UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2012 04

From The Urban Dead Wiki
< UDWiki:Administration‎ | Vandal Banning‎ | Archive
Revision as of 20:20, 29 January 2012 by Karek (talk | contribs) (→‎User:Revenant: Also, huh? This isn't serious enough to be anything but what Vapor did.)
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.



January 2012

User:Revenant

Verdict Incomplete
Action taken None Yet

For re-installing magic words in a recruitment ad here. It would be a petty matter if that was a first one, but it isn't - Rev has done that before. He was also aware of that rule, as he had previously reverted to a standard time stamp for the same ad and has participated in a discussion about this rule. If we allow that to happen again and again with consequence, it will become more attractive to use magic words rather than the proper way, as it takes usually long until magic words are detected and as removals for magic words are accompanied with a talk page message, unlike regular removals. -- Spiderzed█ 16:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism and recommend a warning. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 18:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably best not to assume bad faith. No reason to believe rev would have reverted his own edits to something he agreed was not acceptable. It was 5 months between edits and likely it was just an accidental rollback or he didn't realize he was reverting to a vandalism worthy version. Not Vandalism unless you can somehow establish intent. ~Vsig.png 18:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Not Vandalism - 1. it's 6 months old and we generally don't rule on stuff that happened half a year ago. 2. There is no real reason for this to be vandalism and no clear consensus of that, unless someone can show me more definitive than this. 3. Doesn't show in contribs so it was a rollback, which have been known to accidentally occur. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 20:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Fascist_Italian

Verdict Not Vandalism
Action taken None

Since he disappeared without a trace from Urban Dead, the wiki and his mail I suspect this person of being an infiltrant. For that reason, I now take issue that he previously edited a page not his own. User:Generaloberst/s 23:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Need more than just a vague feeling that he may have been an infiltrator. Doesn't seem to have done anything on the wiki to harm you or your group. Not vandalism -- boxy 05:41, 23 January 2012 (BST)
This in combination with said things gives me a strong indication that he's an infiltrator. At the time, I didn't like that he started to edit our page 'out of the blue' in steat of offering the alliance first. I didn't take issue with it at the time because I hoped for the best. I should've known better. The NSU had been infiltrated before. I hope you change your vote now, boxy. And I hope you realise if you don't then you're indirectly supporting actions like this (infiltrations). I want to sort this out, and I want to know who this guy actually is. Any one of you that still has the guts to vote this as not-vandalism is not a hair better than what they always doom me to be (a zerger, a returned banned vandal and the other stuff). And if the infiltrator turns out to be a sysop that votes Not Vandalism here then that's just too sick for words. My guess is that it's either Harrison or this one. User:Generaloberst/s 9:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah man I was just fucking with you. I don't know who that guy is nor do I really care. And you said it yourself, you considered it good faith. Why should we do otherwise. If you disagree with the edits, go ahead and remove them now. And if this is some ploy to bait us into revealing info garnered from checkuser, then i say to you again, stop shitting up A/VB. ~Vsig.png 15:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh and it case it wasn't obvious from my comments above, Not Vandalism ~Vsig.png 15:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
So if I had a problem with the edits at the time then you would have voted Vandalism? So in other words it's Not Vandalism now because the initial infiltration was succesful? Do you honestly think I wouldn't have brought him to vandal banning if I knew that he was an infiltrator at the time? This is seriously the shitties argument I've seen a sysop make so far in order not to give me what I want. Of course, Vapor, just go ahead and say that you was fucking around with me, bring up a nice excuse. I'm sure that right now your prive-message box is pretty full of mails from other sysops saying "don't ever leak that information again Vapor! You almost blew his cover!" I don't even have to give a valid reason why I don't want him to edit my pages. Whether it is that I suspect him of being an infiltrant or not, it doesn't matter. I take issue with his edits right now. Period. Sure, I'd like to know who he is. But if that guy has gathered any personal information about my group, the members of my group or myself and he's going to publish that elsewhere on the internet then every sysop on this wiki is responsible for that, because you all knew beforehand and did nothing about it. You should all resign immediately. This seriously exceeds every limit. User:Generaloberst/s 16:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
No, you're just being a paranoid sycophant. Nobody cares about your plans for "world domination". Seriously. NOBODY CARES and nobody is trying to infiltrate anything. Stop deluding yourself, man. Yes I trolled you. No, nobody told me not to reveal anything. Nobody cares about that, either. After all, everyone loves a good Misconduct case. ~Vsig.png 16:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Do you understand these words? Or do I fucking need to spell this out for you? I-TAKE-ISSUE. EVERYTHING-ELSE-DOES-NOT-MATTER. Just like any other vandal banning case. Since when do we even need to give a reason to take issue? I T-A-K-E I-S-S-U-E. PERIOD. User:Generaloberst/s 16:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Not Vandalism. Complex page ownership questions are better resolved by arbies, while you need to give us a darn good wiki-related reason when you want to see checkuser data released to the public. -- Spiderzed█ 16:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I created the page in my own group's userspace. How can an arbitration possibly resolve the case as Fascist Italian's possession? This is none-sense. This is seriously the biggest bunch of bullshit combined I've ever seen on this wiki. It's my page, he edited my page, I take issue. Period. User:Generaloberst/s 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
For your perusal. Good luck retro-actively punishing edits that you have approved of before without arbies. -- Spiderzed█ 17:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok Spiderzed. I want you to answer this with Yes or No. Does the fact that the edit is a month old and that I approved of it at the time, mean that it's unpunishable now? Yes or No. User:Generaloberst/s 17:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Just so you guys know, if any sensitive information about members of my group or myself leaks out, then I'm sending an abuse mail to the provider of urbandead.com + the site that hosts the information. If the 'admins' of this site are unwilling to resolve this, then more 'drastic' steps will be taken. I'm serious on this one. User:Generaloberst/s 17:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

