UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2010 09

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.


September 2010

User:Dezonus

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

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

Made identical posts on 24 talk pages.
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]
As I recall, anything more than 20 is vandalism. Discus. --VVV RPMBG 23:10, 16 September 2010 (BST)

Vandalism - Over 20 pages means he's a spammer.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:47, 16 September 2010 (BST)

I'm not sure this should apply as simple spamming, or we should at least discuss this first. Firstly, he is simply targeting groups that have self-labelled themselves as active survivor groups, that means they may be interested. This is simply an on-wiki version of, say, Justinbronze contacting the groups via their forums for POLNGOAK, except Dez opted to contact them via the wiki. Also, as I was forced to cite scores of times in Revenant's recent case, Karek's "It's a situational thing", meaning, if you think 20 is the point-of-no-return mark of vandalism, I think you're ruling for the wrong reason. He could have targeted 19 of the same survivor groups and just left out 5 of those above simply to avoid an escalation, and that mentality is just retarded. I also like in-game related advertisements to interested groups, I think it keeps the game interesting and fresh and allows users, if they are so inclined, to promote their own events or organisations. I'm abstaining for now, but if no one else has anything more to add to this conversation I'll be voting NV by the time the case is through.

In fact, the more I think about it, if shit like this counts as vandalism then I am gonna buttfuck Poodle for his faggy RIAC (links) shit where he spammed inactive groups, zombie groups, the BIG BASH and fucking KEVAN. Nice work on the objectivity in reporting, UUU. -- LEMON #1 04:01, 17 September 2010 (BST)

Nice work on the consistency DDR. ¬_¬
I didn't agree with this notion last time it was brought up and I still don't. Not vandalism by virtue of being good faith edits. Nothing to be done! 04:05, 17 September 2010 (BST)
Besides the accusation, I don't think this case is anything much like the Rev case at all. Aichon summarises in a way I agree with below. -- LEMON #1 05:01, 17 September 2010 (BST)
And while I'm here, I like that I'm still labelled as the poster boy for oppression when the sysops are the ones who voted in favour of Rev's spamming as vandalism. -- LEMON #1 06:44, 17 September 2010 (BST)
I also don't think this case is like Rev's, but this guy chose 24 arbitrary groups and posted the exact same message on all of their pages. Some of them are nowhere near his group in the city, and it makes absolutely no sense for him to have contacted them, unless he randomly picked 24 groups and copy/pasted the message on their talks, which, in my opinion, is definition spam.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 07:39, 17 September 2010 (BST)

Not Vandalism - And before folks cite the case with Revenant and the mayoral campaign a few months back, I think there's a big difference between posting a message related to repairing a suburb on the talk pages of survivor groups (i.e. something that they could reasonably be expected to take an interest in) and posting a message asking people to change their votes (and humorously threatening to PK them if they don't) on the talk pages of people that chose to vote against you. 20 is not some magical number after which everything is automatically vandalism. It's just a number we use as a baseline. We still need to consider the message and the audience. All of that said, he should still be told to try and use the established means to announce community projects in the future, rather than contacting people in this manner. While I don't consider this case to be vandalism, I don't think it's the way things should be done either. —Aichon— 04:08, 17 September 2010 (BST)

I agree with pretty much everything DDR said as well, which he edit conflicted me to say. —Aichon— 04:09, 17 September 2010 (BST)

User:TonyDanza

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

Verdict Vandalism
Action taken Perma

This this and this. --Scott Timewell Imperium CFT 09:59, 15 September 2010 (BST)

Permban - dedicated vandal account -- boxy talk • teh rulz 10:03 15 September 2010 (BST)

User:Slater01

Slater01 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict Vandalism
Action taken Main Warned, Alt Banned

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

User:MKer did this and this and IP check leads to Slater01 as a main. Banned the vandal account and warned main. -- LEMON #1 11:00, 14 September 2010 (BST)

I just received an email from Slater expressing regret about the allegations of zerging and has kindly asked me to wipe his talk page whilst he is at a computer that has UDWiki blocked. I've wiped the talk and replied asking if he'd like the allegations on the main wiped too, but in the meantime I've just blanked his talk. -- LEMON #1 12:51, 15 September 2010 (BST)

User:TexasXdooM

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

Verdict Vandalism
Action taken Warned

Pls warn for this lolstrocity, is an oldie but a goodie. has been warned before here -- LEMON #1 13:08, 8 September 2010 (BST)

Vandalism, obviously. Given the age, I'll wait for someone else to chime in before actually warning him. —Aichon— 15:18, 8 September 2010 (BST)

Blatant Vandalism - I'll have a crack at warning him, but I'm a tad tired so we'll see.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature2 08:43, 10 September 2010 (BST)

He be Warned --User:Yonnua Koponen/signature2 08:49, 10 September 2010 (BST)

User:Bullish

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

Verdict Vandalism
Action taken 24hr ban/Alt permaed

Blanking several zombie related groups.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature2 18:27, 3 September 2010 (BST)

Temporarily blocked while I deal with this.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature2 18:29, 3 September 2010 (BST)
I'm going with a ruling of Vandalism. He stopped after my temporary 3 minute ban, so hopefully he won't start again.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature2 18:37, 3 September 2010 (BST)

I'm going with Vandalism and Permaban as a vandal alt. IP check confirms that he shares an address with Celmare (and a similar MO too), and the rest of his addresses look like open proxies that need to be banned as well. —Aichon— 18:45, 3 September 2010 (BST)

Murderball it. Nothing to be done! 18:47, 3 September 2010 (BST)

Vandalism. Blanking Suburb pages an pk'er pages as well. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 18:49, 3 September 2010 (BST)
Also I agree with Aichon. They do share the same IP addresses. All of which should be banned as highly suspect proxy Ip's --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 18:52, 3 September 2010 (BST)

Perma as Aich. -- LEMON #1 18:52, 3 September 2010 (BST)

Permaban. We should technically vote, I guess. If so, we need one more sysop.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature2 19:07, 3 September 2010 (BST)
Not really. Its an alt of the main that's been vandalising. Permaban the vandal alt, warn the main. Again. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 22:23, 3 September 2010 (BST)

Permban the bullish alt, and an escalation for Celmare -- boxy talk • teh rulz 23:39 3 September 2010 (BST)

Done -- boxy talk • teh rulz 01:49 4 September 2010 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2010_09&oldid=1780120"