Wowpedia talk:Violations

Past discussions archived to:
 * Wowpedia talk:Known vandals/Archive01 2005 - Dec 2006

Blocked unexpectedly?
See the Wikipedia:Appealing a block FAQ for now. Some links of interest:
 * Why are AOL users often blocked?
 * Wikipedia:Google Web Accelerator issues.

Some steps to follow when you get blocked: -- Fandyllic  (talk · contr) 5:31 PM PST 10 Jan 2008
 * 1) If you have a WoWWiki account, please ensure that you are logged in.
 * Your account name will be visible in the top right of this page if you are.
 * If it isn't, try bypassing your web browser's cache.
 * 1) Try to edit a Sandbox.
 * 2) Try to inform an admin about your problem and the nature of your block (you should be given in a message when you try to edit or do some other wiki operation):
 * 3) * If you have access to IRC (and know how to use it), try notifying an admin on WoWWiki's IRC channel.
 * 4) * If you can edit, try to leave a message on the talk page of an admin.
 * 5) * Lastly, try e-mailing an admin; some admins have e-mail addresses they publicize on their talk pages.

Worth noting is the current string of "buggy" bans are because the IP's being blocked are internal squid caches. Wikia will need to fix it if it hasn't been done so already. --  http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_zeal.png|User:Zeal  http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_talk.png|User talk:Zeal  http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_contribs.png|Special:Contributions/Zeal  http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_end.png|User:Zeal  10:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Discouraging vandal bots
Is there a way to automatically limit edit frequency?
 * Like say 3 page edits per 2 minutes, or 1 per minute.
 * The timer would be for distinct pages edited per time period.
 * There would be a seperate timer (or no timer) for editing the same page again quickly to allow minor fixups if a user saw an error right after saving for example.
 * Exceeding the 'speed limit' would take the user to a hold page similar to show preview, where basically it would say 'you are editing too many different pages too quickly. This is a preview and has not been saved ... etc.'
 * Reverts would not count against the timer, so that vandal cleaners could stay ahead of vandals without the timer being activated. For example, an admin mass reverting all of a vandals edits.

I don't think that, if a reasonable pages/time ratio was selected, legitimate editors would be penalized, but bots would trip this after a couple of pages and would be popped out of the regular load/vandalize/save pattern which would stop them from progressing through the site without intervention. Also, human vandals (or specially programmed vandal bots) would only be able to change pages at a measured rate which would limit the damage that they could do before being added to Wowpedia:Known Vandals and being blocked.

--Dga 11:33, 3 November 2006 (EST)
 * Overall a good idea, but it would be awful for some fast editors who want to Categorize a list of things or something alike. Also, it may kill the HELPFUL bots. --Tinkerer 11:41, 3 November 2006 (EST)
 * What Tinkerer said. And I don't think it would be easily made tbh, seeing the structure of the wiki --Adys 11:57, 3 November 2006 (EST)


 * Nooooo don't do that !!! bots dont spam that much anyway,, real people do.. *cough me cough*. I think the random image things may help to some degree.
 * Perhaps analyze the type of edits being done..? lots of http http http means the bot is inserting spam obviously.  how many wiki editors really add http addresses frequently? most wikilinks are just wikilinks  12:54, 3 November 2006 (EST)


 * When I mass change pages I submit one page every ~5-10s. I'd _hate_ a limit like that.
 * And to spot spammers, use WoWWiki:RC - it counts occurences of suspicious words, including "http".
 * -- Mikk (T) 17:57, 3 November 2006 (EST)


 * How easy would it be to create an "exceptions" list, for people (and bots) with a known track record of useful edits? --Eirik Ratcatcher 13:50, 15 February 2007 (EST)

Gsdkp
Moved from Main article -- 06:08, 15 February 2007 (EST)

has been repeatedly adding his own site as a loot link, but the site apparantly only lets people download his addon. I've repeatedly reverted him, explaining that the links are dead. Reverts back without explanation. Appears to be pure self-aggrandazment rather than any attempt to be helpful.
 * Permaban reverted. This is not the way to go about it, and the links work. User has been notified of the problem.--
 * I agree, any loot information is better than none, perhaps he could put a bit more effort in to link wowhead/thott/alla and the item names in the boss article. --Lukian

