UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2010 03

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.

• 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)

  Damn I legit missed these, thanks. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:13, 21 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)

March 2010

User:Gabe896

Gabe896 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	{{{1}}}
Action taken	{{{2}}}

Every single contribution of 2010. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Ravenium

Ravenium (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	{{{1}}}
Action taken	{{{2}}}

Impersonation. Normally I'd let this go as a newbie error, but he's shown before that he's capable of signing correctly, even in danger reports and the impersonation was to disparage a group without proof, it's drama causing vandalism that he's committed. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting - I've attempted to post current statuses of buildings as I progress through suburbs (and have in fact done dozens of these), yet you find the one where I apparently neglected to properly update the username? When I first started my updates on here, I admit I didn't RTFW and didn't realize at first that you could just hit four tildes instead of manually updating the user/timestamp, so this resulted in a lot of mis-dated building danger level updates (as well as bad signature links).

Furthermore, my "agenda" is to provide current status updates for survivors on buildings, seeing as a status left at "safe" would be counterproductive if zeds are currently raiding the beer fridge inside. If this is an incorrect use, I'd appreciate someone explaining how. You, on the other hand, seem to use building danger updates to disparage others or boast about how Super Awesome Cool your particular group is (a good example is where you tried to take credit and brag about an RP you didn't even have any hand in whatsoever). It's come to the point wherein you have repeatedly deleted my updates on buildings simply because you seem to have something against me.

I realize that this game is extremely dominated by zed groups and PKers, but there are those of us who like the added challenge of actually playing survivor. It would help if you didn't behave like an asshat on top of it, too. Ravenium 01:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

"so this resulted in a lot of mis-dated building danger level updates (as well as bad signature links)"

An out and out lie. Checking your contributions show that all contributions prior to your vandalism were exactly the same as server time, every single one, different time zones maybe, but not one wrong, nor any indication that you were placing bad sig links or rushing to fix off-dates.

Regardless of what you think, it was an oops. The nature of wikis makes it pretty much impossible to pass off your edit as someone else's.

"my "agenda" is to provide current status updates for survivors"

Then you're on the wrong wiki. This wiki is here for both sides, if you can't understand basic NPOV criteria, LURK MOAR!

Um...that sentiment goes both ways. I said my updates were for the benefit of survivors, not in the survivor POV. "LURK MOAR?" What are you, 15?

"You, on the other hand, seem to use building danger updates to disparage others or boast about how Super Awesome Cool your particular group is" - ::Might be an idea that you do your homework first. I am not, and never have been, a member of the Militant Order of Barhah. Though you have claimed they're griefers, without providing a single shred of evidence, even when asked by a member. Your 'mistake' seems a little 'convenient', disparage a group using someone else's signature. Not only are you a vandal, but a spineless one for not owning up when caught.

It was my description of the action taking place. If that is a sensitive term, then clearly I should refrain from using it as it would violate NPOV. Again, if you think my failure to properly understand how to sign things is some devious plot, then I'm quite frankly insulted.

Then again, given the politically charged crap on your user page, I think I know all I need to know about you.

"I realize that this game is extremely dominated by zed groups and PKers"

Basic common sense and the stats page diagrees with you. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place to argue lies, damned lies, or statistics, but apparently you don't know the definition of "dominated". It seems to me that a horde of 20-30 zeds vs 60 loose survivors is still pretty dominating. I realize it's the game, but it doesn't mean it's not frustrating.

What's that? 64% survivors at the moment, and this game is "extremely dominated" by zed groups and PKers? Go get nommed by what is clearly a griefer horde. Clearly. --Shank Case 01:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

My borderline hilarious inability to understand how shopping mall barricades work is not the subject of discussion here. Anyhow, what the hell did I ever do to you? Ravenium 02:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Zyckde

Zyckde (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warning

Editing a group page of which he is not a member. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Warned. Cyberbob  Talk  12:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Silly Newb mistake, but Vandalism. Lets give him some tough love. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Nezhaulcoyotl_II

Nezhaulcoyotl_II (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Super Evil Obvious Alt of Permabanned User
Action taken	Perma'd

Alt of the above. Follows the exact same MO as the last version, create userpage with mythic image immediately uploaded. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh man, got any checkuser data to back this up, or just a simple series of edits? If I created a user and made a userpage edit and uploaded an image would I get permabanned? --

 

 

 

 

04:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

20 minutes after admitting that one alt had been caught (roughly the time it was taking for him to sort proxies on the mass vandalism attack the other night) a 'new' user shows up with exactly the same MO and writing style....

Don't I remember J3D getting demoted for making sarky comments instead of dealing with a vandal account? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't I remember J3D's demotion being a culmination of his terrible behaviour as a sysop because he defended his friends (one of which, sexylegsread, actually made the alt account in question, as a direct attack on another user? Oh, not to mention the IP evidence against said alt account which was more than enough evidence to ban on sight unlike this one)? Oh yes, that's perfect precedence. But you know misconduct when you see it, why not send me to A/M now? Do the honours, sherlock. --

 

 

 

 

04:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

All this crying and still no ruling? Go ahead and say not vandalism, I enjoy the 'I told you so' song. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

When I squint that almost sounds like backseat modding, hmm. I'm not ruling yet because I'm not sure, and only because I've spent more effort in my day responding to your trolling than actually checking this user out fully. You are an energy sapper, you. --

 

 

 

 

04:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

stop arguing over me guys its embarrassing, nothing has been stopped FA18hornet 05:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Check user shows nothing, but then again, it wouldn't. I'm going to rule vandalism on suspicion and good circumstantial evidence. 23:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm ruling Not Vandalism. All it takes is for the above vandal to see we are making a fuss out of this account and claim it is his, to see if we are so paranoid we ban this one too. I'm not saying I'll be surprised if it is, but I'm not going gun-ho on all suspect accounts when there is no evidence, I'd rather wait for it to do an act of (easily reversible) vandalism first, to make sure. I'll happily admit if I'm wrong. --

 

 

 

 

23:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Six fucking days to rule, and now you decide to so I have to move it into the new archive. Thanks. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Boo-fucking hoo. I was waiting for the impending vandalism you promised the account would make. Goes to show what happens when I listen to you. --

 

 

 

 

23:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism. DDR, quit doing things because you don't like the user who brought the case.--Big Cat 22:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, lol.--Big Cat 22:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I find that offensive. Go back to wherever you came from, you little shit. --

 

 

 

 

22:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Only if you join me! ;)--Big Cat 00:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Everyone wants to rule vandalism but no one actually wants to go through with banning the account? What a mighty surprise. Banned. --

 

 

 

 

06:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Pretty sure most situations like that have more to do with not wanting to jump the gun and risk a misconduct case in case sysops come out of nowhere and decide they disagree with the decision rather than any actual reluctance to see the person banned Cyberbob  Talk  11:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That is garbage, I can't express how much precedence there is in a/m already to say that a sysop cannot be misconducted for simply acting on a ruling that is supported via sysop votes. --

 

 

 

 

11:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It's never stopped people from trying, and sysops can be fickle about deciding whether or not there was enough of a chance given for other rulings to be made. Cyberbob  Talk  11:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Nubis once used a case on Iscariot that didn't have a single ruling to rule vandalism, ban him for a week (when it should have been a day) based off his one ruling and then proceed to press the sysops into voting for his permaban while izzy was too busy being banned to defend his own case. he got off on unanimous not misconduct. You see where I'm going here? I really don't think users like SA didn't close this case cause he was scared of being a/m'd. he was probably more scared of actually having go onto udwiki itself. --

 

 

 

 

11:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

man you crazy Cyberbob  Talk  12:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)