Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Administrative intervention against vandalism

Instructions

Reported edits must constitute vandalism. Link to both an example of the user's vandalism (the revision, not the current page — you can use the "Permanent link") and the user's talk page (which is included with {{User}}). Add new reports to the top of the list. Use format: #Reporting user {{User|Briess}} for edits [link], [link] and [link] ~~~~ Please remember to sign the report with ~~~~ If a report has remained here for more than 24 hours and no action has been taken, please leave a message on an admin's talk page.

Reports

• Reporting IP 89.187.170.169 for inserting spam into Utility:Dwarf_Therapist/Addons_Repository.
• Reporting...vandalism-adjecent shenanigans from an anon, as expected dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/Special:Contributions/168.216.12.16 (talk | contribs) Example:(https://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php?title=DF2014:Intelligent_undead&oldid=255682) Silverwing235 (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Blocked - I think all edits have been reverted as well. (No need to mark reports as "minor" changes, by the way) —Lethosor (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• If I might be permitted to include a brief personal opinion here, this is an example of what happens when one has a perfect storm of a virus, its quarantine procedures, and protests, all together. So, reporting user BurnLootMurder (talk | contribs) for gibbering-insane trolling and vandalism, which should really have a CW for implied violence and encouragement to doxxing on it, IMHO The obvious solution being, to block and revert with due speed.Silverwing235 (talk) 09:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Done —Lethosor (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Reporting user DogfanDFNerd‎ (talk | contribs) for repeatedly trying to change the wiki logo with a low quality replacement. Something as important as the logo shouldn't be meddled with by non-admins, much less users without any edits, and the fact they can't be bothered to fix the glaring spelling mistake by the third time suspends my belief that this is being done in good faith. OluapPlayer (talk) 13:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the delay - I've protected the page. —Lethosor (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Reporting user Silverwing235 (talk | contribs) for a long-standing pattern of problematic editing. As an example, after the first 3 times Silverwing235 added this error, I explained the problem on Silverwing235's talk page. Silverwing235 removed that explanation with the comment "message received and understood", then less than a day later made the same edit a fourth time. Silverwing235 started making many problematic edits in July 2018, received a warning in January 2019, and has continued unabated since; just this weekend I wasted more than two hours reviewing and reverting this user's edits. Sadly, it appears nothing short of a block will stop the problematic editing.--Loci (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for dealing with this. As I haven't been very active on the wiki recently, I don't want to take any administrative action on this alone, particularly since some of Silverwing235's edits that I've seen have been constructive (and I don't personally have a good sense of how many have been disruptive). Edit warring isn't good, though - if you've seen more instances of that, or a large number of disruptive edits recently, let me know. —Lethosor (talk) 04:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
    • The last time you suggested doing nothing (nine months ago) it didn't work; I see no reason to assume the results will be different this time around. Since January, Silverwing235 has made 1779 edits, and I have made more than 265 reversions. You might then assume that means that 85% of Silverwing235's edits were "constructive", but the number is considerably lower; Silverwing235 tends to "serial-edit" the same article multiple times in a row and I revert to the last-good version with a single edit. In fact, Silverwing235 has the "current" edit on only 487 of those pages in that time frame, which charitably estimates the "constructive" edit rate somewhere around 50%. Anyway, this prolonged situation has sapped my desire to work on the wiki, so you'll need to find someone else to proofread Silverwing235's edits.--Loci (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
