UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning
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
|
January 2013
User:Kitakaze
| Verdict | Ridiculousness |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Schrodinger's Ban |
Trololol :D --Thadeous Oakley Talk 16:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- I would wait til the end of the pending vote in case she wants to comment further. Then ban. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 16:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. Yes, it's a vandal account. We all know that. But its only crime so far is ban avoidance, not something more serious. We can let it slide for a few weeks while this stuff sorts itself out. And if the vote doesn't go in her favor or she decides to shoot her chances of getting un-perma'd by using this account to vandalize, we'll simply ban the account at that point (and I'll change my vote on A/DE). —Aichon— 17:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- I rule with a clear-cut Regnat Populus. While we technically could and should ban her for ban avoidance, it would be a slap in the face for the popular vote, as it would be forcibly put on ice for 6 months by a sys-op only action. Leave it to A/DE for the time being, unless Zoomi decides to go haywire. -- Spiderzed█ 19:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. Yes, it's a vandal account. We all know that. But its only crime so far is ban avoidance, not something more serious. We can let it slide for a few weeks while this stuff sorts itself out. And if the vote doesn't go in her favor or she decides to shoot her chances of getting un-perma'd by using this account to vandalize, we'll simply ban the account at that point (and I'll change my vote on A/DE). —Aichon— 17:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
It is concluded. Can someone unban User:Izumi Orimoto and then ban User:Kitakaze? Thanks. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 02:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Done. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 06:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Why are we banning Kitakaze? Having multiple accounts is surely completely fine?--Shortround }.{ My Contributions 09:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
User:NormanMBailey
| Verdict | Spammer |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Perma'd |
What do we think kids? --Rosslessness 23:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Same message was posted to the Minecraft wiki under same username a few minutes before it was posted here http://www.minecraftwiki.net/wiki/User:NormanMBailey ~
00:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- He's clearly a spammer, but he might be a normal person, rather than a bot. I'm inclined to ban the account but leave the IP alone. —Aichon— 02:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Why do you think he may not be a bot, out of curiosity? ~ 04:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Why do you think he may not be a bot, out of curiosity? ~
- You guys know that known live spammers are documented in the same way as bots for a large number of botlists right? This shouldn't be particularly hard to check into. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 05:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- This is either a program, a very strange bot, or a very very bad spammer. My money is we're indexed in a spam program. Either way we should probably ban it. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 05:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't disagree, just curious how a distinction can be made. I don't think it should matter to your all's decision at all if it was a live person or a bot program. IP banning bots isn't an official wiki policy or anything either and I personally think its needless. Just a little curious about the subject. ~ 06:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Meh, ban and IP ban then. And I was willing to give it a break since the message seemed more personable than what we typically see from spammers, suggesting it may have just been a one-time spammer who knew about the wiki, rather than a serial spammer. —Aichon— 14:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- That's just one of the ways they try to go by undetected. In truth, most spambots are live people using a program or script to bypass security and send link spam. They can make the text as personal or as generic as they wish. They simply load a list of wikis, their CAPTCHA options, create accounts, choose their message and their link spam urls and then hit run. There are even tutorials on YouTube on how to use spambot software. Show no quarter to the spambits. They don't give a shit about you or the amount of time you spend cleaning up their trash. ~ 15:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- That's just one of the ways they try to go by undetected. In truth, most spambots are live people using a program or script to bypass security and send link spam. They can make the text as personal or as generic as they wish. They simply load a list of wikis, their CAPTCHA options, create accounts, choose their message and their link spam urls and then hit run. There are even tutorials on YouTube on how to use spambot software. Show no quarter to the spambits. They don't give a shit about you or the amount of time you spend cleaning up their trash. ~
- Meh, ban and IP ban then. And I was willing to give it a break since the message seemed more personable than what we typically see from spammers, suggesting it may have just been a one-time spammer who knew about the wiki, rather than a serial spammer. —Aichon— 14:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't disagree, just curious how a distinction can be made. I don't think it should matter to your all's decision at all if it was a live person or a bot program. IP banning bots isn't an official wiki policy or anything either and I personally think its needless. Just a little curious about the subject. ~
- This is either a program, a very strange bot, or a very very bad spammer. My money is we're indexed in a spam program. Either way we should probably ban it. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 05:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- He's clearly a spammer, but he might be a normal person, rather than a bot. I'm inclined to ban the account but leave the IP alone. —Aichon— 02:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Processed as a spambot. —Aichon— 16:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
User:The Killer of SillyLillyPilly
| Verdict | Vandal Acct |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Perma'd |
Vandalized some pages. Contribs in the above template. ~ 00:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- 3pwv'd. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 00:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
User:Nguyetba11
| Verdict | Spambot |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Perma'd |
Is this vandalism? Links replaced with ones to a blank search page. Could be a bot, but operates differently from the ones I'm used to. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 18:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Reverted for now, and hit up sex beast about this. If it's vandalism, it's weird vandalism. Also, if you have the chance, marvel at Two Heads user page. It's still ace. --Rosslessness 18:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Now casual warned user as well. --Rosslessness 18:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like someone running a bot script to change existing urls to linkspam urls. Very likely a bot based on the domain used. I'd say do some reseach on recent bot editing trends and perma as bot if it turns out this is a new bot trend. ~ 19:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Whats the IP turn up?--Rosslessness 19:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Right. On both proxy and sock lists with the bare minimum of google searching. IP is now Banned --Rosslessness 19:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like someone running a bot script to change existing urls to linkspam urls. Very likely a bot based on the domain used. I'd say do some reseach on recent bot editing trends and perma as bot if it turns out this is a new bot trend. ~
- Now casual warned user as well. --Rosslessness 18:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Kirsty cotton
| Verdict | Self-requested ban |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Permabanned, per request |
I would like to request an indefinite ban. I can vandalism some pages if needed, but I'd rather not spend the time. Thanks. --K 22:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'll process it in just a sec for you. Shoot a sysop an e-mail or contact us elsewhere (you know how to get in touch with me via IRC) if you change your mind. Enjoy the vacation! :) —Aichon— 23:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Lame.--SA 23:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- what I don't understand are people really that addicted to this bullshit that they need to have a ban? if you are tired of the place just don't come here anymore. christ --User:Sexualharrison23:30, 6 January 2013
- Lame.--SA 23:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
Archives
|
Vandal Banning Archive | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
