UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2011 07

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Administration Services

Sysop List (Check) | Guidelines | Policies (Discussion) | Promotions (Bureaucrat) | Re-Evaluations

Deletions (Scheduling) | Speedy Deletions | Undeletions | Vandal Banning (Bots) | Vandal Data (De-Escalations)

Protections (Scheduling) | Move Requests | Arbitration | Misconduct | Demotions | Discussion | Sysop Archives

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.



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.

July 2011

User:JohnnyCakes (3)

Verdict Incomplete
Action taken None Yet

Since the last vandal report, he is now using his own userpage as an attack page against me. ~~ Chief Seagull ~~ talk 12:46, 17 July 2011 (BST)

not vandalism - he can say what he wants on his user page pretty much. you'll have to take it to A/A if you'd like that fixed. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 12:50, 17 July 2011 (BST)

ditto, now he is slandering me also. where is the good faith on any of his posts?--User:Sexualharrison12:58, 17 July 2011 (bst)

All my posts are good faith. Don't violate WIKI LAW by assuming bad faith just because you've been OUTED AS A DISGUSTING ZERG LOVER. The Malton Zergarabinieri must be outed for their filthy zerging. Don't stand in the way or you will be destroyed.-JohnnyCakes 13:00, 17 July 2011 (BST)
Are you kidding me DDR? Slanderous personal attacks are acceptable just because they're in userspace? For fuck's sake... ~~ Chief Seagull ~~ talk 13:00, 17 July 2011 (BST)
Assuming bad faith is a violation of WIKI LAW. Stand down or face the consequences.-JohnnyCakes 13:01, 17 July 2011 (BST)
whatever, enjoy ya ban retard. it's coming soon.--User:Sexualharrison13:11, 17 July 2011 (bst)
Enjoy your wasted life. It's happening now.-JohnnyCakes 13:13, 17 July 2011 (BST)

User:JohnnyCakes (2)

Verdict Vandalism
Action taken Warned

Since being warned below, he's continued with bad faith edits on the DS page and created Chief Seagull Zerg Lover -- boxy 11:14, 17 July 2011 (BST)

These are good faith edits. Unless this wiki is trying to cover up for obvious zergers and trying to stifle the TRUTH!-JohnnyCakes 11:15, 17 July 2011 (BST)

I was indifferent to the painfully dumb talk page pestering but creating attack pages = vandalism -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 11:15, 17 July 2011 (BST)

They got to you too, hue...the zergers are winning...-JohnnyCakes 11:16, 17 July 2011 (BST)
I'm no expert but I suspect there are better ways of fighting zergers than abusing this wiki -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 11:17, 17 July 2011 (BST)
You're out of order! This whole court is out of order! A den of villainous ZERG APPEASERS!! This...is why the game dies...-JohnnyCakes 11:19, 17 July 2011 (BST)
It's not my job to judge users or groups on whether they are zergers. Though if I did I'd probably ask for more evidence rather than attack pages and talk page spam. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 11:23, 17 July 2011 (BST)
The conspiracy goes too deep. Proper channels are controlled by the zergers. It's a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma.-JohnnyCakes 11:28, 17 July 2011 (BST)

OK, enough. Warned and unless there are some constructive edits before his next appearance here, I'd consider a perma next time around -- boxy 11:40, 17 July 2011 (BST)

I knew it...the zerg lovers would stifle the voice of TRUTH. The fight will go on...-JohnnyCakes 11:43, 17 July 2011 (BST)

I'm genuinely not sure what he's trying to do; I'm concluding that this whole thing is purely a slightly elaborate joke or genuine idiocy. Either way, repeating the ruling of vandalism.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 11:46, 17 July 2011 (BST)

The level of butthurt on display in this ruling is staggering. I sentence you to a lifetime of wasted energy on this worthless wiki. The worst sentence anyone could possibly hand down. Except of course sentencing anyone who is not Thad...to being Thad.-JohnnyCakes 11:50, 17 July 2011 (BST)

Who the fuck is this ass clown and why is he spamming my talk page?--User:Sexualharrison12:12, 17 July 2011 (bst)

This 'assclown' as you so wrongly put it..is the only line of defense left between zerging scum and real players. Dont join the dark side harrison...cut all ties with zergs like the Malton Zergarabinieri. For the children. and the children's children.-JohnnyCakes 12:16, 17 July 2011 (BST)
screen shots or it didn't fucking happen--User:Sexualharrison12:49, 17 July 2011 (bst)
Zerg Lover.-JohnnyCakes 12:51, 17 July 2011 (BST)

User:JohnnyCakes

Verdict Vandalism
Action taken Warned

For this edit of Malton Carabinieri, plus similar edits at Template:Dulston Groups and Template:Pescodside Groups. ~~ Chief Seagull ~~ talk 07:44, 17 July 2011 (BST)

Vandalism - Will warn if there are no objections.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 07:58, 17 July 2011 (BST)

Vandalism Meets 3ER criteria bit I'd stick with a warning unless user makes a habit of it. ~Vsig.png 08:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Warned --The General T Sys U! P! F! 08:48, 17 July 2011 (BST)

Cyberbob240 said:

Warned--The General T Sys U! P! F! 03:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You're a fucking idiot. Learn how to update A/VD please. Cyberbob  Talk  06:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

He's now created Malton Zergarabinieri, opened a rather spurious Misconduct case and spammed a number of pages with warning notices. I suspect sockpuppetry, and request a ban and an IP check. ~~ Chief Seagull ~~ talk

Nothing particularly suspicious about the IP. So far he's just pestering people who are apparently tenuously involved in the Carabinieri thing or criticism of himself, wouldn't consider it vandalism just yet, most probably an arbies situation for now imo. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 11:06, 17 July 2011 (BST)
I would define what he's doing as bordering on "spam" rather than pestering, given that he's posted enough that I've created a special subpage just for him. However, I don't consider it worth my time pushing it as vandalism (plus, COI)--The General T Sys U! P! F! 11:17, 17 July 2011 (BST)
I would define YOU, as a VILLAINOUS ZERG APPEASER!-JohnnyCakes 11:22, 17 July 2011 (BST)

User:Rosslessness

Verdict Not Vandalism
Action taken None

For reverting User:Goribus' edits to several cobra redirects including The Real Cobra to make them direct to the disamb Cobra page. Spiderzed is an involved party and shouldnt be ruling. --Rosslessness 12:30, 2 July 2011 (BST)

I indeed am involved and leave this gladly to my fellow ops. -- Spiderzed█ 12:32, 2 July 2011 (BST)

What exactly are you trying to accomplish with this case? -- Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 12:32, 2 July 2011 (BST)

We've had a few such cases over the years and I'd like to reinforce them. Plus Gorb said he'd bring me here anyway, so I thought Id save us all some time. --Rosslessness 12:37, 2 July 2011 (BST)
I know there is been drama about redirects before, see Umbrella, but I can't remember there were any vandal cases related to it. Anyway, I'm not sure if bringing yourself up here is helping but whatever. I'll probably refrain from ruling until Karek has sorted this out with Spider and Goribus on the relevant A/A case. -- Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 12:40, 2 July 2011 (BST)

Arby's – I have no idea what I should be ordering considering the chain doesn't extend here, but whatever. IMO this falls under the scope of the existing Arbitration case and should be sorted out there. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 12:45, 2 July 2011 (BST)

Thanks. Thats all I needed to know. --Rosslessness 12:49, 2 July 2011 (BST)

Please don't report people unless you believe they are making bad faith edits -- boxy 14:26, 2 July 2011 (BST)

Ever so close to ruling vandalism for creating petty cases against yourself as per Karek and my own reasoning a few months ago with (I think it was) Grim, but the rationale behind the case (goribus is going to take me to it anyway etc etc) weakens my resolve just enough... Either ways, as Revenant, this is an arbies job, but might best be served as a separate arbies submission than attaching it onto the already concluded one, just IMO, not a fan of messy re-addressed arbies cases that are well concluded, etc. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 14:58, 2 July 2011 (BST)

Karek's Jurisdiction as arbitrator on this issue. As has been said before, if you make a habit of making cases against yourself, I'll consider it vandalism.--Yonnua Koponen T G P ^^^ 17:19, 2 July 2011 (BST)

Duly noted. --Rosslessness 18:49, 2 July 2011 (BST)

Meh - I don't like self-reporting. >=( In any case, not vandalism. -- Cheese 17:48, 2 July 2011 (BST)

User:Goribus

Verdict Not Vandalism
Action taken None

Massive spam of useless redirects to his group page, too many to bother listing individually. Block for 3 minutes to make him stop. This resulted from an arbitration case, so Karek will have a big say here. However, we do delete useless (who's going to search for these?) and unlinked redirects regardless normally if I'm correct. -- Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 21:23, 1 July 2011 (BST)

You are a massive idiot. The 'massive spam' is simply a list of entries from GI Joe which relate to Cobra - you of all people should understand being a pedant about someone else's IP. They never lynch children, babies—no matter what they do they are whitewashed in advance 21:26, 1 July 2011 (BST)
Less than the 20 page standard, and I'd advise asking first in this case. As for stuff like The Definitely Real COBRA probably worth karek expanding on the A/A ruling. --Rosslessness 21:58, 1 July 2011 (BST)
I don't know, seems like common sense that something like that falls under deletable content. Whether it's vandalism I'll be staying out of that discussion.--Karekmaps 2.0?! 11:09, 2 July 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism - Involved parties are working it out on the Arbi's discussion page, which is what should have been done before this stop gap banning. ~Vsig.png 23:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Not Vandalism – As Vapor. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 00:30, 2 July 2011 (BST)

not vandalism - While there are over 20 (the apparent "rule of thumb" here), I don't think the same can really apply for redirects. The content of the redirects only ever reflects the content of the actual page, plus this is a standard reaction to the A/A case that was always going to require a few big moves and changes, including redirecting. Maybe not as large as what Goribus ended up doing but it's not wholly shocking anyway. Oh and lastly, the useless ones will hover about and most likely be deleted in a few weeks or whenever Cheese overdoses on the pop rocks again, so it's never gonna be a big issue. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 02:34, 2 July 2011 (BST)

Last I checked, the "20 pages" thing was about talk page messages, not page creation? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 12:29, 2 July 2011 (BST)
Yes, you're right, I heard someone mention it above and must have gotten confused. Don't mind me. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 14:52, 2 July 2011 (BST)

A soft warning, at most, at this stage. Not vandalism -- boxy 14:25, 2 July 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism - As the box. -- Cheese 17:47, 2 July 2011 (BST)

Archives

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
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2011_07&oldid=1918489"