UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2010 05
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)
May 2010
User:CptWesker
CptWesker (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Permanent Ban (3 Edit Rule) |
Too many to bother listing individually. I hate doing the three-edit thing, someone just verify shit for me. 
01:02, 10 May 2010 (BST)
- I know I'm no sysop so you'd just have to trust me ;D But yeah, bad bad boy needs perma >=[ This should have been on the talk page I know but it might mean Mis has a better chance of seeing it. -- 01:08, 10 May 2010 (BST)
- Dones. 01:09, 10 May 2010 (BST)
- Dones.
User:Shazam
Shazam (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Warned |
Please evaluate this change to Necronauts. As it looks like Shazam is not part of the Necronauts (and judging from his other edits is actually owning or affiliated with two of the profiles he removed - "Zumm Zero" and "what's happened"), the edit seems questionable. G F J 17:11, 8 May 2010 (BST)
- Vandalism - I'm not seeing any evidence that he's a member of the Necronauts and it looks like those characters are his. I'll see what the others say though before warning him. -- Cheese 17:16, 8 May 2010 (BST)
- Vandalism - Yep, pretty cut-and-dry. Warned. —Aichon— 02:30, 9 May 2010 (BST)
User:Cornholioo (2)
Cornholioo (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Week ban |
Racism. He is blatenly abusing the jewish race here. --
TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 16:45, 7 May 2010 (BST)
Vandalism - Fuck it, I banned Woot for something similar, may as well be consistent. 16:47, 7 May 2010 (BST)
Damnit, Michaelson beat me. Let me dish out the precedents of non-vulgar racism... if something this dumb can constitute vandalism even when a joke, then doing the exact same thing in a serious manner in all ways should too. --
16:49, 7 May 2010 (BST)
lolvandalism -- boxy talk • teh rulz 17:24 7 May 2010 (BST)
sigh Vandalism --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 18:28, 7 May 2010 (BST)
Vandalism and Week ban - I was planning to bring this here myself after I read some of what he was posting in the last 24 hours. —Aichon— 21:21, 7 May 2010 (BST)
User:Cornholioo
Cornholioo (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Month ban |
Breaking arbies ruling here preventing him to make arbies cases without neutral arbitrater Yonnua's go-ahead. Said case which breached ruling is here.
Before anyone suspects that I actually baited Cornholioo into this, I don't bait users into A/VB cases (I was just fucking about with him) and honestly, I actually forgot the ruling myself until Spiderzed mentioned it to Yonnua.
But really. Hey Cornholioo, you were right, sure looks like you won in this one.
You always win.--
15:38, 7 May 2010 (BST)
Frankly, I think it's counter productive to limit drama magnets like Corni from creating arbies cases via such rulings. Despite his agreement with the ruling, I feel that the ruling was outside the scope of the case in question. It would have been smart for Corni to actually gain approval before the case, but he does need to have arbies open to him, to stop people abusing his talk page (if he can actually prove abuse).
Not vandalism - invalid arbies ruling -- boxy talk • teh rulz 16:10 7 May 2010 (BST)
- It wasn't a banning of his use of A/A, he just had to ask Yonnua the go ahead. Yonnua isn't an unfairly minded user, he probably would have allowed it to go through. The only time I remember arbies rulings being overturned in A/VB was when Anime and Sonny raped Terminalfailure, which was justified because of its basis of trolling and bullying but I don't believe this is. It means ruling not vandalism can be done, but I don't think the same purpose applies to this case at all. The ruling was in no way harsh, unfair or draconian and it is incredibly easy to follow for Corn... -- 16:23, 7 May 2010 (BST)
Vandalism - As DDR kindly explained. 16:47, 7 May 2010 (BST)
Vandalism - Cornholioo could've simply waited until next week before starting the arbitration proceedings (there was no reason why he needed to start it today), or could have easily gone through Yonnua, who has already said that he would have allowed the case to go forward. Had he asked Yonnua, been denied for shady reasons, and then posted it anyway, I would have agreed that it was not vandalism. Had he even questioned the rightness of the ruling itself when it was handed down, he may have had a case. But the fact that he didn't make any attempt to honor the ruling while also never contesting it tells me that he voluntarily chose to ignore it, and that constitutes vandalism. —Aichon— 21:45, 7 May 2010 (BST)
I consider myself an involved party so I won't be ruling. Just to clear that up.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 15:39, 9 May 2010 (BST)
Sigh. Corn accepted the arbies ruling, and complied with the process in the past, as Yonnua's archive shows. Much as it pains me to say, Vandalisms. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 20:38, 9 May 2010 (BST)
Given the quick succession of cases against Corni, and the fact that they both deal with the same arbies case, I'd suggest that this case and the one above be treated as one, and no further escalation is required -- boxy talk • teh rulz 03:36 10 May 2010 (BST)
- Um, one is about racism/anti-semetism, the other is about the breach of a valid arbitration ruling. Why should they be conflated? 03:41, 10 May 2010 (BST)
