Forum:Warning Vandals

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Warning Vandals
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 28 April 2008 by Earthere.

Okay, so the point I'm bringing up is warning (a set number of times) vandals before blocking. All editors are equal and should be teated equally; however, there are both pros and cons with this proposal. But rather than bring those points up, I want to make a compromise. We could try first time blocks for the convenience of admins, with warnings simultaneously. If the vandalism occurs even after both have taken effect, another block should take place with an extended amount of time. There needs to be consistency in blocking as well as more effective methods. Or, perhaps a user could think of a rating system for how long a block should last and what type of message they should receive.

e.g. the number represents severity out of a score of 10. If they exceed a specific number (probably 10), a block will take place. Less will result in a warning. Though, these ratings are my own and hypothetical.

  • Blanking pages. (8)
  • Posting offensive material, whether it be images or words. (5)
  • Contributing nonsense. (6)
  • A language other than English is added. (6)
  • False or deceptive information is being added to an article. (4)
  • Personal attacks on a user. (8-9)
  • Content which encourages breaking the 15 game rules. (8)
  • Advertising in any form (aside from websites listed under "External Links" which relate to the article that it is being put in) (7)
  • Articles about players. (6)
  • Impersonating another user. (7)
  • Creating pages and adding random nonsense to them. (5)

As you can see, pretty much anything more than 2 offences will result in a ban. I need commentary and am leaning toward admins and bureaucrats as this apllies to them. Maybe the amount of points over 10 represents the number of days the block will stay. That could work, but more suggestions and fine-tuning is necessary. AriasCombatSwords.pngKnight 20:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I think any obvious vandalism deserves an instant block. Inserting swears, offensive words or images, putting crap and spam into pages, etc. Blanking a page only if it's more than one, it's possible that just one was an accident. Articles about players I don't think deserve a block unless it's repeatedly created or it's insulting or breaks anything I listed prior. That's all I really feel like typing out now, maybe I'll respond to other points later once more people chime in. ChristineTalkFlickr 21:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Christine. I also instant block removing a lot of content and replacing it with 'OWNED' or whatever. Also obvious false info such as 1 gp for rune gear or 1,000,000,000 gp for a bucket in an Exchange page get instant blocking. These vandals know what they are doing is not right and deserve instant blocking. Most anons and users do a good job editing and help improve the wikia. Chrislee33 05:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Admins must still be able to exercise personal discretion first and foremost - anything else should be for guidance only. I'd support a policy giving general advice for ban lengths, but I think a formal 'scoring card' will add a lot of complications to the process. In some cases it could even prevent admins from banning someone who is deliberately vandalising but is keeping it just below whatever threshold is set for a permanent ban. Pointy 11:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as how this policy would only apply to admins and bureaucrats, it's up to you guys to decide what you feel will be the most effective way to deal with vandalism. If instant blocking is the most effective way to deal with it, then shouldn't the banned template lead them to our code of conduct? It's simple and not too hard. At this point there are quite a few admins who block first-time offenders but I think as long as some standard policy - just about anything that works and is official would satisfy me. Come to think of it, does anyone here have the programming skills to create a vandal fighting bot? If anybody has seen Cluebot's work in action, it's pretty useful. AriasCombatSwords.pngKnight 20:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
take a hydrogen bomb, multiply its effectiveness by 27, and you have cluebot. May be coloured blue in the near future.earth(t)
I remember reading something about Cluebot working on a point system that looks for certain words and expressions in the page text. I'm almost sure the algorithm is published somewhere, so it would be relatively easy to duplicate. However, a few modifications could be made, as vulgar language will never be in a legitimate article here, while on WP that isn't the case. Skill 22:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Here it is. Source code is posted on that page too. Skill 22:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
vandalism to item prices can be difficult to detect. any chance our "ClueBot" will be able to detect that vandalism (assuming it's created)? May be coloured blue in the near future.earth(t)
Perhaps if too many digits are listed, the bot would put a botted message on the CVU? That would locate something like someone putting "10000000000000" or so as an item's price on an "Exchange:" page. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!I have 12 friends. 23:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I think there could be a notification somewhere (CVU is great) if the price is outside the 5% a day range normally allowed by the GE, and maybe an automatic revert if the price is over, say, 10 million, with exceptions for items that are truly worth this much. Other edits that look suspicious but are not definitely vandalism could be reported there too, for that matter. Skill 23:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh Earthere, from that statement, is a hydrogen bomb an effective solution? I feel that I missed the implication. :| AriasCombatSwords.pngKnight 00:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A Hydrogen Bomb is an effective solution. The question is, to what problem? I think Earthere was praising the bot, either way. As for my feelings on this subject, I don't disagree on any particular point, I'm more just not big on institutionalizing our ability to give out blocks. My gut says that if we create a point-based system, nobody will pay attention to it anyway. I don't really see the need for such a point system...is there some pandemic of unfair blocking going on? I've always thought that our judgement has been pretty good at discerning when we should assume good faith or when someone was obviously out to hurt the wiki. Remember, breaking the rules is always either accidental or intentional, and in my experience, about 90% of the time, it's obvious whether or not the vandal was intentional in whatever they did. Endasil (Talk) @ 00:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)