Warcraft Wiki talk:Vandalism policy/Archive01

Not sure if this is where we can start our discussion on definition of a Vandal? But here goes:

• Definition of a Vandal - repeated acts of edits making non-sense, errors and blatant advertisements (1 pixel ads) admissions.

--Dracomage 16:13, 7 Dec 2005 (EST)

Ahhah! The definition of a vandal! Fits me perfectly, that's why I am on the known vandals list of course! WTF am I on there... I have done nothing but further this community, I vene *created* this page!

 _ℑilver§^ℑide 16:31, 7 Dec 2005 (EST)

P.S. That sounds good - I would also add something about the three revert rule, and multiple violations (1 viol, they get warned on the talk page in a nice manner, 2 viol., they are warned again in a stern *very clear* manner just incase it didn't get across the first time, 3 viol. they are added to the Project:Known vandals, and 4 viol. they are banned by IP), and something about sheer quantity of edits too...

I think K-Bot edits should automatically warrant a ban. Period. Definition of K-Bot ban? edits starting with < div id="wikiNUMBER" style="overflow:auto; height: 1px; " > where number is any number - anybody agree?

-- _ℑilver§^ℑide 13:24, 5 Jan 2006

The policy is written in such a way that these bots should get banned pretty quickly, but we could put a much lower threshold for bots that are obviously bots. Maybe after 5 changes? I'm not sure we should special case too much.

--Fandyllic 7:11 PM PST 9 Jan 2006

Proposal to make penalites stricter

Proposal

Change the current blocking table to be more strict:

Original: # of Acts Vandalism Block Time 5 acts 7 days (168 hours) 20 acts 1 month 50 acts 1 year 100 acts 10 years

Proposed: # of Acts Vandalism Block Time 1 act 7 days (168 hours) 5 acts 1 month 10 acts 1 year 20 acts or more 10 years

Votes

Yes:

1. Yes Fandyllic 7:18 PM PST 15 Feb 2006 - (See below)
2. Yes Schmidt 20:12, 8 Mar 2006 (EST) - ()
3. Yes Stfrn 15:28, 9 Mar 2006 (EST) - (always more spammers, need to be tough on them)
4. Yes CJ 04:46, 10 Mar 2006 (EST) - (more permanent blocks needed as well)
5. Yes Sergius 13:57, 10 Mar 2006 (GMT+3) - (I think 3+ acts should be punished by permanent ban.)

NOTE: This proposal vote has now met the ratification minimum (at least 5 Yes votes) and the ratification ratio (5:0 in favor), so is ratified. It needs to wait the ratification time of 7 days from now to become adopted as policy. --Fandyllic 12:54 PM PST 10 Mar 2006 ADOPTED: This proposal has been adopted as policy and will be integrated into the full Vandalism policy after waiting the required rarification time. --Fandyllic 1:14 PM PST 17 Mar 2006

Comments

1. Spam is annoying me, so here's a way to get tougher on spammers and vandals. --Fandyllic 7:16 PM PST 15 Feb 2006
2. Cool the votes picked up. If the other admins agree, I think we should start enforcing these new stricter rules immediately. --Fandyllic 12:56 PM PST 10 Mar 2006
3. I don't mind at all, but the fact is that essentially, the only problems we've been having with vandalism is bots. So the change is more or less irrelevant right now. However, if fewer bots appear with the patch that will be coming soon, and everything that comes with it, well, I think this policy will be better than the old one. Schmidt 03:31, 12 Mar 2006 (EST)

Implementation Details

Was mostly being done already. When the policy was ratified, I started enforcing blocks on mostly spammer vandals.

Anyone can help out by adding any vandals to the known vandals list.

--Fandyllic 2:40 PM PST 16 Feb 2006

Are vandals blocked by IP, or just by account name ? it seems that some bots just randomly pick names and keep at it... account creation should require an email verification. or some kind of anti automation security image... anything really. CJ 04:47, 10 Mar 2006 (EST)