Index
|
||||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Vandalism only accounts
Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Vandalism_only_accounts
AIV helperbot
Hi, just an issue I've had a few times with the AIV helperbot: If a user has been blocked then the bot will remove them from the AIV page. But normally when a user is blocked they are allowed to edit their talk page (to request an unblock). Now some users (naming no names ;) ) will vandalise their own talk page ( :o ). They get reverted, reported here, and the bot removes them before any admin gets a chance to see the report (because they are blocked). Now would it be possible for the helperbot to, when removing a user, check if the blocked user's last edit was to their talk page, and also (possibly), check if that edit was reverted. If it was, then put a note underneath saying something like "This user is blocked, but may have been vandalising their talk page"? Hope all of that makes sense, thanks - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ops, should this have been put here? :/ - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- I find it useful to check the "watch user and talkpage" box on the block form (or click "watch" on the talkpage when placing a "you've been blocked" tag) to keep an eye out for talkpage vandalism by recently-blocked users. Tonywalton Talk 22:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Me too. Dlohcierekim 22:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- But I still often see vandals managing to vandalise their talk pages and end up reporting them directly to an admin (I can drag up some diffs if need be). It's not like any harm would come from my idea. - Kingpin13 (talk) 07:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- I used to have the same problem occasionally in my pre-admin days. You can always report such abuse manually on this talk page, or at WP:ANI. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 07:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm... This just struck me as a way of keeping things in the right place. Plus, AN/I is scary ;), and it just takes slightly longer then AIV. But I guess it doesn't matter massively if the edits are to the user's talk page, as it's the mainspace vandalism which is important to clean-up quickly. In future I'll take it to AN/I. Thanks all for your comments :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 07:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- I used to have the same problem occasionally in my pre-admin days. You can always report such abuse manually on this talk page, or at WP:ANI. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 07:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- But I still often see vandals managing to vandalise their talk pages and end up reporting them directly to an admin (I can drag up some diffs if need be). It's not like any harm would come from my idea. - Kingpin13 (talk) 07:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Me too. Dlohcierekim 22:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- I find it useful to check the "watch user and talkpage" box on the block form (or click "watch" on the talkpage when placing a "you've been blocked" tag) to keep an eye out for talkpage vandalism by recently-blocked users. Tonywalton Talk 22:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
New template?
Would it be worth considering producing a new template, say {{talkvandal}}, for use in the above situation which would be similar to {{vandal}}/{{ipvandal}}, but would be ignored by the bots? It would have a note to say that it would have to be removed manually. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 08:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- That's a good idea, although it would be a bit different from the other templates which might cause confusion. I mean, is the template going to explain that the user is vandalising their page (i.e. *{{talkvandal|ClueBot}} - ~~~~) or is the user who's leaving the template (i.e. *{{talkvandal|ClueBot}} blocked user is vandalising their page. - ~~~~)? Personally I think the first example is better. Also, would this require the bot to be "told" not to remove the template, or would it just ignore it? - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think the first case, as it would only be used for thhat one scenarion. I don't know how the bots work - I'll do some trials later today if there's any support for this idea. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 08:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Go for it. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ok - I'll run some tests... — Tivedshambo (t/c) 17:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I've established that {{talkvandal}} doesn't get automatically cleaned up by the bots if the user is blocked. However, it will get cleaned up as a comment if the user above in the list is blocked (see [1]). Some alteration to the bot coding will be required to prevent this, if there's a consensus to use this template. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 17:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well it would be nice (and best) for the bot to not remove this as a comment. An alternative would be to simple always put it at the top. - Kingpin13 (talk) 06:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- I went directly to WP:ANI for Justicefornobody (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He started posting inflammatory comments on his talk page after being indef blocked, but the report would have been removed immediately had I posted it here. Maybe is there a way this could be fixed? - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 16:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well it would be nice (and best) for the bot to not remove this as a comment. An alternative would be to simple always put it at the top. - Kingpin13 (talk) 06:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I've established that {{talkvandal}} doesn't get automatically cleaned up by the bots if the user is blocked. However, it will get cleaned up as a comment if the user above in the list is blocked (see [1]). Some alteration to the bot coding will be required to prevent this, if there's a consensus to use this template. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 17:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ok - I'll run some tests... — Tivedshambo (t/c) 17:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- I tend to think we should ignore "caged tigers" -- once they're blocked, paying them further attention only keeps them engaged and encourages further disruption, where we might be better off simply focusing our attention on the next vandalism problem in content space. That said, a template of this nature might be helpful in some situations; if it won't work here, WP:AN/I should do in a pinch. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, doesn't seem to be any major objection. So is everybody alright if I add a note on the AIV page, looking some what like:
<!-- The following are examples of how to report a vandal on this page. Talk Page Vandals (after block): * {{talkvandal|username}} ~~~~ Add talk page vandals after this line, ONLY if the user is blocked and vandalising their page --> <!-- Please copy and paste an appropriate example to the very bottom of the page. Anonymous Users (IP addresses): * {{IPvandal|IP address}} brief reason for listing (keep it short) ~~~~ Registered Users: * {{Vandal|username}} optional brief reason for listing (keep it short) ~~~~ * {{Userlinks|username}} optional brief reason for listing (keep it short) ~~~~ List begins BELOW this line -->
- The bots just undid your edit. Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/instructions will have to be updated. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Uh huh, I was just having a look to see how they'd reacted ;). However, I can't edit that page. Could some admin please? Cheers - Kingpin13 (talk) 06:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- I suppose I could do that...there doesn't seem to be much objection here. The bots will ignore the talkvandal template? Someguy1221 (talk) 06:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Uh huh, I was just having a look to see how they'd reacted ;). However, I can't edit that page. Could some admin please? Cheers - Kingpin13 (talk) 06:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, um...uh oh...the bots are now fighting over which version of the instruction block is correct...Someguy1221 (talk) 07:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hum... My guess is that this is something to do with having two "openings". We could have it as before and just put a note saying to add the {{talkvandal}} to the top? - Kingpin13 (talk) 07:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Shutdown
I've shutdown helperbot2 and helperbot 7 until this problem is resolved. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 07:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, 3RR has it's uses eh? ;) We need someone who knows how the bots work... It says they only update every half hour, so this could be the problem, but so could a number of other things - Kingpin13 (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- (Five and Three still going strong) - Kingpin13 (talk) 07:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Bots fighting is amusing, but shutting them down was good! I'm guessing they've not been updated quite the same, should be an easy fix for the owner. --GedUK 07:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Let's hope so. I see that Tivedshambo has notified people, so untill then... - Kingpin13 (talk) 07:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, they seem to be under control now, and removing blocked reports, so fingers crossed. I'll keep an eye on it for a bit. --GedUK 07:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- (e/c) Current situation is that 5 is still active, 2, 3 and 7 are shutdown. If there's only one active, hopefully it won't edit war! — Tivedshambo (t/c) 07:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, they seem to be under control now, and removing blocked reports, so fingers crossed. I'll keep an eye on it for a bit. --GedUK 07:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Let's hope so. I see that Tivedshambo has notified people, so untill then... - Kingpin13 (talk) 07:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Bots fighting is amusing, but shutting them down was good! I'm guessing they've not been updated quite the same, should be an easy fix for the owner. --GedUK 07:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- (Five and Three still going strong) - Kingpin13 (talk) 07:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I'm going offline for a while (boss watching me!) - can someone else unblock the bots when the problem is sorted. Thanks. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 07:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- See my edit here. — JamesR ≈talk≈ 07:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, yeah, the issue is that the existence of multiple redundant bots wasn't really considered when the instruction block replacing code was written, I think. The bots don't all check the instruction page at exactly the same time, so they have different versions cached, and fight each other as everyone saw. My first thought of a fix would be to include a version number in the instruction block page, or some other type of indicator that the bots could read and say "oh, hey, my version might be out of date, so let's update before I try to correct it". That shouldn't be too terribly difficult to add, I'll see what I can do. It should be safe to unblock them all at this point if they haven't already been unblocked because they would have had a chance to all be in sync on the instructions by now. —Krellis (Talk) 13:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- The instruction block text was reverted after this morning's problems, so the situation will presumably recur if it's changed again. One solution may be to change the header to FixInstructions=Off (something I wasn't aware it was possible to do earlier) for half an hour to give the bots time to catch up. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 16:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that would definitely work - if you turned it off, made the change, then waited an hour to be safe (in case you caught one of the bots right after it re-loaded - though even still 31 minutes should be sufficient) before turning it back on that would work. Longer term we should probably fix the underlying problem, but that would work for now. Also, I wouldn't advise making it two comment blocks as was done the first time - there's really no need to do so, and it MIGHT cause some different problems to surface, the bot code kind of assumes the instructions are a single comment block. —Krellis (Talk) 17:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Easy enough to do that, just struck me as better because it was leaving most of it as it was before (so as not to cause confusion). Anyway, this is gonna give us just over 30 minutes where we don't have bots clearing this up, so admins who are going to be on during that time should be warned - Kingpin13 (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that would definitely work - if you turned it off, made the change, then waited an hour to be safe (in case you caught one of the bots right after it re-loaded - though even still 31 minutes should be sufficient) before turning it back on that would work. Longer term we should probably fix the underlying problem, but that would work for now. Also, I wouldn't advise making it two comment blocks as was done the first time - there's really no need to do so, and it MIGHT cause some different problems to surface, the bot code kind of assumes the instructions are a single comment block. —Krellis (Talk) 17:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- The instruction block text was reverted after this morning's problems, so the situation will presumably recur if it's changed again. One solution may be to change the header to FixInstructions=Off (something I wasn't aware it was possible to do earlier) for half an hour to give the bots time to catch up. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 16:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, yeah, the issue is that the existence of multiple redundant bots wasn't really considered when the instruction block replacing code was written, I think. The bots don't all check the instruction page at exactly the same time, so they have different versions cached, and fight each other as everyone saw. My first thought of a fix would be to include a version number in the instruction block page, or some other type of indicator that the bots could read and say "oh, hey, my version might be out of date, so let's update before I try to correct it". That shouldn't be too terribly difficult to add, I'll see what I can do. It should be safe to unblock them all at this point if they haven't already been unblocked because they would have had a chance to all be in sync on the instructions by now. —Krellis (Talk) 13:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Vandalisim Problem - Help needed
We have posted repeated warning for the following user over a period of time. Now his "edits" are targeting other articles in deliberate harrasment and vandalisim. Any suggestions? He refuses to discuss or comment or respond to emails. I know who his employer is and I would really not want to go there.
Iwanafish aka 160.244.140.202 This is a warning for your continuing disruptive edits and deliberate vandalisim on Rehoboth Carpenter family,Culham and now John Carpenter (bishop).
You refuse to discuss, talk or converse. Your actions indicate you are deliberately causing harm to these articles for no apparent reason. It is childish, unprofessional and wrong. You need to stop.
John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding Rehoboth Carpenter family - We have surveyed, we have compromised, we have repeatedly asked to user Iwanafish to communicate. He refuses with his snide comments and reversions to non-wiki versions. We have warned him "offically" a lot more than 3 times. Repeatedly, we have asked for mediation, we have asked for help and I do not know who else to ask. Can you pass this up the chain of editors?
- User Iwanafish continues to disrupt and vandalize this page and it has spread his behavior to other pages. John Carpenter (bishop) John Carpenter, town clerk of London What else can we do but shut down the articles involved and provide warnings that when they are restored by user Iwanafish that they are garbage? Has wikipedia lost the ability to police itself? I am beginning to think this is a hopeless cause where such bullies can inflict such damage to wikipedia.
- What else can be done?
- Jrcrin001 (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Bots overdoing each other
The HBC AIV bots sometimes redundantly comment on the same report which just ends up overwriting their sig as in here and here. Can't they synchronize their actions? -- Mentifisto 17:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- It was simply processing/submission time that caused that. Seems harmless.— neuro(talk) 14:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
IP users skirting around the rule
I've noticed a major pattern among IP vandalizers. They tend to vandalize until their final warning, then wait for 15-30 days for the heat to cool off, then vandalize once again. Perhaps some discussion on more stern rules is needed. I dunno, just a thought. These people are getting away with a lot of vandalism. --Teancum (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Remember that blocking is not meant to punish but to protect the project. If they stop for a while, then the warnings had an effect, in a way. Would be nicer if they all played by the rules, but they don't. Eventually they need to be blocked. Such is life. -- Alexf(talk) 18:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- What would the difference be between blocking for 14 days after the 3rd-4th vandal edit, or the IP not vandalizing for 14 days after a final warning on the 3rd-4th edit? In both cases no vandalism is coming from the IP for the same amount of time.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- It only makes sense to block in that case if it appears to be the same vandal every time. I've blocked IPs that commit the same acts of vandalism sparsely for several months with no good edits. But sometimes, when an IP goes inactive for a month, then comes back with renewed vandalism, it's because the IP rotated to a new editor, and not because the same vandal came back. It's part of Wikipedia's nature that there will always be a stream of newbies that need to be educated, but we shouldn't let that erode our patience when we can still afford some. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- If it's the same pattern of vandalism, it's clear that its the same user, in which case it's unnecessary to give warnings for warnings' sake - they are gaming the system and can be blocked straight off. It's not going to affect other users, as it's clearly assigned to one address. – Toon(talk) 19:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, and a bigger related problem is caused by vandals on dynamic IPs. For a recent example (from Economy car), an editor used multiple IPs (all 85.119.112.nnn) for persistent insertion of POV, replacement of specific wikilinks with vague ones, and other vandalism. First diff, second diff, third diff, first warning. Fourth diff, second warning. Fifth diff, final warning. Sixth diff with abusive edit summary, seventh diff with no edit summary, eighth diff. And this isn't an exhaustive list of the diffs.
