Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH Archive/We really need to do something about these Vandals
  • Can we do anything to stop these guys? Demolitions Expert RC-1187 Helmet Comlink Republic Emblem.
    • Yes, but many other users don't wish to, since they're more concerned with keeping to the ideal of what a wiki should be. Kuralyov 06:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
      • But this Pepsilon guy has been vandalising things all day, but then, well he got blocked for doing nothing, some Admins are a bit too harsh, (no offense meant). Demolitions Expert RC-1187 Helmet Comlink Republic Emblem.
        • Wrong: he got blocked for vandalizing. He joined this wiki for the express purpose of vandalism and got what he deserved. Anyone who thinks other wise is naive or ignorant. Kuralyov 06:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Okay, I was wrong sorry about that. Now, can we make an Enforcer bot? We can ask Sikon about that, he seems to know alot about them.Demolitions Expert RC-1187 Helmet Comlink Republic Emblem.
            • How exactly would that work in this case? Would the user have to activate the bot to autoban a certain set of IPs, but then our admins can already do that at will. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Silly Dan and Jaymach have tried pre-empting names used by the Crumb vandal have had some success. Darth Culator tried some preemptive blocks on Pepsilon. What we really need are more admins who are on line when they attack. But I think that Pepsilon is somesort of serial vandal who changes MOs every now and then. He needs to prove that he is smarter than us. I think that is someway that could delay him long enough for the admins to get on line and stop him permanently. I'm not really one to talk about Pepsilon though. I made it personal with him, and I shouldn't have. But that's beside the point. He seems to have stopped now, but that could be cause of the Weekend. -- SFH 23:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree its mainly just ip users. What should be done is make it so that you can only edit articles if you have an account.--Dumac 23:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • That will do very little in the long run. Creating an account takes little to no time, and multiple repeat vandals have created new accounts in a matter of seconds. -- SFH 01:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • No one would waste time to vandalise though, or at least small vandals.Arian Caldon 01:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, trust me when I say this: We get a lot of vandals here. We may not get the most vandals of the rest of the wikis, but we get quite a few. -- SFH 01:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Who would waste time doing that, it pathetic!-- Arian Caldon 01:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
      • As far as the idea of mandatory registration lowering vandalism goes: we already stop anonymous users from uploading inappropriate images, and restrict page moves to a certain number per day (esp. for new users.) Banning anonymous users from contributing would thus do absolutely nothing to affect the most annoying vandalism, even if it might cut down on very minor vandalism like writing nonsense in the middle of a random article. Meanwhile, there are a few obsessive types who think nothing of creating dozens of registered usernames in order to vandalize. —Silly Dan (talk) 01:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Many people have vandalized, Caldon. And many more will, because there are idiots without lives out there that have nothing better to do than vandalize articles here. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 01:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I left the Oblivion forums because there was constant spamming and the same thing occassionally happens here. It like an epidemic that certainly says something about people having no lives --Dumac 02:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

          • Why can't we utilize some of the checks that other sites use? For example, word prevention (blocks any submission or update using a certain word of phrase, including foul language, and common vandalism phrases around here like "on wheels" and "is hot"), anti-spambot codes (Yahoo and a lot of other sites use them, every time you submit something, you have to type in a short series of letters and numbers that is randomly generated), and, most practical and useful, having all submissions and updates/modifications over so many words be checked my a moderator before they are submitted or changed. --Abin_Skyaler 19:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Because frankly, that's more trouble than it's worth and kind of defeats the purpose of having an easy to edit encyclopedia. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 23:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
              • Especially the "must be checked by a moderator" suggestion. Do you have any idea how much that would slow down updates? Or how badly it would overwhelm the admins with updates requiring approval? (Yes, these are contradictory complaints. I don't care, both things would happen, and they would be bad.) —Silly Dan (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
                • I don't see how it would be an less easy to edit. If they're not using foul language or vandalizing, then the word prevention won't affect anyone. Anti-spambot codes are pretty much standard for an endless number of sites, and moderator checks wouldn't be that tough. Checking a submission would take a few seconds, then click verify. It's really not that tough to figure out the difference between vandalism and real submissions. I really don't see that much trouble in it; Wikipedia has it, don't they? --Abin_Skyaler 19:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
                  • No, Wikipedia does not require all major edits to clear an administrator. Nor do they have image-recognition anti-spam codes (though the The Homestar Runner wiki does: I could live with that change, though I would really dislike it.) We could use some sort of anti-vandalism bot, which some Wikipedia editors use. But I'm just imagining the dozen admins we currently have being forced to check and approve every major edit to this wiki: I think about half of them would quit Wookieepedia entirely, myself included. —Silly Dan (talk) 23:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
                    • Then how does Wikipedia do it, because they sure as hell don't have the problem. The fact that the HOMESTAR RUNNER wiki has better protection than we do is... particularly sad. --Abin_Skyaler 20:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
                      • Wikipedia does it by having many times as many the admins and ordinary users available to counteract vandalism — which is only fair, because they have many times the page visits we get, and much more vandalism as a result. They also restrict unregistered users from starting new articles, though this is more for legal reasons than anything. —Silly Dan (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
                        • Wikipedia has their share of vandalism, trust me. An anti-vandal bot is an excellent idea, but very difficult to implement as authors of existing bots are hesitant to share their code (for obvious reasons). Wikipedia's Tawkerbot2 is a good example of an anti-vandal bot, in particular. RMF 00:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)