UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2010 04
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)
April 2010
User:Apclear
{vndl|Apclear}}{{verdict}
Some childish page tampering. Open and shut really. 19:30, 17 April 2010 (BST)
User:Thaedracy (2)
Thaedracy (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Verdict | Vandalism |
---|---|
Action taken | One week ban |
Used an alternate account to subvert his two day ban currently in force. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:10, 12 April 2010 (BST)
Vandalism - warning should be made to Thaed and a perma to radio girl. IRL issues mean I won't be able to do this just now, so if no one has done/complained in the next few hours I will do it myself tonight. --
08:02, 13 April 2010 (BST)
- I'd do it the other way around, but yeah, Vandalism. 12:10, 13 April 2010 (BST)
- well, technically, the new one is the 'alt' since it was made first. and hey, even though she uses the "old main", banning the "new alt" as a vandal alt and keeping the "vandal main" (after banning for a week as per escalations) only inconveniences her more. And when it comes to a retard using an alt to vandalise for personal lols, the less concessions the better. And I'm demoting tomorow, so bring on the A/M cases ;D --
- CISMONDUCT! 13:32, 13 April 2010 (BST)
- DDR is right. The Thaed account was created first and the RG account is the one guilty of vandalism with these edits (namely circumventing the ban to the primary account). RG needs perma-ing and Thaed needs a week adding to his go away clause. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 13:45, 13 April 2010 (BST)
13:31, 13 April 2010 (BST)
- CISMONDUCT! 13:32, 13 April 2010 (BST)
- well, technically, the new one is the 'alt' since it was made first. and hey, even though she uses the "old main", banning the "new alt" as a vandal alt and keeping the "vandal main" (after banning for a week as per escalations) only inconveniences her more. And when it comes to a retard using an alt to vandalise for personal lols, the less concessions the better. And I'm demoting tomorow, so bring on the A/M cases ;D --
User:Thaedracy
Thaedracy (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Verdict | Vandalism |
---|---|
Action taken | 2 Day Ban |
Blanking userpages. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 05:37, 11 April 2010 (BST)
- banned for 48. Looks like he didn't learn from that 24 hour ban, eh iscariot!! ;D ;D If only it were two days from the getgo! ;D ;D --
- That 24 hour ban stopped him for three weeks it seems, looks like the duration doesn't need to be increased :P -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:13, 11 April 2010 (BST)
06:07, 11 April 2010 (BST)
IP check brings up User:Radio Girl with same IPs. God knows which one is the dedicated vandal account *sarcasm* --
06:35, 11 April 2010 (BST)
User:Cornholioo(2)
Cornholioo (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Verdict | Vandalism |
---|---|
Action taken | Warning |
Cornholioo has repetedly ([1] [2] [3]) removed this template from this page. Infrastructure 14:12, 10 April 2010 (BST)
What the fuck is this shit. Seriously. 14:41, 10 April 2010 (BST)
At this point Corn appears to have finally decided on an acceptable arbiter on his initial Battle of Krinks page. With that in mind it may be prudent to protect this page as a larger part of that case, as it seems to be basically the same issue. Thoughts? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 14:43, 10 April 2010 (BST)
- That would be giving him attention, which is all he actually wants. 14:46, 10 April 2010 (BST)
- That is a fair point, but I think it's just a page he's made to work around the fact that he can't edit the other one. =/ I get the feeling we should stop "battle of..." pages being made while the conflict is ongoing. Wait until they're done before writing anything up. -- Cheese 14:48, 10 April 2010 (BST)
- What the.. Infrastructure 14:59, 10 April 2010 (BST)
Oh someone's warned him already. Either way, I'm adding to the manpile. Vandalism. --
15:33, 10 April 2010 (BST)
User:Sgt Raiden
Sgt Raiden (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Verdict | Vandalism |
---|---|
Action taken | 24hr Ban |
Blanking sections of another user's talk page. This includes several comments that were not his own. 05:26, 10 April 2010 (BST)
- Vandalism - He's been warned for a blanking incident before (albeit, that one was more significant), so he should know better. You can't go blanking parts of someone's page. —Aichon— 05:55, 10 April 2010 (BST)
When it comes to wiki griefing, this guy fails. Vandalism, and so it comes to a 24hour ban. --
06:08, 10 April 2010 (BST)
User:Boom12389
Boom12389 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Verdict | Vandalism |
---|---|
Action taken | Warned |
Rule 10 of the suggestions system. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:05, 5 April 2010 (BST)
Warned. --
05:29, 6 April 2010 (BST)
User:Cornholioo
Cornholioo (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Verdict | Not Vandalism |
---|---|
Action taken | {{{2}}} |
Probably not the right place/way to do this, but.. What the heck. Cornholioo edited a user's archive. I'm not a very good reader, but from what I can see that's against the rules. Infrastructure 14:51, 3 April 2010 (BST)
- Sigh. Not Vandalism, just petty. The classic "wait until the other person has left and then think of what you wanted to say to them that would have been cool". I assume that the user in question will ignore the comment as its in an archive. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 16:06, 4 April 2010 (BST)
- Not Vandalism - But only barely, since it may not be clear that new comments are not welcome on that page. It's a user page for a user with whom he is currently in conflict and whose page he has previously vandalized (and been warned for). He was also soft warned over a similar issue, but the fact that the page holds comments for a recent line of discussion that was moved there quickly may have led to the confusion over what was proper. Another soft warning, I think, since it's not clear that it was bad faith. —Aichon— 21:02, 4 April 2010 (BST)
- Not Vandalism - However, for peace of mind to Zyckde, I undid the edit, as it was archived by him for a reason. -- 02:02, 5 April 2010 (BST)