UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2009 01: Difference between revisions
Rosslessness (talk | contribs) |
Krazy Monkey (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
Lulz. *in await of the Ce3se and A unhelpful little gnome.* --[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 14:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC) | Lulz. *in await of the Ce3se and A unhelpful little gnome.* --[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 14:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
::I noticed this one, but my checkuser came back blank. how did you make the link? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 15:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC) | ::I noticed this one, but my checkuser came back blank. how did you make the link? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 15:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
:::Ran the IPs through an IP checker. Both came back to the same place in Australia. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 15:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
===[[User:Rayols]]=== | ===[[User:Rayols]]=== |
Revision as of 15:33, 5 January 2009
Vandal Banning Archive | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 2009
User:8oxy
8oxy (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Verdict | Awaiting confirmation |
---|---|
Action taken | None yet |
Possible attempt to impersonate Boxy. IP check reveals it originates from the same location as that of this guy. Same single contribution of posting on user page to (possibly) get the account noticed. I won't ban it (yet) just in case I'm wrong, unless another sysop wants to back me up on this one. -- Cheese 11:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Lulz. *in await of the Ce3se and A unhelpful little gnome.* --Thadeous Oakley 14:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Rayols
Rayols (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Verdict | Vandalism |
---|---|
Action taken | Permaban |
Circumventing a perma that was issued earlier by making this edit. Sure his 'friend' made the edits, that's why the first edit under that account to Rev's pages months ago was a vandalism edit. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hey, that's a completely understandable thing right there. Friends using each others PC's. Just like Scinfaxi and Jjames. *Snickers*-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 02:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Permaban This is is the same IP as the banned vandal below. Pro-tip: if you want to plead your buddies case don't do it from his computer.--– Nubis NWO 02:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Kerkel
Kerkel (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Verdict | Vandalism |
---|---|
Action taken | Permaban |
More editation of PK pages. Any more vandalism from him and it's a ban. -- Cheese 22:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Persistent fucking vandal. Can we have that perma now? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Kerkel
Kerkel (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Verdict | Vandalism |
---|---|
Action taken | Warning |
Editing the group page he is not a member of. Two contributions, two acts of vandalism. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- The other one is over a month old so I'll just count this one. Vandalism and warned. -- Cheese 21:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Janus Abernathy
Janus Abernathy (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Verdict | Not Vandalism |
---|---|
Action taken | None required |
For this edit, as mentioned below. Umbrella members are real class acts, eh? How many vandal reports in the last week from their members, hmmmmm? --WanYao 14:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- He was attempting to revert the vandalism from the case below but didn't do it right. Not Vandalism. -- Cheese 14:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Again, I fail at reverting vandalism ;) --Janus talk 14:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oh. Sorry...... **goes and stands in the corner** --WanYao 14:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, my summary was referring to that she didn't know how to use the undo and revert tools properly. So, yeah, I posted on her talk page. If anyone's wondering. Linkthewindow Talk 15:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Again, I fail at reverting vandalism ;) --Janus talk 14:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Extraneous Discussion to talk -- Cheese 18:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Hallman111
Hallman111 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Verdict | Vandalism |
---|---|
Action taken | Permaban |
Vandalised the UBCS Alpha page. Note that he is not Haliman111 (the UBCS leader.) Linkthewindow Talk 14:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Got him. Permaban. IP address is the same as the one used by the Umbrellaemployee dude from earlier in the week. I've done an IP block to stop them using that one. -- Cheese 14:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- That was quick. There was another example here. on the main UBCS page. Linkthewindow Talk 14:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, this needs some clarifying. Janus wasn't the vandal, Hallman was. I just compared between my edit and Janus's edit as she didn't revert properly, and the diff captured most of the vandalism. Linkthewindow Talk 15:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- That was quick. There was another example here. on the main UBCS page. Linkthewindow Talk 14:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Extraneous Discussion to talk -- Cheese 18:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Nemesis 645
Nemesis645 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Verdict | Vandalism |
---|---|
Action taken | Warning |
Impersonated the MOB at the CoTR's talk page, and did the same to the CoTR on the MOB's talk page, in an attempt to get the groups to declare war on each other, it seems. There is nothing about him being member of ether group on his page (he seems rather survivor.) Linkthewindow Talk 11:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Vandalism - Impersonation of two different groups is just stupid. Warned. -- Cheese 18:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Sexylegsread
Sexylegsread (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Verdict | Vandalism |
---|---|
Action taken | 48 hour ban |
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)
Discussion moved to the talk page -- Cheese 18:44, 2 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.--Karekmaps?! 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".
- 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)
- Ok, here is the response to the "bad faith edits". 1. That isn't an act of vandalism. 2. That isn't an act of Vandalism. 3. That isnt an act of vandalism, and 4. Surprise Surprise, isn't an act of vandalism. Nice to see I was vandal banned for something you couldn't prove, isn't it? That agenda flare up again? Good timing too, getting me out of the way so that you could demote Jed under everyones noses. You are pure dirt, boxy.--CyberRead240 04:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- He may be dirt, but you're full of shit. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, here is the response to the "bad faith edits". 1. That isn't an act of vandalism. 2. That isn't an act of Vandalism. 3. That isnt an act of vandalism, and 4. Surprise Surprise, isn't an act of vandalism. Nice to see I was vandal banned for something you couldn't prove, isn't it? That agenda flare up again? Good timing too, getting me out of the way so that you could demote Jed under everyones noses. You are pure dirt, boxy.--CyberRead240 04:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Driving your buddies to make throw away accounts to make bad faith edits is as much vandalism as doing it yourself via proxy filters.--Karekmaps?! 21:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)