Location: Report a Bug

Discussion: BUG - Banned user not so bannedReported This is a featured thread

Category: Discussion Forum / General Discussion
Showing 1 - 19 of 19  |  Show  posts at a time

PedroAsani
BUG - Banned user not so banned
Aug 20 2009, 5:37 PM EDT | Post edited: Aug 20 2009, 5:37 PM EDT
zombiesurvivalwiki.com

We have a user, billybad_45. He cancelled his account before we could ban him. We banned him anyway.

Turns out that he can reactivate his account, post trolling threads, then cancel before we can ban him. Each time after he has cancelled, his status is back to Registered User. Put the ban back on, but no effect.

Is it possible to have it so that banning cancelled people still bans them? 1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    
shadowmlb
shadowmlb
1. RE: BUG - Banned user not so banned
Aug 20 2009, 5:48 PM EDT | Post edited: Aug 20 2009, 5:48 PM EDT
This is something that needs to change, it allows trolls to get away and come back when ever they want. I reported the same concern on this matter in April. I mean no offense to Wetpaint, but why allow us to ban user who have canceled their memberships if it doesn't actually do anything? Do you find this valuable?    

PedroAsani
2. RE: BUG - Banned user not so banned
Aug 20 2009, 5:51 PM EDT | Post edited: Aug 20 2009, 5:51 PM EDT
Just from observation, it appears that when a cancelled account is reactivated, it automatically resets the permission to Registered User, irrespective of the previous flag. A simple check of "Is user banned? If yes, then set user=banned, if no, then user=registered" would do. Do you find this valuable?    

PedroAsani
3. RE: BUG - Banned user not so banned
Aug 20 2009, 6:02 PM EDT | Post edited: Aug 20 2009, 6:02 PM EDT
Is this the behaviour of all banned users, or just those banned after cancellation? Do you find this valuable?    
jeremy_wetpaint
jeremy_wetpaint
4. RE: BUG - Banned user not so banned
Aug 20 2009, 7:09 PM EDT | Post edited: Aug 20 2009, 7:09 PM EDT
If the user is banned before they have a chance to cancel then they won't have the option of canceling their membership. In order to cancel your membership you have to sign in and go to your profile. They can be quick though, so I can see how this could be a problem. I'll see if there's anything we can do to help. 1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    
shadowmlb
shadowmlb
5. RE: BUG - Banned user not so banned
Aug 20 2009, 7:12 PM EDT | Post edited: Aug 20 2009, 7:12 PM EDT
Thank you, Jeremy. Do you find this valuable?    

PedroAsani
6. RE: BUG - Banned user not so banned
Aug 20 2009, 7:15 PM EDT | Post edited: Aug 20 2009, 7:15 PM EDT
So this is currently a loophole for trolls. Cancel before you get banned, and you can keep doing this drive-by attacks on the site so long as you are not caught in the act.

Hopefully this gets fixed before it catches on. I can see this being a problem if malicious users get their hands on it. Posting threads is the least damage they could do. Do you find this valuable?    
BrandonE
BrandonE
7. RE: BUG - Banned user not so banned
Aug 20 2009, 10:11 PM EDT | Post edited: Aug 20 2009, 10:11 PM EDT
Is has happened to one of my wikis before, they cancel, right before I can ban them. What I did, was made sure all moderators had a certain time to check on the wiki. Have your moderators take turns watching the site, until the user comes back on, and someone can ban it. Do you find this valuable?    
shadowmlb
shadowmlb
8. RE: BUG - Banned user not so banned
Aug 20 2009, 10:15 PM EDT | Post edited: Aug 20 2009, 10:15 PM EDT
That isn't a bad idea, but it isn't always possible to have a moderator watching your site at all times. Regardless, eventually there will be a time when a moderator will not be on watch. Do you find this valuable?    
R.Daneel_Olivaw
R.Daneel_Olivaw
9. RE: BUG - Banned user not so banned
Nov 13 2009, 12:46 AM EST | Post edited: Nov 13 2009, 12:46 AM EST
Sorry for the necropost.

Anything new on this issue? My site is short on mods, and some learned this loophole. Anyway to find the IP on a cancelled account? Do you find this valuable?    
Naru2008
Naru2008
10. RE: BUG - Banned user not so banned
Nov 13 2009, 5:23 AM EST | Post edited: Nov 13 2009, 5:23 AM EST
"Sorry for the necropost.

