Spam vandalsEdit

There's this sort of vandal who isn't really here to make trouble, but simply to spam: remove content, insert list of URLs, repeat. In the past I often warned these users on their talk pages, but I now believe that this doesn't make any sense - simply because this type won't read it anyway. It might even be a bot in most cases.

I suggest to change this policy to allow an immediate 24h-block without any need for warnings, if the vandalism consists of URL-spam only. Any comments/objections? -- Cid Highwind 21:50, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm for it. Does/can this include abusive language and porn insertions that are not URL links? --Alan del Beccio 21:56, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • I think that should be discussed seperately, although I'm not opposed as far as the inserted content is without a doubt disruptive. That type of vandal should get immediate 24h-block plus warning, I guess. See section below.
  • I support this proposal. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 22:47, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • I support it too. I think there should be a zero-tolerance policy for any kind of vandalism except for accidental deletion by a registered member.--Scimitar 01:20, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Porn/Abusive language vandalsEdit

From above: Does/can this include abusive language and porn insertions that are not URL links? I'm not opposed as far as the inserted content is without a doubt disruptive. That type of vandal should get an immediate 24h-block plus warning, I guess. Comments? -- Cid Highwind 22:08, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • When the porn is concerned I'd go as far to say an immediate 48 hour block is appropriate since that is quite clearly a deliberate, disruptive act... unlike deleting text or using hostile language, there's really no way a user can claim they didn't understand our policies. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 22:47, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Repeat blocks leading to permanent banEdit

Gvsualan brought up a good point at VfD regarding multiple bans, specifically when it comes to IP users... should we also add some sort of "three strikes and you're out" rule regarding blocks? It makes certain sense: if you can't learn to play by the rules or at least work constructively after a certain number of blocks, do you still deserve another chance? Having a multiple number of blocks leading to a permanent ban would guard against overzealousness on behalf of the admins and still be consistent with "indefinite bans should only be considered a last resort after temporary bans fail to resolve the problem." This would get a little fuzzy when it comes to anonymous IP users, such as the 67.1.x.x vandals who are probably the same person, but as long as there are strong signs of a connection, new nonsense content (such as Dicorder and Talsarian neuroparasites in this case) can be deleted immediately under provision seven here. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 02:59, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Yes, for the love of Surak, do that. It was somewhat amusing at first, knowing he was merely wasting his time writing all this stuff since they would be soon deleted and then seeing him get blocked, but now, as you said, it's getting really old. Also, I'd advise blocking the user name Morlock, since that is the same person. --From Andoria with Love 05:19, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Speak of the devil. --Alan del Beccio 20:59, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • (yes, very courteous of him, wasn't it? Warning us like that...) While the permanent ban would be useful, it seems unfair to the innocent by standard that is say,, which is in no way this guy. As the wikipedia blocking page says, that would block like 8,000 IP addresses. None the less, I do not oppose the idea. -AJHalliwell 21:35, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC)
      • As far as the IP addresses go, I wasn't thinking of a permanent ban directed at the address... just at content which bears the hallmarks of a previous banned user, such as our friend here. We could immediately delete content created by this person rather than having to list it on VfD, and just give his IP address the standard 48 hour block. -- SmokeDetector47| TALK 21:46, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Well, then, I can change the way I vandalize. I'm flexible.

It would be great if there were a way to control what gets edited. For example, a program that can detect the deletion of large amounts of text (i.e. a whole article) and prevent the edit from going through, or something that can detect profanity, etc. But, I guess that's wishful thinking... Anyways, I wonder if this guy know we're laughing at him? ;) --From Andoria with Love 06:19, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • If somebody is accessing the site via a university or public library computer, it would seem pretty useless to ban that terminal since the university or library would have many other terminals. Is there anything you can do about that? Other than having keyboards read somebody's DNA or fingerprints and refuse access to anybody with that DNA or that set of prints. <g> --NotWillDecker
    • Good point. All we can do in that case is keep blocking them "at will" like we have been in the past. It is usually pretty obvious it is the same person (even if using a different IP) if the vandalism continues throughout the same day. --Alan del Beccio 01:12, 25 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Block length Edit

I think we need to discuss the length of blocks again. Although this policy defines the appropriate length of some blocks, no one seems to care. I just lifted some indefinite blocks of IP addresses that weren't identified as open proxies, because having those in the system isn't really worth it in my opinion. So, thinking about the various situations where we need to block, I suggest the following:

For IP addresses:

Obvious "tests"
Those should not be blocked, but get the {{edithint-test}} message. Maybe it's not a vandal, but someone who was just trying out Wiki functions.
First-time spam or vandalism or repeated "tests"
If it is URL spam, just block, if it seems to be a user, block and add {{edithint-test}}. This block should have a length of 1-2 days, not more.
Repeated vandalism
If the same IP is used for further vandalism after the first warning, use longer blocks: I suggest 1 week, 1 month, 6 months, but not infinite. If someone is dedicated/stupid enough to return after that time, I guess we can handle that with more 6 months blocks after that. These blocks should be noted on the user talk page, perhaps, so that one admin doesn't confuse the actions of another one.
Exception - Open proxies
Those should be the only IP addresses that we ban (infinite block; or we might stick to 6 months here, as well, because even open proxies might change with time). "Open proxy" should be stated as the block reason in that case - only if you know that it really is one, of course ;)

For user names:

Accounts should get an infinite block if we can clearly assume "bad faith". Recognizable big-scale vandalism of several pages at once, and no "good" edits whatsoever. In other cases, we should use the same lengths as above.

Protecting/Deleting user talk pages:

Related: Please, think about that before doing it - and even more important, check whether another admin already was on the case before doing anything... we can discuss this part on IRC, if you like. :)

-- Cid Highwind 13:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Active vandal attacking Memory AlphaEdit

There appears to be an active vandal going around to articles and user pages and replacing text with some sort of Greek text. My user page has been hit three times so far. -FleetCaptain 12:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup, he's been an ongoing twit over the last month or so. Slow but surely are we blocking (or attempting to block) his open proxies. -- Sulfur 12:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
For future reference, please use this page to report vandalism in progress. Thank you. --From Andoria with Love 22:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Currently that page is not editable. If you try to save any changes, they are rejected due to the presence of aids vandal stuff. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. I've cleared the page so the problem has now been fixed. --From Andoria with Love 01:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)