Wowpedia talk:Vandalism policy/Adoption1

What is Vandalism?
See Wowpedia:Vandalism (and vote on it!).

Cleaning Vandalism
An act of vandalism can be removed or reverted with only a comment in the edit summary identifying the type of vandalism (usually spam, unexplained deletes, etc.). Disagreement with the edit should be posted in the related discussion page. Cleaners will be added to the honorary Cleaners category, unless they request to be removed.

Record of Vandals
Vandals should have their user name added to the known vandals list with a some note on the type or level of vandalism and optionally any cleaning information.

Blocking Vandals
Blocking by an admin will occur after a certain number of acts of vandalism, the length of time will depend on the number of acts, and a note to that effect will be added to known vandals list:
 * If the user is seen to be posting with non-malicious intent, they will get a warning from the admin before a block occurs.
 * If the vandalizing user is obviously controlled by a bot, the block will start at 1 year.

For reference you can look at the list of currently blocked users or the log of users who have been blocked.

How to Appeal a Block
Generally there is no recourse to a block, but you could create another user and post an appeal with reasons in the discussion area of the Vandalism policy.

Yes:

 * 1) --Fandyllic 3:39 PM PST 4 Dec 2006


 * This policy vote has met the ratification minimum (5 yes votes) and ratio (at least 3:1 in favor), so qualifies as ratified and now will wait 7 days according to Wowpedia:Policy status phases to be adopted. --Fandyllic 11:33 AM PST 30 Jan 2006
 * This policy is now adopted according to Wowpedia:Policy status phases. --Fandyllic 6:50 PM PST 15 Feb 2006

Comments

 * Duh, I should vote for my own proposal. --Fandyllic 3:39 PM PST 4 Jan 2006
 * 1) Comments about or disagreements about what constitutes vandalism should be put in WoWWiki talk:Vandalism. --Fandyllic 1:11 PM PST 5 Jan 2006
 * 2) Only a week for 20? That's a little shallow, isn't it? I'd rather say a week for 5, maybe 10 blatant vandalisms, a month for 20, and permafrost the user for 50. This, assuming it's not a bot. If it's a bot, you might as well just ban it right at the beginning. No need to see what will come of it; we've already heard that story. Schmidt 00:33, 14 Jan 2006 (EST)
 * 3) Okay, I made the penalties more severe and made a special case for bots. Can someone add some detail to bot to identify some obvious bot patterns? --Fandyllic8:36 PM PST 14 Jan 2006
 * 4) What happens between the different numbers of acts? Let's say I just got back from a 5 act ban and I commit 3 new acts, as I understand now nothing will happen until I hit the 20 mark. Specially between 50 and 100 this becomes a bit meaningless. How about a day ban on each act between 5 and 20 and a 3 day ban between 21 and 100. When the hit a mark (20-50-100) they get that penalty on top of the 1/3 day ban. Or would this create too much work for the admins?--Ridefort 18:56, 29 Jan 2006 (EST)
 * The main reason we don't have a per act penalty is that someone has to do the banning and I personally have better things to do than constantly track vandals and have ever increasing bans per act. --Fandyllic 11:30 AM PST 30 Jan 2006
 * 1) How funny ... Makes me remember those cow-boy times when criminals were often given hundreds of years of prison or hard work ... 10 years of banishment OMG do you think that wiki will survive half of this time ? :P--Kirochi 19:04, 29 Jan 2006 (EST)
 * Well, I'm sort of new to the wiki thing and the other admins put 10 years for the bots. I assume 10 years = approx. eternity in this case, so it works well. --Fandyllic 11:30 AM PST 30 Jan 2006
 * 1) This policy is ratified, so I put the banner on the article page. --Fandyllic 5:35 PM PST 30 Jan 2006
 * You might want to not utterly delete, but archive this vote. It's no longer relevant except for historical purposes, so an archive would be in order, I think, with a name like /Amendment1 or /Ratification1 or something like that. Schmidt 18:46, 31 Jan 2006 (EST)
 * Yeah, probably after it's adopted. --Fandyllic 11:13 AM PST 2 Feb 2006