- Agreed. But even if we do as boxy says, then the right thing to do would be to make another case with a list of every other anti-semitic comment he made that day, since there were plenty to choose from that were worthy of escalation, not all of which were on A/A. I treated the above racism case as handling all of those other comments as well (since it would have been ludicrous to take each one here). If we're going to roll these two into one and treat it as an arbies issue, then there needs to be another case to deal with the racist comments that weren't on A/A. It'll be the same outcome either way, since many of his other comments were much more racist than the one cited in the above case. —Aichon— 03:56, 10 May 2010 (BST)
- Some quick examples of other comments from that day: [1], [2]. [3], [4]. Though the last one is from A/A, it's not his initial post there and I'd say it's a separate issue since he went back in and deliberately added the "Jewish childmurderers- and rapists" part later, just for additional effect. Long story short, the racism issue needed to be handled separately, just as it has been. —Aichon— 04:11, 10 May 2010 (BST)
- One last additional note, I know Google Translate isn't perfect, and I don't speak Dutch, but I think you can get a sense of what he was saying in one of those comments I linked. —Aichon— 04:15, 10 May 2010 (BST)
- Some quick examples of other comments from that day: [1], [2]. [3], [4]. Though the last one is from A/A, it's not his initial post there and I'd say it's a separate issue since he went back in and deliberately added the "Jewish childmurderers- and rapists" part later, just for additional effect. Long story short, the racism issue needed to be handled separately, just as it has been. —Aichon— 04:11, 10 May 2010 (BST)
- Agreed. But even if we do as boxy says, then the right thing to do would be to make another case with a list of every other anti-semitic comment he made that day, since there were plenty to choose from that were worthy of escalation, not all of which were on A/A. I treated the above racism case as handling all of those other comments as well (since it would have been ludicrous to take each one here). If we're going to roll these two into one and treat it as an arbies issue, then there needs to be another case to deal with the racist comments that weren't on A/A. It'll be the same outcome either way, since many of his other comments were much more racist than the one cited in the above case. —Aichon— 03:56, 10 May 2010 (BST)
Has anyone actually added on the ban time, or are we waiting for him to be unbanned first?--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 17:20, 13 May 2010 (BST)
- No one's applied it yet. I'm waiting until it's a bit closer. Personally, I don't have a problem if we shave off just a few hours by applying it in advance a bit, but I'd prefer to do it as close as possible to when his other one expires, just to be as fair as possible. —Aichon— 19:26, 13 May 2010 (BST)
- Why don't we just add the ban time from this one to the end of his current one? That would seem the most logical to me. :P --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 19:53, 13 May 2010 (BST)
- Sounds great! If you can tell me how to do it, I'll get right on it. :P —Aichon— 22:41, 13 May 2010 (BST)
- I dunno. The "other" field on the dropdown maybe? If we worked out how much he had left and added a month to that, then stuck it in the box, that should theoretically sort it out, right?--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:55, 13 May 2010 (BST)
- I know it's not my place to get involved in such things, but it seems to me that I've heard somewhere else that the ban length/time limit begins counting down from the moment its awarded, and can't be tacked onto the end of another... I could be wrong though. -Poodle of DoomM!
T 23:56, 13 May 2010 (BST)
- Yes, but if you add the amount left to the amount needing to be given, it'll give the overall time. I just don't understand the "other" field which I'd need to use, because I've never banned anyone before.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 00:02, 14 May 2010 (BST)
- That doesn't make any sense, because it would negate the length of the ban before it, and not only that, but the ops could easily just wait until the first bans over before applying the second ban making that precedent rubbish anyway. Yonnua, fiddle with the "other" tag on yourself (you can unban yourself as a sysop even when banned so you won't accidentally perma yourself) until you can work out how it works? -- 01:20, 14 May 2010 (BST)
- Ooh, good call. I'll fool around with that and will write up my findings after applying the new ban, assuming I figure anything out. —Aichon— 02:03, 14 May 2010 (BST)
- Done. He's now blocked for an additional month. I was off by one minute, meaning that he'll technically get one minute shy of a full month's ban time, so you can Misconduct me for that, since I have no intention of trying to fix it. As for how you use the "other" field, I just entered something like "1 month, 19 hours, 7 minutes" with the commas like that and the numbers as digits. Seems to have worked fine, since the expiry it's showing is correct (aside from being one minute off). —Aichon— 02:17, 14 May 2010 (BST)
- Ooh, good call. I'll fool around with that and will write up my findings after applying the new ban, assuming I figure anything out. —Aichon— 02:03, 14 May 2010 (BST)
- I know it's not my place to get involved in such things, but it seems to me that I've heard somewhere else that the ban length/time limit begins counting down from the moment its awarded, and can't be tacked onto the end of another... I could be wrong though. -Poodle of DoomM!