THE-INTERNET-IS-SERIOUS-BUSINESS.jpg -- Spiderzed█ 17:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
because you've NEVER violated the TOS of the host site--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 17:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to send an abuse mail for me. User:Generaloberst/s 17:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
So, we're to be blamed for your stupidity now? And warning him for editing your group page is supposed to stop this person with whom you've shared sensitive information from leaking it? I don't see the logic here at all. Tanks for the good laugh, though. Seriously, " I TAKE ISSUE-hoo-hoo-hoo" That's golden. ~Vsig.png 17:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
How is it stupidity on my part if he infiltrated into our group? If he's going to publish sensitive information about the members of my group or myself then we can be 100% sure that he's an infiltrator. At that point I still don't know whether you guys knew beforehand or not. If it was his first account here, then you guys didn't know. If it was not his first account here (as it seems - I don't believe your word Vapor), then you guys knew it was coming and should have done something. Then it's as bad as simply publishing my IP here on the wiki. That is bad enough as it is to send an abuse mail. You guys claim that Hitler is responsible for the Holocaust as well because he didn't do anything to stop it. Same thing. But now you even show to be unwilling to give him a warning for something as clear-cut as editing a page not his, it shows that you guys are completely uninterested - as you said multiple times yourself Vapor - in solving this case. I've told you before that I take issue. Either you guys start solving the mess you caused yourself or I'll send an abuse mail the minute he publishes anything about my group. So choose for your hipstering or choose for your wiki. User:Generaloberst/s 17:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Any sensitive information that he published was not obtained on the wiki. It is not our job to moderate external communications and we have no way of doing so. I'd also like to note that I, for one, have seen very little evidence that points to him actually being an infiltrator.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 18:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Define "very little"? It isn't your job to not do anything about it when you know that he's trying to infiltrate either. If you know what he was up to then you could have known that he could obtain information such as IP adresses. I'm 95% sure that he's an infiltrator. And I'm 75% sure that you guys knew he what he was up to. User:Generaloberst/s 18:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
"very little" in this case meaning "nothing much beyond wild conspiracy theories that could *possible* be true"; the only evidence that I can see is his sudden disappearance. I have no additional knowledge whatsoever relating to whether or not he was an infiltrator; unless the other Sysops know the user personally off-wiki then there is no reason why they should have any additional knowledge either.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 01:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not understanding what the case is here. Did he or did he not work with you in that particular event? If he did, then the edit is factual and I can't see it being bad faith. If he didn't, then why didn't you report the edit at the time? I'm really not getting why what he did is supposed to be vandalism.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 17:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