      • I don't think doing nothing is the solution, but I think some of these edits are pretty subjective. Of the edits you reverted today, I agree with [1] (although the section is admittedly inconsistent with its other 7 sibling sections), and [2] (although this is pretty minor, the "each" shouldn't have been removed). I think [3] was unclear both ways (only the first and third action led to the consequence in the same sentence, which I tried to address here). As for [4], you reverted several reasonable changes besides the singular "they"-related change. (I probably would have done the same after dealing with a number of earlier edits, to be fair.) I don't think "he" or "it" can apply to "dwarf or other creature" in every case, but regardless of that, singular "they" is controversial, as you have mentioned. Neither this wiki nor Wikipedia seem to take a strong stance on the matter, so in my book, it's a personal preference - it's not right or wrong. I am unwilling to take administrative action over it, and I don't want to see edit wars over it either (i.e. going forward, I will side in favor of whatever choice was made in the article before it was changed). —Lethosor (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I hate to add to this old thread, but, as it has been raised before, it seems appropriate. As Loci said in 2019, this is a long-standing pattern, and this user makes a large number of edits every month. One example: [5], [6], [7]. I was an active editor on the wiki some years ago—not that it matters—and since I rejoined, this kind of editing showing up in the recent changes has been a huge distraction from any other editing I mean to do. I know this isn't Wikipedia, but this kind of editing—literally declaiming “stylistic [sic] sense be damned” in edit summaries (which are always marked m—why?)—is the reason why Wikipedia has policies like WP:CIR, WP:DE, WP:DDE, and especially WP:IDHT. It's hard to consider any wiki editing productive when there is no constraint on this behavior. The large number of similar edits (often "serial" edits, as Loci mentioned) performed by this single editor means that anything another editor adds will probably be similarly “fixed” within a few months. —οɼѕаk 21:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I’d like to add my own third-person (second-person?) perspective on this. One of being a non-native English writer prone to making the kind of mistakes SilverWing fixes. Thanks to that, I (and others) don’t have to worry as much about perfecting the language while adding information, which makes adding. Conversely, I believe the strict rules of Wikipedia makes it harder for new editors to join. For Wikipedia, this may be a positive as it increases the quality, but this wiki is one starved for editors and can thus not afford such luxuries. It is true that SilverWing has a pattern of editing recently edited articles, which may bury those recent edits. As to why, my suspicion (backed up by what I remember them writing about it on the forum) is that they read the edit to check for errors/bad grammar, and then skim through the rest of the article while they are at it. The ’m’ is to mark that they didn’t add any info, only refactor what was already available. That way other wiki editors can chose to ignore those edits. (I believe that is the intended usage of the ’m’inor edit mark, am I wrong?) I’ve not seen them ”fix”/revert anything but changes to the syntax. They are obviously stubborn when it comes to that, perhaps in excess, but it should not disturb you when adding content. I believe that worry is unfounded. Ultimately, while grammar is subjective means not all of SilverWing’s edits are clearly productive, but I’d still argue that having someone like them adds a certain polish to the wiki we would otherwise miss out on. —Voliol (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
      • To the contrary: Silverwing235 often introduces errors in both grammar and syntax. That is actually the point of this thread.—οɼѕаk 20:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
        • The problem I have with that assessment is that, from the (admittedly not thorough) looks I've had at Silverwing235's edit history, a lot of edits have been productive. Some have fixed mistakes that other editors have introduced, like Voliol described, which has a positive impact on the wiki. As for how to deal with the edits that introduce errors, see my comment below. —Lethosor (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
          • I didn't say they always introduce errors, but they often do. On Wikipedia, this was once a fairly common problem, but a variety of policies have reduced both its occurrence and its impact. WP editors who consistently try to make “corrections” to a narrow set of linguistic features, often committing certain kinds of error—for example, “correcting” occurrences of “or” so that it is almost always preceded by a comma—are considered disruptive, even if many of their edits are productive. And while this wiki isn't Wikipedia, and has its own specific needs, etc., the problem is probably about the same (though it might ultimately be worse for this wiki, since the number of editors active on a given day is a tiny fraction). —οɼѕаk 19:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but I have to disagree with you on [8]. A comma might have been a better choice than a semicolon, but no punctuation there makes the sentence more difficult to parse. This is a situation where I would encourage a talk page or user page discussion as appropriate. I do think your most recent edit was a good compromise, though. [Edit: maybe the comma should have gone after "visitor" instead, but that's beside the point - this was a good-faith attempt to make the article more readable, and it should have been responded to with an improvement, not a reversion.]