Moved from Village pump

Whats the Wiki policy on advertising? User:Gsdkp has been adding links to his site all over the place. Theres Gsdkp too. Personally I dont like the idea, but thats just me.--Syzgyn 14:20, 14 February 2007 (EST)


 * It's not advertising, merely adding further external resources for the wiki. It is justified, even though the site's owner seems to have some issues with his site and links to it. He has been informed of it, and they have been given the ok to be on the wiki. -- Zeal  talk   contr  web 21:36, 14 February 2007 (EST)


 * Advertising occurs when someone's putting those external links center-stage on the article. For instance, if someone puts a link to an external instance guide in the introduction of an instance article, that's advertising. It isn't advertising if the editor puts it at the bottom in the External Links or Sources section. 10:23, 15 February 2007 (EST)


 * It's pretty obvious that its Marketing the site intentionally. I just don't like the idea of someone using the wiki to promote their own site.  Especially since they're not adding any real information in, just a link.  If they added in the actual drops and at least put forth an effort, then I wouldn't mind as much. --Syzgyn 22:25, 15 February 2007 (EST)


 * Yeah, it's not like thott, alla and wowhead are adding info is it? they don't get free advertising by providing a good source of info do they? ¬_¬ seriously.. think before you speak. Of course it's gettting them visitors and attention, but thy deserve it as long as it's proving quality information, if that were to change, they'd be gone in a heartbeat. -- Zeal  talk   contr  web 22:34, 15 February 2007 (EST)


 * Those sites owners haven't added the links in self promotion, the general community accepted them as popular sources for information on it's own. 21:45, 16 February 2007 (EST)

Yy8Hkz
See Talk:Fansites... I'd say the talk was good as it was. And if 'ONLY' the biggest webpages, what is the page good for then, left alone the talk-page to have admins check what site someone wants to add...--Maibe 05:45, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
 * If you could link properly and perhaps explain what you're talking about in a more coherant way I'd be inclined to comment. As it stands, you're making no sense :) 11:12, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Sandwichman2448
This user deleted a section from the discussion-page of Kael'thas Sunstrider. --Odolwa 16:08, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
 * if you read the banner on the top of that page it says taht none editorial comments will be moved to the analysis page, which he did, it's not vandalism. 16:13, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

I guess that detail managed to avoid my attention. My apologies to "Sandwichman2448". --Odolwa 02:24, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Teabingh
You have my sincerest apology from the bottom of my heart. It was not my intent to infringe your regulations on editing articles; – I thought the debate was ended, and that I had the liberty to incorporate my own stances and suggestions in the mage article. I have recently been informed that you sanctioned a ban against me because of this, a ruling which I oppose. It is my conviction to favour dialogue over conflict; – you should have notified me and we could have talked this over. Putting me on your 'most wanted list' was not a very nice thing to do, especially for a minor misunderstanding. I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Yours Faithfully, Teabingh 05:24, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
 * I think your own userpage explains better why you got blocked for 3 days, than any other person in the would could :p (Btw instead of manually typing your signature just type: ~ ) 08:15, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Not Lolazhan.
Need I say more?-- 20:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Went ahead and added him to the vandals list, though made sure to note he reverted it immediately afterwards. Seemed worth noting...  ~ Doc Lithius [ U|T|C ] 21:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocking Policy
Any Blocking Policies here? If there is where is it?(SmashingPumpkins1 07:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC))

Server page vandals
Should we make a note that we don't generally ban them, given the difficulty in checking them, and the speed at which such edits are reverted? 11:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Note for readers of the above - this does not mean we do not check them, it's because generally the users deal with them better than we can. Obviously such a note would not be written how I wrote my last comment. I'm suggesting something like...

"'Server pages are generally better policed by their users, and we do not like to get involved in such disputes. Vandalism is not the same as a disagreement, and we encourage you to work out the problem rather than reporting them here.'"


