. Do I think any of his first 3 edits are in any way constuctive? Nope, so '''Perma'''--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 20:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC) | :Checkuser did indeed show up no one of any interest. Lets see, abusing a user, a spam edit and then he knows to check VB to argue his case. Do I think any of his first 3 edits are in any way constuctive? Nope, so '''Perma'''--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 20:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
::I'm taking bets on how quickly he returns. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 20:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
===[[User:IwillPwnU]]=== | ===[[User:IwillPwnU]]=== |
Revision as of 20:38, 3 December 2009
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.
There were a bunch of spambit-looking account creations on the 17th, these are the live ones at present.
- HaroldBeaman (contribs | logs | block | del userpage | IP Check)
- HallieKetcham7 (contribs | logs | block | del userpage | IP Check)
- AlexanderNoyes7 (contribs | logs | block | del userpage | IP Check)--Cheese 17:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Blocked a large surge of bots -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- YasminLashbrook (contribs | logs | block | del userpage | IP Check) --VVV RPMBG 06:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- LoganDos626 (contribs | logs | block | del userpage | IP Check) --VVV RPMBG 06:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Both done DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 09:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
December 2009
User:Lk7300
Lk7300 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Verdict | Vandalism |
---|---|
Action taken | Perma |
This edit. Since Hagnat and Conndraka can use it as a catch all excuse, I will; breach of the wiki's terms of use. Threats of physical harm are illegal in the UK, where I and the server are, his last sentence clearly fits under this.
As much as I'm amused by internet tough guys posturing behind disposable aliases, our admin team cannot condone the wiki being used for illegal acts can they?
I wonder if my immediate suspect was clever enough to use a proxy...? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
w8, physical harm? relax, dude, theirs no need 2 take everything ad liberam. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lk7300 (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.
- Checkuser did indeed show up no one of any interest. Lets see, abusing a user, a spam edit and then he knows to check VB to argue his case. Do I think any of his first 3 edits are in any way constuctive? Nope, so Perma--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 20:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm taking bets on how quickly he returns. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
User:IwillPwnU
IwillPwnU (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Verdict | {{{1}}} |
---|---|
Action taken | {{{2}}} |
This edit. --Haliman - Talk 01:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Checking out the situation. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 01:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- The user actually seems to be the creator of the page. Guess he wants to delete it. --Janus talk 02:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Seeming to be the creator isn't enough for us to do what he wants and have the page deleted. We have no proof that he is and I'm not taking his word for it until he can prove it somehow. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Checkuser? :/ Or it'd be overusing your sysop powers? --Janus talk 02:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Seeming to be the creator isn't enough for us to do what he wants and have the page deleted. We have no proof that he is and I'm not taking his word for it until he can prove it somehow. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
He hasn't replied to my question but I think that's because he hasn't been back to read it. As for the edits, they are rational enough for me to thing that it isn't vandalism, but obviously we will keep them reverted until he can prove that they belong to him. Thoughts? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- The choice of names doesn't fit with someone coming back, in good faith, to get rid of a group that they were actually the legitimate leader of. If you're getting rid of your own group page "for the good of teh wiki", you're not Pwning anyone, you're helping out -- boxy talk • teh rulz 10:54 3 December 2009 (BST)