Current Vandal on Wiki

Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay, this is getting annoying. Yesterday there were around ten vandals (mostly IPs) blocked and today there have been three already.
 
Four as of now: vandals here are almost always blocked within minutes, so it's nothing to worry about. Vandals are a typical part of any wiki.
 
Back when the wiki was new, there were lots of vandals (just check out some of the old logs). That's why anonymous editing wasn't allowed for so long, and afaik, a lot of the early promotions were made because they needed reinforcements. The worst of it was before my time, but there were still a few periods where we had a lot of spam and troll problems to deal with (just compare the block log from four years ago to what we're doing now - and there was a lot more cleanup needed back then, too). Trust me, between autoconfirmation and the sheer number of users and admins on the ball these days, contemporary vandal "problems" are nothing at all.
 
Also, you have to consider the whole "good users becoming vandals for no reasons" episodes as well.
 
A weird user named "‎Mamma Mia" keeps adding weird information to articles. He is saying that he is the brother of Yoshi876.. I don't believe that! Yoshi876 is a good user, and I don't think that he is saying the truth
 
Megadardery said:
He is saying that he is the brother of Yoshi876.. Yoshi876 is a good user, and I don't think that he is saying the truth
Click to expand...

That's hilarious.

This person must be delusional then. lol('course, if they ACTUALLY believed they were the brother)
 
Megadardery said:
snip
Click to expand...

That account does not share any IPs with Yoshi876. It, however, does share one with you (though the computer information is different).
 
It's not blanking things, it's just replacing the entire article with ridiculous things.

Still should be blocked
 
Turboo took care of it
 
Not sure whether this counts, but Iggy2300 repeatedly adds false information to articles, and still does it when online.
 
Yoshi876 said:
Not sure whether this counts, but Iggy2300 repeatedly adds false information to articles, and still does it when online.
Click to expand...
He's on his last straw. Next time will be a ban.
 
Don't know if this counts, but a user named "Mario Head" just moved Tucayo's talk pages to a PipeProject namespace, someone please look at that.
 
Megadardery said:
‎174.100.46.11 see this
Click to expand...
...

MarioWiki:Upcoming Content said:
Information about subjects in upcoming projects with pre-existing articles is allowed as long as the information is not speculation and is accompanied by solid references. Unlike new articles pertaining to upcoming projects, there is no minimum for length of content. Statements like “[subject] may make an appearance in [future project]” are not allowed. When adding information about an upcoming project to an article, make a separate section to distinguish it from existing information. Place {{Newsubject-section}} at the top of this section to signal to other editors and readers that the information is subject to change because the project hasn’t been released yet. Once information has been rewritten and more content has been added, the template may be removed.
Click to expand...
Admittedly, that grammar is terrible and I'm gonna see about fixing it, but the point it, if Olimar's been confirmed for the next SSB game, his article can and should get a section about it. The added content wasn't speculation, and while it wasn't perfect, it should have been fixed up, not removed.

If you're gonna accuse well-meaning anons of vandalism, make sure you actually know the policy in question (MarioWiki:Upcoming Content).
 
24.187.75.54 constantly adds false information into the New Super Mario Bros. world articles
 
Yoshi876 said:
24.187.75.54 constantly adds false information into the New Super Mario Bros. world articles
Click to expand...
He's on his last chance.

EDIT: And he blew that chance. I've blocked him for a month.
 
Ivan123uhh (Ivan123uhh) keeps adding things about breasts to the Pauline article, ignoring informal reminders; is he (or she) a vandal?
 
Is there any other choice it can be than just he or he?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back