      More generally, I don't want to block individual users for making edits like this. I have been keeping an eye on Special:RecentChanges, and I think most of Silverwing235's changes in recent months have been uncontroversial compared to the ones that Loci originally report here. I am willing to temporarily lock pages in the cases of arguments being made in edit summaries, such as the one you and Silverwing participated in here, if necessary.
      I think I agree with Voliol for the most part, and invoking wikipedia:WP:CIR doesn't seem appropriate to me. Some edit summaries don't make sense, but I think that minor changes are generally tagged appropriately, and you can filter them out from Special:RecentChanges if you like. —Lethosor (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Re [9]: that's why I finally edited it myself. Silverwing235's edit introduced errors rather than fix it. To be honest, I don't have time to clarify the rest of this. See my edit history since I rejoined just a few weeks ago. It's enough for me to see that a long-time editor like Loci actually appears to have abandoned the wiki over similar problems—I, myself, am probably out as well. There just isn't time. I wanted to add to articles relevant to modding, now that DF has undergone several updates (and much of the information about the raws here appears to be outdated or “partially correct” since then). That no one has addressed Silverwing235's behavior is surprising. I have huge respect for you, otherwise, Lethosor, but I think you've got the wrong impression here. —οɼѕаk 20:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
        • I think there was an attempt to fix the run-on sentence there originally, and I would typically tend to agree with Wikipedia:WP:NOTPERFECT. That is, I think that since there was an attempt to improve the article, other editors should prefer to continue to improve the article, or figure out some mutually-agreeable solution, rather than simply reverting changes. However,
          • in this case, I see why Wikipedia:WP:IDHT could apply, given that the error was reverted multiple times (I think this is more oriented towards lengthy discussions, not edit warring, but it could be applied to the latter too).
          • I understand that attempting to improve erroneous edits is more time-consuming than simply reverting them. I often don't have time to screen everything myself.
          • I appreciate your concern for the wiki, and I don't want to drive editors away. We need the kind of content that you want to add, just as much as we need the types of fixes Silverwing235 is attempting to make. I would like to find some solution that can allow everyone to contribute.
          • If Silverwing235 is making a lot of erroneous edits, to the point where the quality of the wiki is negatively impacted, then I agree that something should be done.
        • Here is my proposal - over the next couple weeks, I will look over as many of Silverwing235's edits as I can, focusing on more recent ones. I will note any that I consider productive or counterproductive, although I may not be able to address all of the latter. You're welcome to flag any that you think I should consider, although you're under no obligation to. If I notice a significant number of counterproductive edits, I will send them over to Silverwing235 (and link them here). After that, if similar edits continue, I think that would warrant more warnings and/or administrative action (again, I would greatly prefer not to take severe steps like an immediate block). What do you think of this? If there are ways that Wikipedia handles situations like this, I'd be open to hearing about them too. —Lethosor (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
          • Before I say anything else, I want to briefly address a question sort of implicit in the phrasing of your first point. I really don't think you intended to raise it, but a random reader skipping to this part of the thread might not realize that.
            Do I object to anyone's trying to improve the wiki? Of course not.
            I don't know whether I've written anything that might give someone that impression, but I hope this explicit statement is enough to quell any doubts. Editors should try to improve the wiki, and editors will make mistakes in the process. That is not the subject of this discussion.
          • Regarding NOTPERFECT: I'm not sure if this is cited much outside the context of articles, often new or simply low-activity, which have existing issues, where either the article has been nominated for deletion or doubts about its suitability have been raised in talk or somewhere else. It's especially used as a defense against deletionists and exclusionists (though historically, that has rarely prevented a controversial deletion, particularly when it was inevitable).