He did work with me in the event, though, I believe he infiltrated in the group. Read the first two posts I placed on the page. Also the first time he edited the page I reported he hadn't been accepted into the alliance yet. So at that moment he was not considered to be working with us. As I said, I didn't like it that particular edit, I was honestly considering at the time to report it to vandal banning. Though I decided to hope for the best for that moment.
As soon as Fascist Italian thought he had learned something 'sensitive' through the mails he disappeared. At least that's what I think that happend. Either way he disappeared from UD, the wiki and his mail at the same time. What I think that basically happend after that is that Vapor "accidently" said too on Rosslessness' page when I confronted Rosslessness with the story. I think that Vapor is now trying to talk his way out of it by saying that he was simply trolling me. Furthermore, I think the sysops knew beforehand that he was going to infiltrate into our group. If I'm wrong about that, fine, but either way I take issue with the edits, so this vandal banning case is Vandalism. The reason why someone has taken issue has never mattered. I take issue with the edits now. Period. User:Generaloberst/s 18:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Any personal information posted on the wiki is a scheduled deletion, and will be deleted on sight, with even the editing revisions removed to protect anonymity, and vandal banning will follow that up with punishments including banning of the poster. The above case is however, none of these things. Not vandalism. --Rosslessness 18:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Cool. The minute he posts anything on any website on the internet about me or my group, I'll send abuse mails to the provider of urbandead.com, the involved website(s) and Fascist Italian's provider. Goedenavond.User:Generaloberst/s 18:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Saying what exactly? He obtained no information about you on this site. --Rosslessness 18:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
But the sysops did nothing to stop him from infiltrating in our group and obtaining information about us that way. User:Generaloberst/s 19:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
The sysops of this site did nothing (offsite) to stop them infiltrating your group (offsite) and obtaining information about you (offsite). If that information is published (onsite) we shall do something about it. (Onsite). Plus, in order to stop such an infiltration (which in itself is way beyond our sphere of influence) we would have had to know about it. I can state categorically I have no interest in learning private information about anyone here. Bosch's Cardigan was more than I could take. I could agree with you that if a sysop published information about you (offsite) thats definitely a case of clear misconduct. But this case isn't that at all. You believe a wiki account was created to spy on your organisation. During this procedure this account edited a page belonging to said organisation. You now want these edits ruled vandalism because that wiki account is in your eyes, a spy. --Rosslessness 19:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I want it ruled Vandalism for 3 reasons: 1. because I want to know who this is. 2. because I want to know if the sysops knew he was going to infiltrate (which I'm already quite sure about now, blame Vapor). (They can know that by checking if the guy had another account on the wiki. Don't say to me you didn't check Fascist Italian's IP Ross, I know you did, unless you are him.) 3. because I don't even have to give a reason why I take issue with someone editing my page... since when is that a rule? If I'm right about 2. then this case is really sad, because then the entire organisation was deliberately put at risk by the sysops of this wiki, and every one of you is guilty about that because none of you did anything to stop it, while you could have. So sure, go ahead, vote this Not Vandalism, then I will 1. know that you guys are biased (which I knew already anyway) 2. I will send abuse mails the minute he publishes anything. If Fascist Italian is reading this himself, I want him to know that the minute something of the group hits any website on the internet, I'll send an abuse mail to his provider. I have your IP, so I know where to send it. You don't want to get blacklisted with your provider, so don't even think about it. Vale. User:Generaloberst/s 0:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I think you've got bigger issues to worry about than the members of your group being revealed. Once the truth is out...hooboy! ~Vsig.png 18:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Is that a threat? You know that I can go to the police for something like that right? User:Generaloberst/s 19:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Ohnoes not tha po-lice!! Sting was better solo. ~Vsig.png 22:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

What on earth makes you think it's Harrison or THSB?  CrunchyCake  T  Breakfast Club 21:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

THSB, examining their choice of words. It's not impossible that he's American, he's active on the wiki (Vapor mentioned that "he's still around"). Fascist Italian didn't seem unexperienced in-game or on the wiki. THSB has been around for a while and a member of the RRF. It points to him at the moment. Harrison screamed something about San Diego on a page. Of course that doesn't prove anything, but it put me to think. Harrison does have his motives. Funny how he also stays away from this page, while normally he's always here to taunt me. User:Generaloberst/s 22:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Well you're doing a fine job of embarrassing yourself without him. He's probably just laughing his ass of like the rest of us right now. Or he will once he reads this. ~Vsig.png 22:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Case closed, Not vandalism. The edits in question were not vandalism. We have no way of knowing if he is a spai, and that is not punishable by us, unless he publishes personal info using the wiki, or edits your pages knowing that you don't want him to (and you can't retroactively remove your permission) -- boxy 00:21, 24 January 2012 (BST)

He didn't have permission to edit my page in the first place. I've told that a couple of times on this wiki already, in fact I said it in the fucking second post in this case: "At the time, I didn't like that he started to edit our page 'out of the blue' in steat of offering the alliance first. I didn't take issue with it at the time because I hoped for the best." But I know that you have a reading problem. Retard. User:Generaloberst/s 0:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
And "not taking issue with something" is not the same as "giving someone permission", before you say that again. But of course you won't reply now anymore. Seems infiltrating is ok these days. All of you guys are not a hair better than the zerger and returned banned vandal you doom me to be. User:Generaloberst/s 0:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Infiltration is not something that we have any power over. We just run the wiki. Unless you can link to where he vandalised your page, there is nothing we can do about it. Just because the edit was "unwanted", that doesn't make it vandalism. To quote, "we make the following notes on what isn't vandalism: ... An unwanted edit to any page." -- boxy 01:36, 24 January 2012 (BST)

What happened to only taking action on stuff with 100 AND ONLY VON UNDRED PERZENT PROOF DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 06:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

after reading half of this and getting bored, i have to say this is one of the most pathetic putsches i've seen on the wiki in a while DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 11:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
wow. first LOL! I love how all this shit always goes down when I take a break. I was in the mountains snowboarding the last 6 days. also I happen have a life and have better things to do that RP with a do nothing wanna be neo nazi. get a life loser.--User:Sexualharrison17:54, 24 January 2012 (bst)


Not Vandalism - Just to provide yet another one. Also, here's what we can tell you, he is not an account in any trackable way linked to another user on the wiki. There is, however, good reason to assume it's probably someone that doesn't normally edit the wiki that saw you and decided to either join to show support or as you imply spy on you(this is less likely). We can see that from the public logs, same as you, where the account was created, edited the wiki for three days, then vanished. Clearly they lurk at least to some degree as seen by the Protocols of the Elders of the Urban Dead Wiki page. Now, assuming your communications off wiki went as they seem to have from Fascists edits on Talk:Nazi_Zombies_(new) and Nazi_Zombies_(new)/Operation_Naaldloos and he provided the UD accounts information that he offers there there's a very good chance that he was either zerging to spy on you or actually completely sincere. Managing 17 accounts to strike a suburb seems a little excessive just to make you look foolish. Now Vapor, Vapor was also pulling your leg, unless someone came out to him in IRC or somewhere external and claimed it was them which I highly doubt, either way it has nothing to do with the wiki and since you conceded at the time that the Fascist was part of that strike page ownership actually does extend to him/them especially since the edits were improving on the article and thus in good faith. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 21:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Zombieman1i

Verdict Vandal Alt
Action taken Permaban

Zombieman 11 has graced us with his presence once more. Vandal alt perma'd. ~Vsig.png 01:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, checkuser confirms to be starwars attack squad from below. ~Vsig.png 01:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Star wars invasion squad

add new ones to the top, plz

23rd Jan

21st Jan

Verdict Vandal alt
Action taken perma

Another alt. Some sysops can rollback the edits in a few seconds. -- Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 07:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

He's been going at it for a while, I wouldn't bother if you're not a sysops with rollback, it's well over a 100 pages now.-- Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 07:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Nah fuck that shit he don't mess with the dancinator DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
We were duelling so long we broke the wiki. true story DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Done, perma -- boxy 08:46, 21 January 2012 (BST)

20th Jan

Verdict Vandal Alt
Action taken Permaban

More Star Wars fun. Vapor has already perma'd it. -- Spiderzed█ 00:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Soz, only had time to block at that moment. ~Vsig.png 01:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


Verdict Vandal Alt
Action taken Permaban

--Shortround 23:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Obvious Vandal Alt is obvious. Perma'd. And thanks for rolling back. -- Spiderzed█ 23:19, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
No problem. Nice job on the ban, I could have been stuck there for a while. :) --Shortround 23:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
why dont you guys look this guy ip and get in touch with the swtor wiki admin staff and arrange to have him banned there unless he stops vandalizing here ? --hagnat 01:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Proxy IPs, otherwise he would have stayed banned when we perma'd his main, who is presumably Zombieman11. ~Vsig.png 01:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
The latest ones might be proxy, but i doubt he was that smart with his first vandal ;) --hagnat 13:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
LOL DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
HOLY SHIT thats actually a pretty awesome idea. do that shit, for brilliance DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 23:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

17th Jan

Verdict Vandal Alt
Action taken Permaban

See the other Star Wars invasions on this page. -- Spiderzed█ 00:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

14 Jan

Verdict Vandal Alt
Action taken Permaban

Perma'd. ~Vsig.png 01:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

6th Jan

Verdict Vandal Alt
Action taken Perma

See here. Went on a short vandal spree. Perma'd as vandal alt. ~Vsig.png 22:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


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.


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/2012_04&oldid=1976405"