Anything new on this issue? My site is short on mods, and some learned this loophole. Anyway to find the IP on a cancelled account?"
This thread needs to be locked. Forum Necromancy, which R.Daneel_Olivaw knew was wrong, apparently.

To answer your question: No there is not.

Will a Mod lock it?

-Aex, WPC RU. Do you find this valuable?    
R.Daneel_Olivaw
R.Daneel_Olivaw
11. RE: BUG - Banned user not so banned
Nov 13 2009, 7:22 AM EST | Post edited: Nov 13 2009, 7:22 AM EST
"This thread needs to be locked. Forum Necromancy, which R.Daneel_Olivaw knew was wrong, apparently.

To answer your question: No there is not.

Will a Mod lock it?

-Aex, WPC RU."
So would the proper protocol have been to start a new thread on the subject?

Its a legitimate question. Do you find this valuable?    

PedroAsani
12. RE: BUG - Banned user not so banned
Nov 13 2009, 8:26 AM EST | Post edited: Nov 13 2009, 8:26 AM EST
I don't see it as a necropost if the issue still exists. Once it's fixed, then by all means lock it to stop it coming back to life.

But it's still broken. Do you find this valuable?    
CryingDove
CryingDove
13. RE: BUG - Banned user not so banned
Nov 13 2009, 9:31 AM EST | Post edited: Nov 13 2009, 9:31 AM EST
"I don't see it as a necropost if the issue still exists. Once it's fixed, then by all means lock it to stop it coming back to life.

But it's still broken."
I agree Pedro. If the issue still exists or is relevant, such as corrective actions, then add to the thread. Otherwise if the thread has been resoived, then add a disclaimer such as:
"This thread has been resolved and locked."

There seems to be a catch-22 with directions to search threads for your answer FIRST and Forum Necormancy. If someone follows the Featured Thread as what to do before posting and searches threads with keywords and finds a thread that deals with their issue and adds to it, depending upon the date of the thread, they can be slammed with a necromancy reply.

There are certain archived threads that should not exist. Such as issues dating back to 2006,2007,2008 that no longer pertain to current release of Wetpaint Wikis software.

Having worked on removing many of those types of threads, there are still many that exist. If the threads were maintained and massaged to reflect status of open or resolved, then the discussion forums would be a greater tool for all.

(How is that for passing the buck?)

 Do you find this valuable?    
R.Daneel_Olivaw
R.Daneel_Olivaw
14. RE: BUG - Banned user not so banned
Nov 13 2009, 11:36 AM EST | Post edited: Nov 13 2009, 1:48 PM EST
Thank you for explaining.

(edit) I knew that necroposting was annoying to some, but I did not know there was a forum rule against it. I am new to WPC and did not RTFM before plugging in. Sorry. Do you find this valuable?    
jeremy_wetpaint
jeremy_wetpaint
15. RE: BUG - Banned user not so banned
Nov 13 2009, 8:29 PM EST | Post edited: Nov 13 2009, 8:29 PM EST
"Thank you for explaining.

(edit) I knew that necroposting was annoying to some, but I did not know there was a forum rule against it. I am new to WPC and did not RTFM before plugging in. Sorry."
The "forum necromancy" is more of a general guideline than a hard rule. I don't see any problem with someone posting on a thread that hasn't been active recently if their post is entirely relevant to the thread topic. Do you find this valuable?    

Fermi
16. RE: BUG - Banned user not so banned
Nov 14 2009, 10:24 AM EST | Post edited: Nov 14 2009, 10:24 AM EST
I think it was good idea to necrobump this thread
it is a serious issue that should be fixed
 1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    

PedroAsani
17. RE: BUG - Banned user not so banned
Nov 14 2009, 1:14 PM EST | Post edited: Nov 14 2009, 1:14 PM EST
"The "forum necromancy" is more of a general guideline than a hard rule. I don't see any problem with someone posting on a thread that hasn't been active recently if their post is entirely relevant to the thread topic."
While you are here, jeremy, any update on this bug? Do you find this valuable?    
jeremy_wetpaint
jeremy_wetpaint
18. RE: BUG - Banned user not so banned
Nov 17 2009, 12:16 PM EST | Post edited: Nov 17 2009, 12:16 PM EST
"While you are here, jeremy, any update on this bug?"
This is not a bug per se, because everything is working as it was designed. However, the design could use some improvement given that this loophole is sometimes exploited for malicious purposes. I'll check back with the development team and see if there is anything they will be able to do to about this in a future release. Do you find this valuable?