          It's also applicable when one or more editors have made substantial additions to an article, where the editors' spelling, grammar, organization, formatting etc. are not quite right (insufficient or poor sourcing usually triggers another set of considerations, but I would include it here as well, as long as the content isn't controversial or BLP etc.). But I don't think I've ever witnessed such an instance where anyone actually needed to cite this policy in a discussion that followed. (Not that I think I'm wrong about its applicability in those cases, just that they seem to “handle themselves” by virtue of other editors' assessment of the content. I think there are a few reasons for that, including the relative breadth and number of Wikipedia articles; the number of active editors, administrators, bureaucrats, etc.; and the imponderable volume of views and edits each day.)

          • To me, this case—a single editor repeatedly introducing new issues to articles which (while themselves NOTPERFECT) did not already have such issues, usually in the process of making miscellaneous other minor edits that do not substantially contribute to the content—is not an instance of either of those scenarios.
            An editor who knows that a minor correction needs to be made should make that correction; but when in doubt (such as when an editor's judgment of a particular kind of correction has repeatedly led them astray), unless something substantial is being added, it's not necessarily productive to make a guess. For example, Silverwing235 has usually been correct in their adjustment of capitalization and plural formation intra-wiki links. But with respect to several other categories of edit (mostly also copy-, but not always—e.g., [10]) which Silverwing235 gravitates to, they continue to make certain adjustments which they have been repeatedly corrected on (and in some cases advised not to make at all, in order to avoid further issue).

          This is particularly troubling where it relates to similar edits which suggest the editor is imposing idiosyncratic usage (nonstandard punctuation, grammar, diction, etc., or a preference for one x over another where the extant form is equivalent or better) even after being informed of the mistake and asked to avoid repeating it. As (I think) Loci suggested somewhere, on Wikipedia this really is considered disruptive editing.

          • About your proposal: before I read your most recent posts to this discussion, I actually started to write a note about a series of troubling edits from just the last two days that relate to the subject of this thread as well as the User_talk spillover which began with Silverwing235's own comments on their own talk page. If you don't mind, I'd like to take more time to read and respond to the entirety of what you wrote here (after “Here is my proposal”). But since I was going to post this note here anyway—again, only because from my point of view, this is part of a pattern of ongoing behavior which has already impacted the wiki, not because I think every problem edit deserves to be highlighted on this board (which I don't)—it might as well be part of the reply.
          • Examples from just one article over two days:
            1. [11] unnecessary revision, introduces erroneous punctuation; buried in history due to string of “serial edits”

               Relevant prior diffs include: [12], [13] (not an exhaustive list).

            2. [14] totally elective revision, also erroneous

               Edit summary suggests indifference to whether their basis is even true. Again, I think it's reasonable to expect the editor to be able to articulate a rationale for their edits. In Silverwing235's case, actually, it would help them to avoid this kind of problem altogether (and probably improve the quality of their editing) if they actually tried to do so before making each edit. Rather than immediately revising something that they don't like the look of, they could first ask themselves some simple questions about what they're about to change; the answers to those questions would be used to write an actual edit summary (which, although they've been asked to write more thorough summaries, they didn't quite do in this case).

               Note: I followed up on this revert with a detailed response, which I only felt necessary because of this editor's persistence in making superficial changes that needlessly eliminate or render incorrect other editors' contributions. I would not ordinarily feel this was worth saying, but the general point has been made—and made forcefully—several times in the past. Why should an editor make changes when they can't articulate the reasons for those changes? Editors may be guided by instinct, but their revisions are supposed to be supported by more than their personal feeling about how something looks or sounds. Again, it's not that I think you don't know this; I'm simply trying to explain my tone.

            3. [15] a day later, same article, another unnecessary revision focusing on the same paragraph which was reverted the day before

               Uses a semicolon to combine an introductory sentence with the first of the following sequence of sentences which describe elements of the subject.

               I saw that you sifted this one and partially restored the prior version. I think at this point, the editor should have stopped trying to edit the superficial structure of the same paragraph. There are other articles to work on. Otherwise, sequences of similar edits and reverts can be construed (from the history) as a fixated attempt to circumvent consensus (re changes which were proscribed earlier).

            4. [16] next day, same article; unnecessary rewording introduces idiosyncratic commas
            5. [17] minutes later (“serial edit”) to same article; another revision to the paragraph “Outside of the keep...”

               Another instance in which this editor asserts that the original author made a mistake (“butterfingered”) where there really wasn't one.

               Instead, this revision introduces an erroneous semicolon in a new place.

