Wikia

Harry Potter Wiki

Vandalism in harry potter wiki

11,848pages on
this wiki

Forum page

Forums: Index > The Wizengamot archive > Vandalism in harry potter wiki


I reported several of the articles that have been vandalised but there are too many. The users who are vandalising many of our important article (such as Tom marvolo Riddle) are "Astroglider" and "Some muggle". Since i can't delete their user names, i thought i would write it in the wizengamot. Please help out with this situation. Thanks.Skrox29 00:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

All taken care of. Thanks! -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 04:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the damage has been undone. I started at the beginning of Some muggle's contribution history, and I take it DarkJedi started from the end, and we met in the middle. We can do a search for "EBAUMS" or whatever later to see if there are any articles that have been overlooked (I think the database has to catch up first). I'm also concerned about the article count in the left sidebar: yesterday, it was around 2300 articles, but now it's jumped up to 2800. I'm concerned that the vandals were working through Special:Allpages and inserted vandalism into a bunch of redirects. We then reverted to the last good version and now we've got boatload of duplicate articles. However, I suppose if they were vandalizing redirects, the last good version of those pages would have had the redirect code. Perhaps the database has been thrown off by all the rapid-fire edits and just needs a chance to catch up with the real article count.
This was obviously orchestrated by a group of people working together from a central "base." The vandalism was too quick to have been done by just one person, so I imagine there were three or four of them, working through two shared accounts. They tag team edited so as to make their vandalism more difficult to revert: Some muggle would vandalize an article, then Astroglider would follow them up with an edit with the summary "rv vandalism," to give the false impression that the vandalism had already been reverted (and, no, I don't put much stock in the theory that someone with the username "Astroglider" was really a well-meaning editor who simply reverted to the wrong version hundreds of times).
I have three recommendations on how to prevent or mitigate such vandalism sprees in the future:
1. Ban the IPs of those who were involved. If this hasn't been done already, of course, but this will prevent them from coming back for another round of nonsense under new accounts.
2. Lock down image uploading privileges to only approved users. This is a harsh remedy, I know, but I think it's necessary for preventing the uploading of shock images on a site heavily trafficked by young teens.
3. Recruit more admins or give more users blocking rights. There's not always an admin on call, and, during these periods, editors who are online are almost powerless to stop ongoing vandalism. Reverting usually does the trick, but, when you're up against an organized mob of vandals, as we were tonight, it's next to no good. I think giving more users blocking privileges would allow us to nip vandalism sprees in the bud and prevent them from getting to the point where the whole site is brought to its knees.
-Starstuff 05:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The IPs have been banned. I'm not sure about blocking image uploading. I think in terms of admins we have enough (four active), but we can discuss it. Yeah Manticore started at one end I kinda started in the middle and Starstuff started at the other end. Went rather quickly...although I think I was working on the site for around 2 and a half hours last night. Anyway, we're looking into what we can do. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 15:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, more admins could be a good idea. I don't see why too many admins can be a BAD thing. I think better to many than too little. -- Freakatone Talk 02:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
That's a rule of thumb I like to live by; better to have too much than not enough. --Cubs Fan2007 02:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Generally I agree. We've talked about a bunch of stuff on IRC so...some changes'll happen most likely. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 03:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding me that I've still got to look for a Mac OS-friendly IRC client. -Starstuff 08:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to renew my suggestion on disallowing anonymous editing. If every person who edits the wikia is forced to log in, we will be better able to limit their ability to vandalize. I don't think it would be an extraordinary burden on members to actually log in to contribute. It also fosters greater community as contributors will have identity. Is there a way to limit one account per email address at registration? Mafalda Hopkirk 04:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not positive the amount of control we have over the registration process since its controlled by Wikia, not us directly. There are a good amount of editors who do not log in though and we're a small community as is...we'd have to see what's best. We can discuss possibilities though. And afterall...the majority of vandals that we get (at least the major ones who cause us problems) are registered. Sure anonymous vandals occasionally edit random things, but its not usually a coordinated attack as this was. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 05:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

We'll help. (Semperance)

I'll help you stop vandilisim. what's your plan? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hermione821 (talkcontribs).

This is a pretty old thread about a particular instance of vandalism that happened. We've since created two more admins and such. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 16:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki