UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2009 03
|
Vandal Banning Archive | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 2009
User:Alex1guy
Abcvirus (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | {{{1}}} |
|---|---|
| Action taken | {{{2}}} |
Blanking a user page --_Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 04:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
User:Abcvirus
Abcvirus (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | {{{1}}} |
|---|---|
| Action taken | {{{2}}} |
repeated impersonation, despite Boxy's reverting and several informative (non admin) warnings on his talk page DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- two more. Argh, it may not be bad enough to get the bandal award, but its soooo annoying to read! DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
User:Scar
Scar (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Permanently Banned |
Spamming. --Midianian¦T¦DS¦SP¦ 16:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Spamming?! After I finish you, you will be spam! --Scar 17:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Vandalism and
37 counts of Threatening. Banned. Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 18:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)- That's streching quite a bit of what "threat" means. The only one that could in any sensible way be construed as a threat is the one directed at me, the rest are pretty obviously RP (what with the present tense, brackets and all). --Midianian¦T¦DS¦SP¦ 19:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's a known spammer. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's streching quite a bit of what "threat" means. The only one that could in any sensible way be construed as a threat is the one directed at me, the rest are pretty obviously RP (what with the present tense, brackets and all). --Midianian¦T¦DS¦SP¦ 19:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Vandalism and
User:Iscariot
Iscariot (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | {{{1}}} |
|---|---|
| Action taken | {{{2}}} |
Needlessly insulting people on a personal level based on their religious beliefs, also mentions molestation of minors. More evidence of Iscariot purposely insulting believers in a specific religion..--Super Nweb 05:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, here it is. Vandalism by constant harassment of users. User has a history of being hostile, insulting, and creating nuisance cases here and on A/A. Requesting a ban for a user that has shown a majority of his edits are vandalism rather than actual good faith contributions. --– Nubis NWO 07:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to A/VB. Next time try and use specific edit difference when you bring a case. Now, assuming there's no bias in the ruling on the case, this is open and shut Not Vandalism. We have no civility policy on this wiki, also as much as you'd like to suppress the truth, everything I'm saying is true. Of course, Christians have been trying to silence those who have been disagreeing with them for the past two millennia, so this is hardly a surprise. Perhaps you should follow the advice of someone who understands the religion better than you. -- 
.
. <== DDR Approved Editor 07:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Edit conflicted - There's the bias, notice the ruling on this case, yet with no ruling on the one below that's still open. --
.
. <== DDR Approved Editor 07:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Since when do you need a reason to insult stupid suggestions? Not vandalism -- boxy talk • teh rulz 07:49 5 March 2009 (BST)
- Ah, yes, boxy takes the simple route and ignores the big picture. You never surprise us. You see, there is a pattern here. When people accuse Iscariot of basic vandalism most often it is NOT vandalism. When people accuse him of harassment it is ALWAYS harassment. It's that black and white. Is he blanking pages? No. Is he threatening and attacking users? Yes. Nice to see that you will let him stay around so that we can deal with more of his petty cases and general bad attitude. --– Nubis NWO 14:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Vandalism as Nubis. I would have ruled sooner but for some reason Vandal Banning doesnt show up on my watchlist. Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 18:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's a new archive, you didn't add it yet. Dork. :P -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- The hell? There is no civility policy on this wiki. That's been shown in several cases across different parts of the Administration. How you can rule Vandalism here beggars belief.-- Adward 20:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- There is on suggestions which is why his vote is struck but it's not vandalism. Honestly though if he keeps up harassing users that's not a civility issue that is one of vandalism and users have been escalated for as much in the past.--Karekmaps?! 21:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- I ruled vandalism because we now have the Host TOS in play, and IMHO this violates restriction 1. And although the Wiki does not have a civility policy, TOS supersedes Wiki policy. The sysops will be working on exactly how things are going to have to be interpreted initially and then we'll go to the community from there once we have an impact evaluation and discussion. Yes ladies and gentlemen, the Red tape just got even better. Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 22:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Still even if he isn't blanking pages it isn't helping, and mostly harming the wiki to make needless insults on people's character and religion. This should be a punishable offense.--Super Nweb 22:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing a ToS violation here. His idiotic opinion isn't particularly at the point where I'd call it racist just characteristically uninformed and biased. --Karekmaps?! 22:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- So it would be fine if I called you one of the "delusional fuckwits" who doesn't agree with me. that is completely called for and relevant to a civil discussion on using a piece of wood to hit a zombie? Yeah I don't see the logic there. His statements are irrelevant personal attacks on users.--Super Nweb 23:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Shut up, you delusional fuckwit. Did your non-existant god tell you to say that? Tell him to fuck off. --_Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 23:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- So it would be fine if I called you one of the "delusional fuckwits" who doesn't agree with me. that is completely called for and relevant to a civil discussion on using a piece of wood to hit a zombie? Yeah I don't see the logic there. His statements are irrelevant personal attacks on users.--Super Nweb 23:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- I ruled vandalism because we now have the Host TOS in play, and IMHO this violates restriction 1. And although the Wiki does not have a civility policy, TOS supersedes Wiki policy. The sysops will be working on exactly how things are going to have to be interpreted initially and then we'll go to the community from there once we have an impact evaluation and discussion. Yes ladies and gentlemen, the Red tape just got even better. Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 22:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- There is on suggestions which is why his vote is struck but it's not vandalism. Honestly though if he keeps up harassing users that's not a civility issue that is one of vandalism and users have been escalated for as much in the past.--Karekmaps?! 21:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I would like to point out that using the ToS page I just created as a backing reason for any ruling is just...dumb. We still have to set it up, find out it's interpretations and how they'd relate to us specifically with our policies and such, and everything else that's required with something like this.
Also, Not Vandalism as I've seen worse things being said. Also, lack of a civility policy FTW. Can someone point out to me how his user page insults those of a particular faith? The only thing I see is a lovely Dune quote (Ya Hya Chouhada! Muad'Dib! Muad'Dib! Muad'Dib!) and a quote I have only heard from the Legacy of Kain series.
All this is not to say that he will forever be excused from punishment should I decide that his treatment of other users goes too far. Iscariot, please tone it down some.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 01:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 01:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
User:Jarethshadow
Jarethshadow (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Warned |
Editing a userpage without permission from the owner. Page clearly warns against this at the top and provides the link to authorised users. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Warned--– Nubis NWO 07:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
User:Rick Astley
Rick Astley (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Permanently Banned |
Go right ahead and demonstrate bias again. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- DA page too Linkthewindow Talk 00:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- You've just been Rickroll'd! =) Rick Astley 00:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- There's this page as well - not as clear cut as the above, but it can hardly be called good faith. Linkthewindow Talk 00:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Clearly a pure vandalism account, so b&. --ZsL 00:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
User:Athur birling
Athur birling (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Warned |
Looks like impersonation. --Midianian¦T¦DS¦SP¦ 12:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Admission of guilt. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 13:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Warned -- boxy talk • teh rulz 05:38 2 March 2009 (BST)
User:Abcvirus
Abcvirus (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Warned |
This and other repeated vandalism to Mall Tour pages. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- So far we've had, repeated vandalism to every Mall Tour page, two suburb pages and impersonation of an admin. I want an IP check on this, I suspect I already know the culprit. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I truely sorry, I am truely sorry about all the things I done in the webpages, I hope you can forgive me, and I will never do this again. I promise with my good-side of my whole heart.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abcvirus (talk • contribs) 03:46, March 1, 2009.
Warned - and very close to an instant perm-ban, but the edits to the suburb page can be seen as trying to be constructive, perhaps. If the vandalism continues, it will be upgraded. Doesn't show up as an IP match for anyone here lately -- boxy talk • teh rulz 03:49 1 March 2009 (BST)
- A warning? Are you serious Boxy? Those edits in Shackleville were in no way constructive, nor were they in any way an improvement to the wiki. I don't think we should give him a perma-ban now that you've already pulled this shit, but Boxy, the fact that it happens to be something Iscariot is heavily involved with makes me wonder that for once, his cries of bias may be true.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 14:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, wait, strike that, he added an and into a place where it was needed. How could I EVER doubt that that was constructive?--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 14:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- There's a difference between someone with a known problem and someone without one. Permabaning is a last resort and should only be used on a three edit in the most extreme cases where it is blatantly obvious that they will never attempt to contribute. If he keeps it up he gets permabanned, right now he's essentially a new user that broke some rules and Iscariot is gonna whine about and probably threaten instead of behaving like a grown up. Don't indulge him, Vandal Banning isn't here to ban users, it's here to let them know when they start crossing the line and provide them with the chance to alter their behavior. --Karekmaps?! 18:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, come on now, Karek. You have to realize that in order to show how not biased they are against Iscariot they have to go to the other extreme and support Iscariot. It doesn't matter that banning was never meant as a punishment of a bad user, but as a last ditch effort to stop vandalism. You are either with Iscariot or against him in this world. --– Nubis NWO 15:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- There's a difference between someone with a known problem and someone without one. Permabaning is a last resort and should only be used on a three edit in the most extreme cases where it is blatantly obvious that they will never attempt to contribute. If he keeps it up he gets permabanned, right now he's essentially a new user that broke some rules and Iscariot is gonna whine about and probably threaten instead of behaving like a grown up. Don't indulge him, Vandal Banning isn't here to ban users, it's here to let them know when they start crossing the line and provide them with the chance to alter their behavior. --Karekmaps?! 18:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Before another round of complaints roll in, I noticed that he's started submitting danger reports without signing them (like this). So it looks like he's impersonating other users. However, considering he didn't sign his comment on this topic either, I'm inclined to think he does not know how. So I posted a WelcomeNewbie to his talk page, along with an offer to answer questions. I think he's trying to help, but he's on a dangerous course if he does not start to learn. ~ extropymine Talk | NW | 4Corners 04:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
