UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2012 04

Template:A/VBsub

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.

February 2012

User:Star Trek Armada

• Star Trek Armada (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandal Alt
Action taken	Perma

• Star Trek Armada Second Assault (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandal Alt
Action taken	Perma

Yet another Star Wars Invasion Squad -- Spiderzed█ 22:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Sexualharrison

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

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

[[1]]. On this page User:sexualharrison has repeatedly posted words that I never wrote, and used my signature. I was only giving the fool some fair turnabout. --Dhavid Grohl 03:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

And he did use my sig. I don't use a template, because they are garbage, but he used my sig all the same. --Dhavid Grohl 03:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you please indicate what was changed and where your signature was added? Page diffs usually help in these cases. ~ _{03:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)}

I posted on his talk page. Here: [[2]]. Later, harrison alters the post, leaving my sig intact: [[3]], essentially posting something I never posted, under my sig. Later he moves it to the page I link above, linked here again where his altered quote is posted anew, again under my sig: [[4]]. There are other examples too. Read his sub-talk page and you'll see them. --Dhavid Grohl 04:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, this one isn't probably as open/shut as the case brought againt you, but you may still have something. There is the issue of the big warning at the top of the page that states he reserves the right to change anything posted by other users. I don't personally feel talk page rules can supercede policy, however. The second part and how this differs from the case below is that harrison altered a comment which already existed and didn't add your signature anywhere. This will likely come down to precedent, weighing both the talk page warning at the top and the nature of the edits. ~ _{04:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)}

They can't, not without permission, as in the person being changed doesn't take issue to it. This is Vandalism, and treading dangerous water. That being said, out of curiosity why were these edits not brought up earlier? --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 06:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

While that lick => stick example is much less severe than the case below (it is still the same basic meaning), it is impersonation and thus technical Vandalism. SH, tread very, very carefully if you alter other comments, even if it is your own user talk page. -- Spiderzed█ 07:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that I NEVER posted on his talk sub page. In fact, I stated that I had NO intention of posting on his talk sub page because I had no intention of dignifying its existence. Even if it is the funniest and most TZH-like thing that SH has done, ever. Sure, what he posted on that page was very SIMILAR to what I had posted elsewhere, but the meaning was changed drastically. In the initial statement, I am insulting SH by telling him off, he completely negates the insult. All of this under the guise that I said it. Whether or not he admits it is biased or not is irrelevant. Talk pages are biased. USER pages are biased. That is a given. Yet I was warned and had my talk page forcefully edited for doing exactly what he did. (--sorry, forgot to sign) --Dhavid Grohl 14:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

wow, if you had bothered to look below on your case.. i said and I quote """it's kind of flattering in a perverse sort of way. i guess he must be projecting? also not to defend anything Dhav does but I did change some of the stuff he wrote on my talk page. but there is a big warning at the top of the page that i might do so. but i would never use someones sig template. so get ready for the cries of hypocrisy""" and I can move anything i want and organize them anyway i feel unless it's an official UDwiki warning or something along those lines. again if you don't like my rules on my talk page don't post there. simple. and the slight difference is i have NEVER POSTED ANYTHING ON YOUR TALK PAGE. nor will I ever. thank for letting me play you like a fiddle. P.S go look up what zerging means.. you and you're lame group seem to be experts at it.--User:Sexualharrison15:11, 14 February 2012 (bst)

Moving content to another page? Not vandalism. Impersonation, regardless of userspace rights? As the below case shows, the scale tipped in the favor of vandalism, therefore this case is also Vandalism. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 15:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure there is a prior case where talk page rules came into question and it was explained why this is still considered bad faith. I'd like to find it and link as precedent before delivering a ruling but I'm stuck editing from the phone right now. If someone can find it before this evening, that'd be great. SH obviously doesn't know this is a breach of bad faith but ignorance of the law does not exclude you from the wiki's policy enforcement. ~ _{16:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)}

rules as you feel you need. personal feelings aside. meh shit happens.--User:Sexualharrison18:23, 14 February 2012 (bst)

