UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2010 12
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 2010
User:Poodle of doom
Poodle of doom (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | {{{1}}} |
|---|---|
| Action taken | {{{2}}} |
Spamming stuff. Specifically some nonsense on Kevan's talk page and an arbitration case against DDR that had no serious grounds.--
(Thad)eous Oakley Talk 18:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- He has also been unofficially warned for this and asked to stop on these pages by people but he chose to seemingly ignore it. --
(Thad)eous Oakley Talk 18:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Simply going to say not vandalism for the time being because I fucking hate messy cases across several admin sections. Whilst Poodle was being an annoying twat, it genuinely seemed to me to be an A/A matter so I'm not willing to rule for an escalation on VB. 
18:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- In what way is this an A/A case? The way I see it, Ross' complaint was that Poodle was "senselessly spamming". Spamming's always been a VB issue, and it shouldn't be dealt with on Arbitration. The only distinction is that Arbies deals with edit conflicts, which this in no way is. Whether you think he's committed vandalism, he hasn't, or he deserves just a soft warning, it should still be a matter for VB.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 18:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree, though I respect your decision. However, spamming has been dealt with on A/VB before, multiple times, and whether this case here is vandalism or not I do believe it should be dealt with here rather than A/A. --(Thad)eous Oakley Talk 18:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- It's a case of staying away from a single user's talk page, which has always been arbitration material. Just because that user is Kevan doesn't mean it should follow a different set of circumstances. 18:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- That's an arbitration punishment, not a reason for creating arbitration. Read Ross' complaint. He says the problem is spam.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 18:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. The spamming of a single user's talk page, and the way to combat that is with an A/A case where the creater is seeking a bar on commenting there. VB spam cases have dealt with profilic edits to many pages, not with unwanted edits to a single talk. Regardless of the terminology used, this should still be an A/A case with Ross or anyone else seeking to just put a block on Poodle commenting on Kev's talk page. An escalation doesn't fix the issue, it just escalates someone who is likely to do it again anyway, whereas a ruling would create a situation where every edit there would rack up these cases quicker than individually bringing them without one would, acting as an actual deterrent. 18:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but you seem to be breaking the eggnog open early this year. He's done spam, which is a vandal offence. Vandal offences are dealt with on Vandal banning. Running in and yelling that it's an arbies issue makes no sense, especially since you're arguing a precedent which doesn't exist. Harassment is most likely what you're thinking of, where two fighting users get a cool off period not to argue with each other. If I repeatedly posted the word "Hello" on your talk page every day for a month, I'd go on VB for spamming your talk page. I wouldn't go to arbitration. It's quite possibly the most well known precedent. Ross didn't even ask for Poodle to be banned from kevan's talk, he asked him to stop spamming it with comments about snow.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 18:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. He's looking for a prevention of future edits, not a warning based on past edits. VB is to deal with events that have happened, arbies for events happening or likely to happen - to prevent future comments to Kevan's talk page, an arbitration ruling is the way to go, not a warning for previous edits. Regardless of whether it's considered spam or not, it's about restraining future edits from occuring, and that's the purpose of arbitration, not of VB. I'm not getting into whether or not spam is VBable. I'm saying that preventing a user from commenting on another user's talk page, spam or no spam, is an A/A matter. 18:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- No, that's actually not what arbitration is, by a literal definition, by a wiki definition or by any definition. It's for resolving conflicts between users.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 18:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. Present conflicts or forseeable future conflicts. You can't resolve something that's already over. Hence, arbitration - by usage, not by definition - is for dealing with present and near-future issues, and that's what this is. It's an issue about possible future edits. 19:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- But it isn't a conflict between two users, so what you said makes no sense.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 19:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- It is clearly a conflict between Ross and those who agree with him, and Poodle. 19:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ross told him to stop. So did DDR, before him. Thad also said to stop before him. This is in no way a conflict between Ross and anyone. This is about Poodle doing something which is against the rules of the wiki, and Ross telling him to stop. It's a vandal case.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 19:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- It is clearly a conflict between Ross and those who agree with him, and Poodle.
- But it isn't a conflict between two users, so what you said makes no sense.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 19:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. Present conflicts or forseeable future conflicts. You can't resolve something that's already over. Hence, arbitration - by usage, not by definition - is for dealing with present and near-future issues, and that's what this is. It's an issue about possible future edits.
- No, that's actually not what arbitration is, by a literal definition, by a wiki definition or by any definition. It's for resolving conflicts between users.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 18:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. He's looking for a prevention of future edits, not a warning based on past edits. VB is to deal with events that have happened, arbies for events happening or likely to happen - to prevent future comments to Kevan's talk page, an arbitration ruling is the way to go, not a warning for previous edits. Regardless of whether it's considered spam or not, it's about restraining future edits from occuring, and that's the purpose of arbitration, not of VB. I'm not getting into whether or not spam is VBable. I'm saying that preventing a user from commenting on another user's talk page, spam or no spam, is an A/A matter.
- I'm sorry, but you seem to be breaking the eggnog open early this year. He's done spam, which is a vandal offence. Vandal offences are dealt with on Vandal banning. Running in and yelling that it's an arbies issue makes no sense, especially since you're arguing a precedent which doesn't exist. Harassment is most likely what you're thinking of, where two fighting users get a cool off period not to argue with each other. If I repeatedly posted the word "Hello" on your talk page every day for a month, I'd go on VB for spamming your talk page. I wouldn't go to arbitration. It's quite possibly the most well known precedent. Ross didn't even ask for Poodle to be banned from kevan's talk, he asked him to stop spamming it with comments about snow.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 18:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. The spamming of a single user's talk page, and the way to combat that is with an A/A case where the creater is seeking a bar on commenting there. VB spam cases have dealt with profilic edits to many pages, not with unwanted edits to a single talk. Regardless of the terminology used, this should still be an A/A case with Ross or anyone else seeking to just put a block on Poodle commenting on Kev's talk page. An escalation doesn't fix the issue, it just escalates someone who is likely to do it again anyway, whereas a ruling would create a situation where every edit there would rack up these cases quicker than individually bringing them without one would, acting as an actual deterrent.
- That's an arbitration punishment, not a reason for creating arbitration. Read Ross' complaint. He says the problem is spam.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 18:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- It's a case of staying away from a single user's talk page, which has always been arbitration material. Just because that user is Kevan doesn't mean it should follow a different set of circumstances.
Soft Warning - The posting every day was really annoying, but he mostly stopped after the "I'll take you to VB" from DDR. He did post twice more afterwards, but imo they weren't enough to constitute full blown spam. I say soft warn him officially, and if he does it again start piling on escalations.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 18:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
