UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2011 01

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.


January 2011

User:Lady Kikyou

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

Verdict Ban avoidance
Action taken Permaban

Checkuser confirms that this is Izumi. I'm doing bans now, and I'm making sure the IP stays banned this time.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 08:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to do far more than ban my IP to get rid of me, Yonnua. I've been doing this for over 3 years now, spending the majority of it undetected. DO you really think for one second I don't have this business on lock by now? I guess I have too much spare time. Haha. Anywho I know this account will be banned so I've taken the liberty of creating 12 more. Good luck finding them all, prick. Ciao for now! Lady Kagome 10:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Noggin Big Head

Noggin Big Head (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

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

Not sure what this guy was on about, but I've questioned him on his talk page. Anyways it might not be worth it to wait for a response. If you see his contributions he just deleted a bunch of useful stuff, mainly to the featured articles page, and then added "your face bitches" as a nice comment. Charming stuff.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 04:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure his insults don't save him from the 3 edit rule, but I'll wait for a second opinion.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 08:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

User:WOOT

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

Verdict Not Vandalism
Action taken {{{2}}}

Spamming up admin sections, by creating the case below. Forcing a ban through Arbitration is laughable in itself and only proves my point made in the earlier case of Karloth and Ashley. --Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png Talk 23:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Not Vandalism - I'm not exactly a fan of the guy but this is still something that strikes me as a reasonable enough case (especially given some we've had). Whilst it's unlikely the A/A ruling will be upheld, it's still worth the involved users' effort to get an actual say on why not. They never lynch children, babies—no matter what they do they are whitewashed in advance 00:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Not Vandalism - Posting the request on A/VB is the normal thing one would do given an arbies ruling of this kind, and at the point of his posting, the case was for all intents and purposes a serious one. Plus it's not really spamming so much, just one simple case. -- LEMON #1 01:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Not Vandalism - Putting through a request which should be over-ruled.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 15:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Not Vandalism - Just. -- Cheese 17:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Ashley_Valentine

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

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

The decision as reached by the court of Rakuen was for 12 Venus days or something. Enact now please.--/~Rakuen~\Talk Domo.gif I Still Love Grim 23:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

A single Venusian day is 243 earth days, so that should be about 8.1 years. --Karloth Vois ¯\(°_o)/¯ 23:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Stupid ruling with no grounds. They've been over-ruled before, and I personally refuse to uphold it.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Will rule when I read the arby. Though, in the meantime, arby him. They never lynch children, babies—no matter what they do they are whitewashed in advance 00:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with Yonnua. Well past the point of ridiculous. -- Cheese 17:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Karloth vois and User:Ashley Valentine

Karloth vois (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss) Ashley Valentine (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

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

Making arbitration cases for the sake of amusing themselves (Aka "Joke"). WOOT's sudden appearance 5 minutes after this mess started is also a good hint that this was set-up from outside the wiki. Spamming admin sections in other words. --Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png Talk 22:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Turning into a complete mess now. --Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png Talk 23:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
As I stated before, this is a serious matter. Please do not joke around. It is irresponsible.--/~Rakuen~\Talk Domo.gif I Still Love Grim 23:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Uh-huh. --Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png Talk 23:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
If it's a serious matter, follow the instructions and make a separate page.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Are we really going to take their word for it, when it is blatantly obvious it isn't serious?--Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png Talk 23:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
No, but I want it off the main arbies page, and I'm waiting for other sysops to turn up and rule.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Not Vandalism. Move the case to its own page as standard. Joke arbies are precedented as not vandalism (see Misanthropy vs Axe Hack, Poodle of Doom vs DDR). They never lynch children, babies—no matter what they do they are whitewashed in advance 00:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Not Vandalism - We seem to be pretty lenient towards joking cases on Arbies, even if they aren't funny (see poodle vs ddr). And to be honest, as long as they don't become a huge nuisance and aren't actually trying to harm anyone, at the moment I'm willing to let people make a joke on arbies (which is unfortunately already a bit of a joke in itself), as long as it doesn't become spam, it's in good spirit and it doesn't seep too heavily onto other admin sections of the wiki. -- LEMON #1 01:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism because I'm pretty sure that "Administration" bit in the page means it's for serious disputes. -- Cheese 17:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you guys understand. This was 100% serious. DevilAsh has accepted his punishment. I'm just waiting on you guys to enact it.--/~Rakuen~\Talk Domo.gif I Still Love Grim 20:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Pikachu

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

Verdict Lol Avoidance
Action taken Permabanned

Edittign Izumi's page and MO matches Izumi perfectly. Holding off due to lack of IP. Can we have clearance to blast anything Izumi-ish until this tides over?--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 21:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yup. Banned. -- LEMON #1 00:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

If more of these come up I'll be having the page protected. For a very, very long time, as per the Cornholioo thing. -- LEMON #1 00:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Lady Fate

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

Verdict Ban avoidance
Action taken Permaban

Checkuser confirms that this is Izumi.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 20:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I've closed this because the IP made it blatant. Permabanned --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 20:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2011_01&oldid=1831565"