               Again, from the diffs and history, this (as the latest of a sequence of related edits) begins to “look” like a fixation with inserting a semicolon somewhere. The paragraph didn't need any structural changes, nor did its tone or diction need to be rethought. Yet, after attempting to do all of these things, facing a revert each time, the editor persisted (introducing further errors where, initially, there were none).

            At no stage in this process did the editor produce any rationale for the later changes they made to the very same sentences they'd targeted earlier—not even after being reverted several times.

            Worse than that, many of these errors are of the same general kind as have previously been brought to the editor's attention (insertion of extraneous commas and semicolons; insertion of hyphens and clusters of other characters to produce punctuation nonconformal with English usage (usually in sentences that were already syntactically correct); incorrect or unnecessary merging of sentences or paragraphs; incorrect or unnecessary word substitution).

            I genuinely would rather not be in the position of suggesting that an editor is doing something wrong that requires admin attention (whatever form that might take). I have no ill will toward the editor in question, but the process—including issuing advice which has already been given before (which is frequently already covered by MOS, besides), only to see that advice disregarded almost immediately (occasionally accompanied by comments with overt disregard for CIVIL, as I mentioned on your talk page), requiring further note-taking and further discussion on this board—has become tedious.

            I'll think about what you wrote in your proposal and write another (hopefully shorter) reply, if I think I have a useful suggestion. Obviously WP has advantages in this area which would be unrealistic or impractical for the wiki's purposes, but I don't think that's really an issue. It's not a matter of life or death, here, either; so, although I mean this commentary sincerely, I have no dear expectations about the outcome. (I do hope that the editor will take specific steps to learn to change their editing process, but as new editors come and go, the issue is bound to come around again, as it does on WP as well.) I'll try to continue participating constructively, though.

            —οɼѕаk 03:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

    • I've encouraged Silverwing to leave better edit summaries, and to move discussions to talk pages if needed. Hopefully this helps encourage more productive changes like [18]. I do still want to be informed if you notice a persistent pattern of issues, but this looks to me like a single argument that stands out from a more recent pattern of mostly-helpful edits. —Lethosor (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
      • I think this is the last thing I care to say about it: [19], as a response to [20] (which the user removed—why?), is egregious. From this and from my own observations just skimming their edit history, I don't know how this user never saw consequences.—οɼѕаk 20:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
        • Looking back on that, I think that should have drawn a warning. Initially, I was mostly focused on trying to understand the meaning of that comment, and didn't consider that it was worded as harshly as it was. I understand your comment on WP:AAGF better now. As for removing discussions on user pages, I still think my comment on Wikipedia:WP:OWNTALK is relevant. That's why I'd prefer to keep the discussion on disruptive editing here, since removing parts of this discussion is not acceptable. Maintaining references to relevant discussions here is also helpful, so thank you for those. —Lethosor (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
          • I'm glad the problem with the wording has been acknowledged, but there's something there (something important, I think) which you didn't address: Silverwing235's response on Loci's page (a day before they reinstated the idiosyncratic incorrect usage in question) says that Silverwing235 is not concerned with whether the original was correct and whether their revision was wrong. After being shown in detail that the original was correct, and that their revision was not, they referred to the original as

          some sort of highly, blatantly obvious spelling/grammar mistake, that honestly needed (or so I thought) no edit summary to [...] stay correct

          Even from my brief interaction with them, it's clear this point of view persists. And if it were merely a case of their not getting the point or simply not reading, I would actually find it easier to understand. But given the rest of their statement, I doubt that was the case then, and I doubt that's the case now; to wit,

          Yes, its a mistake to me, hence the corrections in the first place [...]

          How to proceed other than leaving it alone (as you seem to have insinuated with your "an usage" interjection on my talk page, unfortunately)? I mean, yeah, [spelling and grammar], corrected thus: "[...] an ubiquitous feature"

          (Emphasis added by me.)

          This editor persists in imposing idiosyncratic (often incorrect) usage rules, and in discussion of their errors, continues to refer to the original versions as mistakes, and their (incorrect or unwarranted) changes as corrections.

          I.e., I Didn't Hear That.

          • On first read, I, too, took time to parse the discussion there—formatting confusion aside, it was hard to understand without looking at all the diffs ([21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]), noticing the summary in which Loci included a link to Silverwing235's talk.

          Which, actually, I think I must have tried to click before, but the thread of that conversation was difficult to follow. The only reason I was at Silverwing235's talk page to begin with was to find out if anyone had raised these issues with them before. Loci had, but Silverwing235 appeared to have disregarded each instance in which Loci advised them that their edits were incorrect.

          • Actually, when Loci pointed out that repeated elective edits (especially resulting in the same incorrect idiosyncratic usages) would constitute disruptive editing—

          Repeatedly modifying acceptable page layouts and punctuation to suit your personal taste is disruptive.

          —and you spot-checked some of the reverts involved, notice that Silverwing235's response actually blames Loci for even raising the issue:

          [...] what I was trying to do, and thought I had done, before 'Loci, Vandalfinder Mod' came along with their reverts (Not that I want anyone to take on that role with regards to me in particular, it's rather annoying [...]

          • And then, in response to your fourth bullet point (re singular they, Since your changes have led to some disagreements, I'm going to ask you to avoid changing any existing content related to singular "they" (this applies to things that use it and things that don't).), Silverwing235 seems to get the wrong message:

          3 & 4: Not much to say here, other than: thanks for the assist and I wholeheartedly agree with you about the personal preference thing?

          (Emphasis added.)

          And in fact, this behavior is ongoing in 2021, even though you explicitly asked the user to avoid it. I've only been back on the wiki for a few weeks. I haven't actually trawled Silverwing235's past contribs, which, given the number of issues I've noticed, ought to be surprising.

          —οɼѕаk 16:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• vandalism by Johnhankse (talk | contribs) on 40d:Rose gold, [29] and [30] MathFox (talk) 09:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• advertising by user Click4Support (talk | contribs) on the page Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Page request --Edern76 (talk) 10:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• reverted edits from IP editor 174.51.109.169 (talk | contribs) selling e-cigs at Mist; "reviewed content and references" lol who does that Vasiln (talk) 06:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
• godlysockpuppet here, never used a wiki but just reporting that the df2012 page on security design and df2012 page on Maul has been turned to a spam advertising page. Feel free to clean this up or something. //edit I undid the spam. Im the random IP address.
• Reporting Bancream (talk | contribs) for this edit on 40d:Pressure. --Lethosor (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
• Reporting Pingping111 (talk | contribs) for this revision on Talk:Main Page (12 separate edits). --Lethosor (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• More IP spam from 180.194.171.229 (talk | contribs): here. --Lethosor (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
• IP Spam: this edit by 180.194.169.157 (talk | contribs) --Lethosor (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

This report and the one following it both come from the 180.194.*.* block of IP addresses. Perhaps this should be looked into. --Lethosor (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• IP Spam http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php?title=Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki:Centralized_Discussion&curid=14457&diff=182911&oldid=180865 – unsigned comment by Old Ancient

• Not sure how to report this, but 71.118.242.47 added over 50000 g's on this page. This doesn't seem like the type of spam we normally see, so I'm not sure if it's a bot, but I wouldn't exactly say it's useful information to have in an article. It also doesn't seem like an automated DOS-type attack, but it definitely isn't a normal edit so I thought I'd post it here. --Lethosor (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Considering the lack of spam from this IP since, I don't see any reason to act on this incident now. --Lethosor (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Reporting User:Annaferry, a user who registered about 10 minutes ago and promptly posted spam on GhostDwemer's talk page. --Lethosor (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Reporting User:Wingramo for this edit. It supposedly links to the Bay12 Support page but links to downloadranking.com instead. --Chronotab 18:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Wingramo's contributions, also include an edit on Dwarf Fortress RPG and History of Dwarf Fortress, which I reverted. They seem to be from December, so I'm surprised they went unnoticed. Strangely, Wingramo hasn't made any edits since then. --Lethosor (talk)) 19:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Reporting User:Alloy7memory for this edit, which 174.239.35.25 reverted. It's not exactly "link spam", but the username looks similar to most spambots (although strangely it actually contains real words). --Lethosor (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Reporting IP 180.194.171.159 for an unrelated link to something about alcohol abuse on both Bloodline:Succession_League and Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki:Centralized_Discussion.
• Reporting IP 80.218.59.174 for an edit made to this page itself. --Cali 01:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• Reporting IP 112.202.121.89 for its "contributions" of spam links. 21:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Those "contributions" were from a year ago. Considering that there hasn't been any spam from that IP address since then, there's no point in banning it now. I removed the spam. -- HiEv 20:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Reporting new user Puravida for a spam link on his(?) user talk page User_talk:Puravida. --MathFox 18:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• Reporting new user BLT111 for placing a link to an "adult tool site" on his(?) user talk page User_talk:BLT111. --MathFox 16:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Already got that one - somehow, I didn't see the website link, but the rest of the page looked suspicious enough that I banned it anyways. --Quietust 16:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, I edited the url out before posting here... Compliments with the reaction speed! --MathFox 16:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
      • In the future, don't do that - if a bot puts spam on its talk page, blank the entire page so it's clear that it needs to be deleted. --Quietust 19:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Reporting Celery for all of its "contributions" Celery 71.75.99.199 02:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Reporting 63.248.241.226 for this edit --Cali 22:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Reporting Casinostars for spam linking in Talk:Main Page. Knight Otu 16:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Reporting new user Neystec1753 for placing an advertorial on his(?) user talk page User_talk:Neystec1753. --MathFox 11:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Reporting user Cry1313 for edits [31] and [32] Calc 12:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Reporting Neucent1742 for talk page spam, too. Knight Otu 16:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Reporing Giome1861 for talk page spam. Knight Otu 13:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Reporting new user Suco1260 for placing an advertorial on his(?) user talk page User_talk:Suco1260. --MathFox 19:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Reporting new user Detoxdietgirl‎ for placing an advertorial on her(?) user talk page User_talk:Detoxdietgirl‎. --MathFox 12:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Reporting new user Exto1871 for placing an advertorial on his(?) user talk page User_talk:Exto1871. --MathFox 18:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Reporting new user Rueti1215 for placing an advertorial on his user talk page User_talk:Rueti1215. --MathFox 14:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Reporting user Lethuphuong89 for two (already reverted) edits Special:Contributions/Lethuphuong89 84.134.6.29 13:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Reporting user Tari1388 for (reverted) talk page spam. 84.134.6.29 13:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Reporting IP 167.128.19.234 for vandalizing Talk:Main Page [33]

--MathFox 17:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Reporting IP 94.122.66.247 for inserting spam links into Talk:Main Page and Talk:Main Page/Quote

--MathFox 13:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Reporting user DMundell for a bunch of spammy links - see Yeti, Badger, etc. I've reverted the edits and removed the spam.

-- 194.200.65.239 11:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Um, I don't actually have an account here, but I've just noticed a few things:

- Clicking on some page links results in downloading a .rar file, named with the name of the page you were trying to go to. There's a blank file inside. Also, the main page is encountering database error. It's like the entire site is having a stroke, so I assume some kind of DDOS-like attack is being carried out. Reporting user DivinaLittlefield for a number of edits. - Knight Otu 20:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Concur, 3 more edits by DivinaLittlefield around 21:00 today. Invisible direct and redirection links to a site hawking weight control.
—0x517A5D 21:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Reporting users Shushu, Liliyuan, Smalltrees, and Bingbingyuan for user tallk page spam. - Knight Otu 09:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Reporting user Ameriplan - bunch of spammy stuff in User talk:Ameriplan 194.200.65.239 11:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Reporting user Aiai00125 for this edit to the Centralized discussion page. The user's talk page also contains linkage spam. -- Khym Chanur 03:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Also on 23a:Creature_small_mammals.txt. Both vandalized pages are reverted.

Knight Otu 11:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Reporting user AWurth93 for this [34]. Yep, there's at least one link in that mess. - Knight Otu 16:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Reporting user JBinkley89 for this [35] wait. I think this list is actually the same as Sgragg88's. -- Redherring 7:59 23/09/2011 GMT+2 (First time editing, sorry for the mess)

I would suggest looking into users AWurth93 and EKruse55. Their names follow the same pattern as Binkley and Gragg - if they are spam accounts then like those, they are probably to lie dormant for a few days before they start their spam.

Knight Otu 12:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Reporting user SGragg88 for this edit, this edit, this edit, and this edit. I'd be remiss to not include this edit, this edit, this edit, or this edit. And who could forget such classics as this edit, this edit, this edit, and everbody's favorite: this edit? But wait! There's more! This edit free with purchase! --Jwest23 21:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Reporting user 75.163.224.80 for this edit --Cali 04:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

At Wikipedia we'd call that a "test edit" - most likely the first ever wiki edit by a young person who didn't quite believe they could change the internet. My bet is that there won't be any further disruption from that IP address, so no administrator action is required. Bognor 14:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree here. --Briess 07:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Pre-emptive, but I'm guessing the following are not genuine new-user registrations...
(User creation log); 09:14 . . Download Love That Girl! - Season One 1080p movie New user account
(User creation log); 08:44 . . Download 60 Minutes Australia - 2011 Full movie New user account
194.200.65.239 10:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

1. Reporting IP Address 124.6.181.189 for an edit which I have reverted. --Jwest23 16:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
2. Reporting IP Address 124.6.181.183 for an edit which I have reverted. --Jwest23 19:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
3. Reporting user Jose for an edit which I have reverted. --Jwest23 18:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

There was a link insertion at Talk:Main_Page/Quote/archive1 by an anonymous IP. I undid it, not sure if other measures need to be taken. Knight Otu 19:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

There was a vandalism at "http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/DF2010:Ruin". -- Dragongutz

No there wasn't - the article history clearly indicates that the article has never had any content. --Quietust 21:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

reporting user User:Jalohear [link|http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page&oldid=135938 link]

Interestingly, that user (and 2 others) signed up over a week ago and sat dormant this entire time. The bastards are trying to get sneaky... --Quietust 21:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I've seen vandalized main pages like that on the other wikis under attack. I'm not sure, but I think they start doing that only after they've "burrowed" into the site for an extended period of time. I believe the goal is to keep their spam links a part of the wiki for as long as possible. Uristocrat 08:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I suspect they were remaining dormant in order to get past the "new user" stage and gain the ability to edit semi-protected pages. --Quietust 17:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I've modified new user stage so that you have to have made 10 edits before you can edit semiprotected articles or create new articles, in addition to the 3 day wait period. --Briess 17:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad. Sounds like that should help. Although, I just tried to create my user profile (Thundercraft) and it gave me a Permission error, it said "You do not have permission to create new pages." (I do not have 10 edits yet.) Perhaps you should make user profiles exempt from this rule? Also, I would recommend mentioning to new members about these requirements. Otherwise, it could mean a lot of confused new members at a lot of complaints. You would not have to be specific, however. You could just say that "several edits" are required before that privilege is granted. --Thundercraft 23:01:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I made your user profile page for you. An admin will have to do anything else. Also, I have confirmation now that the webspam team at Google is taking a look at this. They're interested because it's not just this wiki, there are thousands of others being vandalized by spammers and their real goal is to get their crap into the search engines. That probably won't stop the spambots from vandalizing things, but it will help keep them from profiting from this. Uristocrat 08:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll look into permissions today and see if I can get user page creation working for newly registered users. Also, you're probably right about needing a notice of some sort for this change. --Briess 16:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Both User_talk:DaisyBarrett DaisyBarrett (example) and User_talk:SunshineMcfadden SunshineMcfadden (example) have added link-spam marked as minor edits. Link spam is the only edits these two users have done. -- Khym Chanur 20:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you not notice that their edits were undone and I banned both of them 9 hours ago? --Quietust 21:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

There was a single spam edit by 124.6.181.171, which I've reverted. Bognor 07:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

^Same story for DScheer82. Bognor 10:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)