- v50 information can now be added to pages in the main namespace. v0.47 information can still be found in the DF2014 namespace. See here for more details on the new versioning policy.
- Use this page to report any issues related to the migration.
Difference between revisions of "Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Administrative intervention against vandalism"
m (Reverted edits by Quietust (Talk) to last revision by Knight Otu) |
(→Reports: reporting DScheer82) |
||
| Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
There was a single spam edit by 124.6.181.171, which I've reverted. [[User:Bognor|Bognor]] 07:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | There was a single spam edit by 124.6.181.171, which I've reverted. [[User:Bognor|Bognor]] 07:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
| + | :^Same story for DScheer82. [[User:Bognor|Bognor]] 10:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 10:41, 2 November 2011
| Instructions | |
|---|---|
| |
Reports
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 [1]. Yep, there's at least one link in that mess. - Knight Otu 16:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Reporting user JBinkley89 for this [2] 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)
- Reporting IP Address 124.6.181.189 for an edit which I have reverted. --Jwest23 16:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- Reporting IP Address 124.6.181.183 for an edit which I have reverted. --Jwest23 19:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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'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 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 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)
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)