 * Thoughts? 19:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I finally got around to checking this page again and noticed a vast majority of vandals are affecting the server pages. I suggest we require people to add server page vandals as suspects first and change them to vandals, if they continue to make unwanted changes. The default ban should probably be 1 month regardless of how few vandalous acts are committed.
 * The reason for this process is what appears to be abuse of the vandal list by server page plaintiffs.
 * Do we need to run this or something like it through the policy change process? I suspect we can implement it by decree unless another admin objects. --[[File:gengar orange 22x22.png]] Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 6:38 PM PDT 30 Oct 2007

Atheras FFS
FFS I am REALLY angry now. ATHERAS has REMOVED ALL CONTENT from my USERPAGE and one of my FANFIC CHARACTER PAGES. >=( He may be a vandal, the only thing he has ever done on this wiki is to remove those pages. I am going to get the page back now but still, I am really upset about his behavior. Please ban him? --'The Lich King'' - - -  09:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Next time just place them as a suspect in the main page. —Pzychotix (talk &middot; contr) 11:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Baggins works in mysterious ways
Ok, btw I just saw something strange, I have seen the two last changes in the Highborne-page and guess who added "lolan" to the Notable Highborne list? BAGGINS! GOTCHA! Ok I don't think it was the real Baggins, someone maybe broke in to his WoWWiki account, I dunno... Just... check it out, kay? --'<span style="color:#0000FF; cursor:hand" title="Welcome, to Northrend!">The Lich King'' - - -  09:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Major lolz are to be had about this. It is Baggins himself, not hacker or anything. Simply because you do not understand his edit doesn't make him a vandal. He's added a link to Iolan, not Lolan as you seem to think, for which a page does not exist yet. It's a character in the lore and i'm sure he'll work on getting his info onto a page when he can. -- <ul style="font-size: 0.85em; margin: 0; padding: 0; list-style: none; list-style-type: none; list-style-image: none; display: inline; white-space: nowrap"> http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_zeal.png|User:Zeal </li> http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_talk.png|User talk:Zeal </li> http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_contribs.png|Special:Contributions/Zeal </li> http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_end.png|User:Zeal </li></ul> 10:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

... Athera vandalized my talk page too... damn I wish he was banned for ever... --<span style="background:#; border:)px #0000FF; padding:0px; margin-left:0px; font-size:100%;">'<span style="color:#0000FF; cursor:hand" title="Welcome, to Northrend!">The Lich King'' - - -  17:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The last Alterac
Can we finally do something about him? If only for the sake of sanity?--Maibe 00:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Has he vandalized? Has he added grossly incorrect information anywhere? If not, then no. --Sky (t | c | w ) 00:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think he is referring to here and here. Not particularly ban worthy. Nabudis 00:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Wotlk Talents vandal
Today a user called Dannemastermind made many edits on all of the class talent tree pages linking to his website claiming to have the deathknight and Wotlk talent tree's. After warning him that he should not of done this (1. Leaked material - 2. Posted in a un wiki standard; for example "Lock's should be ACE after Wotlk") he continued. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by.


 * Good job keeping an eye out, please remember to sign your posts though. 19:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry I must of forgot to sign it in the rush I was in ;) RealmS (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Multiboxing page vandal
A user called Keyclone removed resources for multiboxing in World of Warcraft under a false guise on the Multiboxing page. I reverted the user's edits and gave a warning to please stop. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by.

Cianhogan17
This user continous to vandlize articles.... he has been banned for a month in march, but has returned and has begun to vandlize the articles again. Should he get a permanent ban or something? Aedror42 (talk) 23:34, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and please just use the Violations list in teh future. 23:54, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Against a violation
I'm strongly against this - http://wowpedia.org/index.php?title=Wowpedia:Violations&curid=23488&diff=3374276&oldid=3348324 The user did not do anything that would be considered as a violation and in fact he made some cleanups and added some bits of lore. Sourced bits of lore. The author of the violation request reverted it back :) --Mordecay (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)