To contact staff directly or to report bugs, please use Special:Contact.
I'm used to a different set of methods of dealing with vandalism or negative edits than other wiki because my first wikia did things a little differently than other wikia for certain reasons. So I'm just asking if this is a proper response to a situation:
- A user comes along and starts making contributions to the wiki.
- These contributions consist of uploading images to the wiki and ading them to articles which while do fit the context, don't have any information on them which would allow them to be taged with proper copyright info, thus adding to the already existant problem of images not being tagged which is trying to be addressed.
- The user is asked to refrain from adding these images to the wiki after they have added 5 of them.
- After the user has uploaded 7 images they are warned to stop because they are only making trouble for the community (all the images half to be deleted if we can't tag them right, and they half to be removed from articles if so to)
- The day ends.
- Next day the user has uploaded 25 more of these images (some animated distracting from article content).
- The only other edits that can be seen from this user are 1 time adding copied content of the wrong language to an article, and content mostly copied from elsewhere without adding proper attribution or messages to the articles.
- Now was this response normal or overboard?
- The user was blocked for 2 Weeks and notified of why.
- All the images that were uploaded were deleted because they had no source info and thus could not be kept because it's illegal to keep them without the proper tags.
- Because the user's edits only consisted of adding those images to the articles, and adding content to the wiki which either wasn't sourced (copied from somewhere without attribution), or was in the wrong language all of the user's edits were reverted and where they couldn't be the images were manually removed. Unsourced copied pages which didn't exist before were also deleted.
Was it overboard or just normal? I'd like to be able to guage my future responses by feedback on this reaction. Dantman (Talk) 23:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Opinion
Given the large number of images added and the non-response to the two initial requests, except for the repeat offences, I think this response was well within the range of reasonable.
I've not had this situation. In similar situations, when the first un-tagged images were noticed, I wrote a request to the uploader to request information about the image and how we got permission to use it. If there was no response after about a week, I'd delete the images. So far, I haven't had anyone go one to upload more. But, I have had people make inappropriate edits, such as copying text from copyrighted sites. If they continue after a warning, a ban is appropriate (in my opinion), and the more egregious the problem, the longer the ban.
I've seen users who copied a large amount of copyrighted materials before anyone noticed. Once one user in that situation was warned, he apologized and agreed to stop and help clean-up, but other users kept hounding him and saying he should have already known. We lost a good contributor. (He also made original contributions.) I was sorry to see that happen.
A blocked user can still respond on his or her talk page. If this user now responds with an agreement to stop, I'd consider ending the ban early, but I think your response was a good one. You needed to get the user's attention. (You might leave another message for the user explaining the block, if you haven't already.)
By the way, if the user does it again after the block expires, I'd make it a one year or permanent ban.
--CocoaZen
- Ya, I made a notification of the block and reasons before I actualy went to the block page. But the real issue, is that the user has never replied to anything anyones added to his talk page. Hmm, 1 year. I don't usualy consider 1 year a permablock, the only type of block I consider permanent is an infinite block. Thanks. Dantman (Talk) 04:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)