UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning
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
|
March 2014
User:Raining Fire
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Warned |
Blanked The Burchell Arms, The Burchell Arms Regulars and associated talk pages of both. Twice. ~
06:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Warned -- boxy 04:17, 13 March 2014 (BST)
February 2014
User:Misanthropy
That fucking string of ass piss again
| Verdict | Silliness |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Soft warning |
For having, just, like the biggest scrotum. It's ungainly. It's probably the number-four reason why there is zero fun to be had any more, because its light-bending bulk is blocking out all of the available funlight. I recommend public frogmarching and/or solitary confinement with Kendra James. Throw the book at that silly motherfucker. 
06:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- Jesus man. Just have it reduced. --Rosslessness 15:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. —Aichon— 16:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- hee hee. this is what I stick around for. lol--User:Sexualharrison03:53, 19 February 2014
He should get a soft warning for shitting up admin pages -- boxy 04:24, 13 March 2014 (BST)
January 2014
User:Reddit survivors
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Warned |
Blanked the Reddit Survivors page. M.O. very, very similar to this 2011 case. Technically not a 3EV, but user was banned back then based on impersonation. -- Spiderzed▋ 22:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Vandalism, worth a warning - Also worth noting, that previous case had quite a few misstatements. For instance, proxy use, in and of itself, is not a valid grounds for an escalation. It's merely cause for banning an IP address, and it's only if they're later discovered to be a banned user that we can escalate them for circumventing a ban. And banning him for impersonation seems a bit shady, to be honest. —Aichon— 23:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- While proxy use may not be vandalism in itself, when it is used by accounts like these (who do nothing but vandalism/impersonation), it can be considered as further evidence that the account is created with only the intent to vandalise the wiki. I wouldn't have a problem with either of them being deemed 3ER accounts, despite them (intentionally?) only posting twice. They violate the spirit of the rule, if not the letter -- boxy 10:08, 31 January 2014 (BST)
- I'm not in favor of a 3ev ruling, as that's a rule that's very explicit and not really open to a "spirit, not letter" interpretation. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 01:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- Heh, that was a bit of a long stretch looking back. It probably should have been handled as ban/escalation evasion by Leo Decroix. The result would have been the same. Ban the alt, escalate the user if I'm not mistaken. Point is, someone (very likely Leo Decroix) created an account with the express intent to vandalize a group page. We've banned alt users under similar circumstances before (Cornholioo, Izumi, etc.) ~ 20:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- Heh, that was a bit of a long stretch looking back. It probably should have been handled as ban/escalation evasion by Leo Decroix. The result would have been the same. Ban the alt, escalate the user if I'm not mistaken. Point is, someone (very likely Leo Decroix) created an account with the express intent to vandalize a group page. We've banned alt users under similar circumstances before (Cornholioo, Izumi, etc.) ~
- I'm not in favor of a 3ev ruling, as that's a rule that's very explicit and not really open to a "spirit, not letter" interpretation. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 01:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Bump. Warning is still my thought, particularly since this guy seems to be a really infrequent vandal. —Aichon— 16:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- It would be really silly not to consider this ban evasion. Just my two cents. ~ 07:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Warned -- boxy 04:42, 13 March 2014 (BST)
N_O_T_R_E_D_N_A_G
| Verdict | 3-edit vandal |
|---|---|
| Action taken | perma |
Spamming of multiple pages, including the News Template. Multiple other pages are listed under user contribs. I'll try revert some of these but this user needs to be dealt with. --Wez 19:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- And just as we were getting cozy... I have pre-emtively perma'd that one and all known wiki alts and IPs as obvious 3 edit vandal. Go and misconduct me. -- Spiderzed▋ 20:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you Spiderzed, a quick response indeed! No argument here, that was blatant vandalism. Some people are just bad losers after all. --Wez 20:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hello, my name is Aichon, and I would vote Not Misconduct. —Aichon— 21:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Suifdhsei
| Verdict | 3-edit vandal |
|---|---|
| Action taken | perma |
Has repeatedly vandalised the ZHU page by changing the appeal tinyURL from a link to the Resensitized forums to one to Something Awful. I request a perma as a 3-edit-vandal. -- Spiderzed▋ 20:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Perma - Seems pretty clear to me, but I'd rather not pull the trigger, due to past mistakes on my part. Any objections? —Aichon— 20:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Perma'd as a 3ev. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 17:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Archives
|
Vandal Banning Archive | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
