UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2011 10

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.

November 2024

Bardiclife and TheBardofAwesome

Whenever possible, I'd like my other accounts "Bardiclife" and "TheBardofAwesome" locked to prevent unauthorized access. Thanks. --TheBardofOld 18:48, 21 October 2011 (BST)

Yonnua Koponen

Verdict Not Vandalism
Action taken None

I'm sorry, you guys, but this is just plain ridiculous right now. These edits on the Main Page by Misanthropy and Spiderzed, all of which were caused by Yon's Ruling in the recent Poodle vs DDR Arby's case. The Main page is serious business. It's no place to carry out an Arby's ruling which was clearly a joke. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 00:55, 7 October 2011 (BST)

If it's clear to you that it was a joke ruling never meant to be enacted, then why is there a case against me?--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 01:03, 7 October 2011 (BST)
Maybe this is a joke VB case! Bias! Conspiracy! Kill the Witches!       02:46, 7 October 2011 (BST)
And that's also why you're getting a Not Vandalism. Telling a joke or giving a joke ruling on an arbitration case that is obviously being treated as a joke isn't vandalism, even if people do vandalize in response to it.-Karekmaps 2.0?! 03:40, 7 October 2011 (BST)

Due to the Misconduct case, I am too involved to actually rule on that one. However, I'd lean towards Not Vandalism for the same reasons as Karek - there is no direct correlation between the joke ruling (which is harmless) and the actual edit (which is most likely vandalism/misconduct). Would a fellow uninvolved op mind to wrap this one up? -- Spiderzed█ 12:31, 9 October 2011 (BST)

It'll be a sad day when you can get warned for a harmless joke. Not Vandalism.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 15:20, 9 October 2011 (BST)

Vandalism. Hell, we should probably escalate everyone involved in that farce. A/A is not for games. inb4 Internet/Wiki is Serious Business ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:19, 13 October 2011 (BST)

Yes it is. annoying 03:57, 13 October 2011 (BST)
I think I got soft-warned for that once by Vista actually. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 07:23, 13 October 2011 (BST)
The outcome of the case only reflected how fucking stupid the case was to begin with. If anything ALL of this should fall on escalations for Poodle. Yes you heard me! Mwahahahahaha annoying 13:15, 13 October 2011 (BST)
It is said, “It takes two to tango.” Which raises the question: what the fuck were you lot doing, a conga line? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:36, 13 October 2011 (BST)
Yonnua waas the one tangoing. I didn't ask yonnua to go batshit bonkers, he did it cause he's his own man. Burn all of them annoying 00:56, 14 October 2011 (BST)

Misanthropy

Verdict N/A
Action taken Moved to A/M

See the above case. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 00:55, 7 October 2011 (BST)

This isn't a vandalism case, it's misconduct material because it's a protected page.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 01:03, 7 October 2011 (BST)
I was decreasing the number of edits I would have to make by dumping them all on the same page. >_< --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 01:08, 7 October 2011 (BST)
Simple solution: Take my case down (you are the person who set the precedent for joke arbies being acceptable), move Misanthropy's to misconduct where he may or may not be found guilty of misconduct, and remove Spidey's because tbh all he did was link things up. Take him to conduct if you want, but I don't really see why he should get in trouble for linking the image.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 01:12, 7 October 2011 (BST)
Actually it just makes it a case of both. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 03:52, 7 October 2011 (BST)
Don't we prioritise Misconduct but then make the ruling harsher? Can't remember any specific cases, but that seems like the cleanest way to do it.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 08:58, 7 October 2011 (BST)

Get your man on and take it to misconduct. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 03:29, 7 October 2011 (BST)

This is indeed vandalism, just because Yon is making a larp doesn't mean you can vandalise pages as part of it, arbitration or no. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 03:36, 7 October 2011 (BST)

Moving case to Misconduct. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 03:47, 7 October 2011 (BST)

Spiderzed

Verdict N/A
Action taken Moved to A/M

See the above case. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 00:55, 7 October 2011 (BST)

Joke went too far when you guys started vandalizing the main page as part of it. Vandalism. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 03:37, 7 October 2011 (BST)

Moving case to Misconduct. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 03:47, 7 October 2011 (BST)

Leo Decroix

Verdict Vandalism
Action taken Warning

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Reddit_survivors&oldid=1945205

He made changes to the entire page to make it look like we condone and glorify PK'ing. I have reverted the page to reflect our real goals. This user has been trolling the RS forum for some time now. And he has made changes to the burbs we occupy to list us has a hostile group. We are pro-survivor NOCKTRNL 08:34, 6 October 2011 (BST)

Given that he has set up a pker group to oppose RS, I find it pretty had to believe that this edit was in good faith. Vandalism.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 12:50, 6 October 2011 (BST)

Vandalism and warning. I know a bit of Leo's in-game and meta-game actions and can say this was not a good faith edit. ~Vsig.png 14:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Vapor, do remember that the warnings go on the talk page, not the userpage. ;) --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 14:45, 6 October 2011 (BST)
Oops, my bad. ~Vsig.png 16:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Blankity

Verdict Vandalism
Action taken Warned

Obviously someone creating an account just to do this to another user isn't really ok. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 21:15, 5 October 2011 (BST)

Obvious vandalism. However, with potential newbs I err towards Soft Warning until repetition. -- Spiderzed█ 21:37, 5 October 2011 (BST)
With a name like User:Blankity, I have serious doubt it was newb error. ~Vsig.png 21:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I think we should keep an eye on Blankity for a few days first before deciding on a verdict. For all we know, Blankity could be G Styln, but under a different IP address due to a new network provider, moved into a new place, etc. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 00:17, 6 October 2011 (BST)
I'm sure we'll get a response to the warning. If it is it can always be revoked but, a new account blanking a user from 2006 seems more likely to be someone they bothered off wiki. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 02:14, 6 October 2011 (BST)

Fuck caution. kill the shit out of it. The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new

Vandalism - Pretty blatantly bad faith, particularly given the name. Doesn't qualify for 3ER so just give him a warning.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 12:42, 6 October 2011 (BST)

Warned -- Spiderzed█ 12:34, 9 October 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
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Q3 Q4
2013 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Years 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
2020
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2011_10&oldid=1949733"