- If it's the same pattern of vandalism, it's clear that its the same user, in which case it's unnecessary to give warnings for warnings' sake - they are gaming the system and can be blocked straight off. It's not going to affect other users, as it's clearly assigned to one address. – Toon(talk) 19:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- When the user was reported on AIV, with a detailed description of the multiple-IP problem, an admin looked only at the contrib history of one of the IPs and declined to act, saying there wasn't enough recent vandalism to justify any action. I explained the situation to the admin, who still didn't understand; he blocked one of the IPs. This was, of course, quite ineffective. After the vandal repeated his disruption, I explained the situation again to the admin, who semi-protected the article for a month. Which stops the vandalism temporarily on this one article, but leaves this IP vandal free to disrupt others.
- IP editors and registered editors alike make good and bad contributions to the project. Some IP-only editors resist registration in the mistaken belief it will effectively exempt them from the expectation of coöperative, consensus-based editing, or that it will shield them from the community's mechanisms for dealing with willfully disruptive editors. Neither is the case, but this kind of behaviour from IP vandals greatly increases the workload on those of us who have to clean up the messes. What's the solution? I'm not sure. But surely there has to be a better way of dealing with it than the way we presently are(n't). —Scheinwerfermann T·C19:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- It is important to distinguish between an IP used exclusively over time by a single, repeat vandal (obvious block) and an IP shared by many users, some of whom unfortunately turn out to be vandals. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly; if by the pattern of edits it's obvious it's the same person (i.e., they repeatedly insert the same nonsense or attack the same articles over a series of days or weeks), then the clear route to take is a long-term block. If the vandalism "style" changes with every reappearance, then it's reasonably safe to assume that the IP is being used by multiple people. In the first case, a block is definitely warranted, but AIV is generally not the place to go (since it's for simple, ongoing vandalism)—WP:AN/I is for more complex cases. Parsecboy (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I suppose a good example of my case here is 165.166.57.70 (talk). Vandalism, warning, wait. Vandalism, warning, wait. Consistently over two years, and yet this user skirted past a block because there was not enough recent activity. If it's a private IP, the user will learn, if it's a shared IP such as a school this sort of vandalism needs to be brought to the school's attention, and can only do so via a block of ~2 weeks or greater. I mean, come on. It's not very motivating to contributors such as myself when vandals like this can skate around the rules. --Teancum (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- When reviewing ip's I note if they are active in a particular subject, and if they are returning to the same subject over a period I assume that they are the same person and often action what may appear to be quite a harsh sanction - in order that they are still blocked when they return to continue their disruption. The exception is if an ip geolocates to an area that is being vandalised - I deem it entirely possible that an ip that resolves to, for example, Korea will edit Korea related articles and that separate incidents of vandalism may indeed be different people - further review of the type of vandalism may then determine the likelihood of it being the same person. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
IPs vs Usernames
Hi guys, I've noticed that we've got a 'user reported' heading, and that's it. Maybe to make the administrators' jobs easier we could create sub-headings 'IP addresses' and 'Registered users'? Just a thought! JulieSpaulding (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- We do have a notice reading "Anonymous users(IP addresses)" but it isn't formatted in any way. Good idea though, I'll boldify(sic) it. just a little insignificant 19:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- The original idea throws a hurdle in front of newer users reporting their first vandal on a page that many users already find daunting. Also, what problem would this be solving? As an admin working on AIV, whilst more rigorous standards of warnings and time passing have to apply to IPs than registered users, the basic pattern of edit/revert/warn x3 isn't that much different, so no mental gear change is required when moving from one type of user to another. I'm not trying to be offensivefor once but this sounds like a solution in search of a problem. ➲ redvers throwing my arms around Paris 19:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- In my opinion, this would be far to much trouble for not enough gain. It's pretty easy to see whether it's an IP or a user. Sub-headings unnecessarily complicate matters. Ale_Jrbtalk 22:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Template for warning vandals who've triggered the abuse filter
I've created a template for warning vandals who've triggered the abuse filter called {{uw-attempt}}. PhilKnight (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- That would be helpful. It appears as if users are currently being blocked without warning after having tripped an abuse filter. Thanks. --NERIC-Security (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)