- I dunno. The "other" field on the dropdown maybe? If we worked out how much he had left and added a month to that, then stuck it in the box, that should theoretically sort it out, right?--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:55, 13 May 2010 (BST)
- Sounds great! If you can tell me how to do it, I'll get right on it. :P —Aichon— 22:41, 13 May 2010 (BST)
- Why don't we just add the ban time from this one to the end of his current one? That would seem the most logical to me. :P --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 19:53, 13 May 2010 (BST)
User:The_Colonel
The Colonel (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Not Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | {{{2}}} |
Posting on my talk page after told not to.
To support this I want to bring this. White regards, CORNH卐LIOO REMEMBER WHAT THE FIGHT IS FOR 14/88!!! 9:30, 7 May 2010 (BST)
- There, go look through those, and let me know when you can tell me what rule he supposedly broke. I know Ross may have said one thing, but I cordially disagree with his statement since I can't find anything to back up the idea of "harassment" being vandalism. We've already told you that this is Not Vandalism several times, and it shouldn't need to be repeated. When it comes to harassment as an official matter, sysops aren't allowed to bully around other users by using their status as a badge, which doesn't apply to the people listed on your page, and "harassment of any user through administration pages may result in vandal escalations," which seems as if it might apply soon if you keep this up. —Aichon— 10:08, 7 May 2010 (BST)
Not vandalism - do you see a pattern forming here, Corni? Go to arbitration and show reason why they should be banned from your page. Telling you not to spam recent changes is not harassment, it's what your talk page is for, so that people can contact you. Banning everyone who says something you don't want to hear is not reasonable (try not being a douchebag instead) -- boxy talk • teh rulz 09:44 7 May 2010 (BST)
- As boxy. There's a surprise. Theres at least two sysops telling you that it may be a case. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 10:23, 7 May 2010 (BST)
- ... and a third one that actually told me to get these people to vandal banning. Rings any bells Rosslessness? --CORNH卐LIOO REMEMBER WHAT THE FIGHT IS FOR 14/88!!! 12:18, 7 May 2010 (BST)
User:Spiderzed
Spiderzed (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Not Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | {{{2}}} |
Posting on my talk page after told not to. White regards,Cornholioo 17:16, 2 May 2010 (BST)
- I have only to add the following: I'm aware of not being welcome on that talk page. For that reason, I've kept my comment short, to the point, factual, and have done it in good faith (to point out an oversight I assumed Cornholioo had at that time). That being said, I'll gladly receive an official warning if the sys-ops deem that this hasn't been sufficient reason and damage control. --Spiderzed 17:32, 2 May 2010 (BST)
- Just avoid it entirely. 17:33, 2 May 2010 (BST)
- Just avoid it entirely.
Vandalism. Will you guys all just not do things any more?
17:30, 2 May 2010 (BST)
- Fuck it, Acorn makes sense, Not Vandalism. 20:08, 2 May 2010 (BST)
Not Vandalism - As we explained last time this came up with Cornholioo, until it goes through arbitration, there are no teeth to it. —Aichon— 20:04, 2 May 2010 (BST)
NV -- boxy talk • teh rulz 09:04 3 May 2010 (BST)
User:Oidar
Oidar (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Not Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | {{{2}}} |
I take highly offence of this: Image:Adolflikedchildren.png. Vandalism? --Cornholioo 14:45, 1 May 2010 (BST)
- Category:Humorous Images Oidar 14:48, 1 May 2010 (BST)
- Humorous? How dare you call that humorous? --Cornholioo 14:49, 1 May 2010 (BST)
- Tough. Not vandalism -- boxy talk • teh rulz 14:51 1 May 2010 (BST)
http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACornholioo&diff=1702380&oldid=1701661 --Cornholioo 15:10, 1 May 2010 (BST)
This is ridiculous. Not vandalism and I'll drop a train full of precedence on you if I need to. 15:44, 1 May 2010 (BST)
Not Vandalism. Open and shut case. —Aichon— 23:15, 1 May 2010 (BST)