What it boils down to is that the rules for user and user talk pages are governed by UDWiki:Specific Case Editing Guidelines. You can do or say whatever you'd like on your page with the single exception of impersonation (which includes editing another user's comments in a way which changes the conext of the comment). Thus, this is Vandalism. ~ _{20:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)}

just so i'm clear on the policy. what about headers?--User:Sexualharrison21:16, 14 February 2012 (bst)

As far as I am aware, there is nothing in the policies which make a distinction between the header of a comment and the comment itself. Its probably best to assume a header is part of a comment, however I would be very apprehensive to label changes to a header on your own talk page impersonation, at least on its own. It happens all the time and nobody makes a fuss over it. Just don't change any comments and you're fine I would think. ~ _{23:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)}

In the case of headers on your talk page, it comes down to a question of intentions. There have been rulings in the past going both ways. If you change a header to insult the person who created it, don't be surprised if you get a warning for it. However, if you just change it to be more descriptive of the topic or something similar, you wont have a problem -- boxy 07:44, 15 February 2012 (BST)

why can't i do both? insult and inform?--User:Sexualharrison15:00, 15 February 2012 (bst)

When you change something that someone else posts to a talk page, you need to be sure you are acting in absolute good faith -- boxy 08:05, 16 February 2012 (BST)

Well, more specifically, warnings about changing the headers usually come under impersonation more than insulting in past practice. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 11:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say that this is poetic, only I actually know what that phrase means, and am not a huge tool. Glad for the decision vapor.--Dhavid Grohl 21:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Warned -- boxy 07:44, 15 February 2012 (BST)

How long does he have to correct the changes or delete the post? --Dhavid Grohl 19:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It's been ruled as vandalism. Thus anyone as a good editor can technically revert the vandalism without repercussion D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Not remembering what the comments/headers were to begin with, and not wanting to take the time to revert them, is deletion of the changed comments acceptable? --Dhavid Grohl 14:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

nope. that would be worse that what I did. the headers were griefer and sorry fuckface. i don't remember what I changed at the bottom.. probably the thing about sucking your balls. and being a homosexual. again stop projecting.--User:Sexualharrison14:49, 16 February 2012 (bst)

I would imagine that the burden of changing them falls to you Harrison. As long as you leave them up, you're the vandal. How long until he is warned again? They are still incorrect. --Dhavid Grohl 22:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that's some double-jeopardy thing or something. The burden to identify what needs to be changed should fall to you. You brought the case here, after all and they were your words. That's also why I asked you specifically when you opened this case what exactly was changed.

Moving on. Typically the sysop that meted out the warning will revert the vandalism but that's not by any means a rule. Since it's obviously a lot of stuff to go through, just be patient and it will get changed when someone has time to do it properly and without making more a mess of it. ~ _{03:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)}

In other words, might as well do it grohl cause no one else is gonna fucking do it D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

In most cases a sysop would revert the vandalism but in this case the "correct" edit is buried in the history of the page somewhere and no one can be bothered to find it. If you want it fixed then it's kinda your responsibility to do so and we will not warn him twice for the same case of vandalism.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 15:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

That is idiotic. You're making the person who was vandalized fix the vandals' work? I have to take time out of my day, to hunt through his history, and fix all the garbage he changed when he could simply delete it? You're essentially REWARDING him for vandalizing. Thats like making the victim of arson pay the hospital bills for the guy who got burned doing it. I say he simply deletes the comments. That fixes everything, and I don't have to hunt through this douche bag's history. --Dhavid Grohl 00:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Dhavid Grohl

• Dhavid Grohl (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

This edit. I know that it is his user-page, but 1.) it is impersonation using even the user's sig and 2.) have we in the past acted against vandalism on user pages, such as the infamous goatse case. -- Spiderzed█ 18:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Lewd/offensive materials and impersonation are two entirely different matters. In my opinion, this is a very borderline case. I believe it's impersonation as well, but a userspace is quite free reign, given that the materials aren't offensive. This case can go both ways, really. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 18:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Offensiveness is meh, but Impersonation IS vandalism --Ross^lessness 18:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

As Ross, it's impersonation and thus Vandalism right around where he says that it was left by harrison himself. Pretty straight forward actually. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 22:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

it's kind of flattering in a perverse sort of way. i guess he must be projecting? also not to defend anything Dhav does but I did change some of the stuff he wrote on my talk page. but there is a big warning at the top of the page that i might do so. but i would never use someones sig template. so get ready for the cries of hypocrisy. --User:Sexualharrison19:47, 13 February 2012 (bst)

also does this mean Dhav has given me editing permission for his user page? i mean my SIG is on it. so that means I can edit it? amitrite?--User:Sexualharrison19:54, 13 February 2012 (bst)

Textbook impersonation, and thus Vandalism. Case closed, warning issued. ~ _{00:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)}

so does he have to remove it?--User:Sexualharrison01:02, 14 February 2012 (bst)

I've replaced the offending part of the comment, the signature, with {{unsigned}}, which is the standard reversion for this type of vandalism. He can either remove it himself, or leave it in all its context changing glory. ~ _{01:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)}

it's almost poetic.--User:Sexualharrison01:09, 14 February 2012 (bst)

User:Revenant

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

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None

For re-installing magic words in a recruitment ad here. It would be a petty matter if that was a first one, but it isn't - Rev has done that before. He was also aware of that rule, as he had previously reverted to a standard time stamp for the same ad and has participated in a discussion about this rule. If we allow that to happen again and again with consequence, it will become more attractive to use magic words rather than the proper way, as it takes usually long until magic words are detected and as removals for magic words are accompanied with a talk page message, unlike regular removals. -- Spiderzed█ 16:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism and recommend a warning. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 18:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably best not to assume bad faith. No reason to believe rev would have reverted his own edits to something he agreed was not acceptable. It was 5 months between edits and likely it was just an accidental rollback or he didn't realize he was reverting to a vandalism worthy version. Not Vandalism unless you can somehow establish intent. ~ _{18:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)}

Not Vandalism - 1. it's 6 months old and we generally don't rule on stuff that happened half a year ago. 2. There is no real reason for this to be vandalism and no clear consensus of that, unless someone can show me more definitive than this. 3. Doesn't show in contribs so it was a rollback, which have been known to accidentally occur. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 20:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, the fact that the edit wasn't noticed for 6 months isn't an issue. The main reason this is borderline bad faith is because it is an example of stealthy deception that wont get noticed for months -- boxy 08:11, 6 February 2012 (BST)

Since when do apply any statue of limitations on A/VB? Can't remember vandalism or misconduct ever having an expiration date, we ruled on stuff from years ago. Might wanna redefine that "we generally don't rule" as "I generally make up things". -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a borderline case (rev loves those). The magicword is being used to remove the ability, of people who upkeep the recruitment page, to tell if a group's recruitment ad is still current. It mimics a valid timestamp with an automated one. Spiderzed (or anyone else who keeps the recruitment page up to date) shouldn't have to go looking in every recruitment ad template history to find this information out. As far as I'm concerned, you'd be within your rights to remove any recruitment ad that used such a technique -- boxy 07:59, 6 February 2012 (BST)

Certainly but it also makes practical sense for groups on the stats page which should be otherwise except from having to prove they are around. The existence of that state has caused no harm to the wiki and was an exception we'd previously carved out with things like crit 12 because it's stupid not to. Basically, either way it's something so stupid that we shouldn't be escalating for it and so petty that arbitration cases over it will always lead to stupid drama. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 16:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. The rules for the page should be changed then, to exempt groups who are on the stats page. But such groups need to be linking to the stats page instead of trying to fool the maintenance guys into believing that they are regularly updating their ads, with fake timestamps -- boxy 01:32, 7 February 2012 (BST)

^ Words of wisdom stronger than any pussied out non vandalism ruling. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:56, 12 February 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.

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)

  Damn I legit missed these, thanks. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:13, 21 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)

Archives

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