ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion to Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/Archive 6. (BOT) |
2620:8d:8000:10d5:c4a0:b6fc:b66b:a381 (talk) |
||
(7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 100: | Line 100: | ||
:Please see the discussion "blanking practice" which is directly above. I don't think that making a page is a good idea given it is moribund, risks backfire by giving attention to trolls and on top of that, the GDPR. Perhaps it'd be useful if you can ask for help at [[WP:EFN| edit filter noticeboard]] instead to make filters that automatically flag and deny such vandalism? [[Special:Contributions/188.121.168.73|188.121.168.73]] ([[User talk:188.121.168.73|talk]]) 21:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC) |
:Please see the discussion "blanking practice" which is directly above. I don't think that making a page is a good idea given it is moribund, risks backfire by giving attention to trolls and on top of that, the GDPR. Perhaps it'd be useful if you can ask for help at [[WP:EFN| edit filter noticeboard]] instead to make filters that automatically flag and deny such vandalism? [[Special:Contributions/188.121.168.73|188.121.168.73]] ([[User talk:188.121.168.73|talk]]) 21:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC) |
||
== Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2023 == |
|||
{{edit semi-protected|Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/List|answered=no}} |
|||
The following eight discussions have been archived and should be removed from [[Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/List]]: |
|||
* india against corruption sock-meatfarm |
|||
* jesuisbilly |
|||
* komail shayan |
|||
* malusia22 |
|||
* schwabacher vandal |
|||
* scibaby |
|||
* thomas.alrasheed |
|||
* vnisanian2001 |
|||
I already posted them in [[Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Archive]]. |
|||
Additionally, I posted at [[Wikipedia_talk:Long-term_abuse/Scibaby]] that someone should blank his page. Someone added an archive tag, but did not blank. I still recommend blanking. [[Special:Contributions/2620:8D:8000:10D5:C4A0:B6FC:B66B:A381|2620:8D:8000:10D5:C4A0:B6FC:B66B:A381]] ([[User talk:2620:8D:8000:10D5:C4A0:B6FC:B66B:A381|talk]]) 15:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC) |
|||
FYI, I found the eight by copying and pasting all the names from [[Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/List]] and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Inactive_project_pages?from=Lo, then comparing the two lists in Excel. [[Special:Contributions/2620:8D:8000:10D5:C4A0:B6FC:B66B:A381|2620:8D:8000:10D5:C4A0:B6FC:B66B:A381]] ([[User talk:2620:8D:8000:10D5:C4A0:B6FC:B66B:A381|talk]]) 15:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:49, 17 May 2023
IRC Channel
I've created the IRC channel #wikipedia-en-lta connect for discussion, coordination, etc. regarding LTA cases or users. In the channel a bot is being configured to automatically send relevant messages. Anyone who is currently active on the English Wikipedia, with no recent blocks, is welcome to join if they either have a wikipedia IRC cloak or are eligible for one. Cloaked users are automatically invited, I can manually invite users who qualify but are not cloaked.
There's currently no formal or clear process for requesting invitations, please let me know if you have any suggestions. PHANTOMTECH [TALK]
07:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
On LTA management, and archiving weak LTA cases
See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Debearing egu 77, where User:PhantomTech and I are discussing improvements in the management of WP:LTA. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe Hi, this is the reminder you requested on the MfD for creating a proposal after it closed.
PhantomTech[talk]
23:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)- Thanks. It was deleted, after a checkuser !voted “delete”.
- My opinion is that these things should be either speedied, or archived. MfD is not a good route, due it it freshly rehashing something that should be quietly put away. Does anyone disagree? SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think WP:LTA cases should be marked as historical and no new ones should be created per the spirit of WP:DENY and the fact that SPI archives pretty much all the relevant behavioral issues, not to mention this seems to be a hot spot for over eager new editors dabbling in areas where they shouldn't be. Overall LTA entries have very little value and do far more harm than good. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- That's another argument, which I probably wouldn't entirely agree with. However, I'm also of the opinion that these should be generally speedied (or archived) rather than MfD'd. Probably the best way to speedy is informally with IAR or G6. And probably the best way to achieve that is by getting hold of checkusers or other relevant admins (whether directly, or by posting here or at WT:SPI). It has traditionally been a bit tricky having a regular speedy process that is not part of CSD, and I don't know if CSD is ready for LTA. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with MfD not being a great option. In the past I've typically archived anything that would have qualified for a case at some point and G6ed anything that never qualified. I tried to CSD the two MfDed cases, those CSDs were both declined which led me to believe that G6ing LTA cases was no longer acceptable.
PhantomTech[talk]
00:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)- I have a separate dislike of G6 over liberal misuse. There have always been admins over liberal with G6, and it is not ok.
- I am happy to argue the case for CSD#G6a, or any other code, to make legit the speedy of any SPI or LTA subpage by a checkuser. LTA and SPI should be handled internal. The deletions should never involve article content. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- User:Zzuuzz, do you have any opinion on the following:
- A CSD criterion that requires the dealing admin to be a checkuser? What about a SPI admin clerk?
- Is there any criteria for when a subpage should be archived vs deleted. Eg, to be worth deletion, should it contain personal information? Unproductive information (eg unreliable allegations)? Or would it be ok for checkusers to be asked to cleanup any inappropriate LTA subpage by speedy deletion?
- Is there a difference between LTA subpages that were ill-advised, versus old cases that are resolved.
- Should any editor in good standing be welcome to work LTA in archiving mundane pages or tagging for speedy deletion inappropriate or unwanted pages?
- My personal thoughts are that the project wide strong limitations to deletion are really intended to preserve content, and content-oriented discussions, preserving the history of improvement of the content, and that deletion policy should not be so strict on LTA and SPI business. I also believe that in practice, it is not. I think a CSD line would serve to legitimise long-standing good practice of DENY and sensitivity and personal-information deletions by checkusers, and maybe their admin clerks too. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'd draw a fundamental difference between pages which are out of project scope, versus old expired cases, with the former suitable for speedy deletion and the latter suitable for archiving and preservation in almost all cases. I do think checkusers and SPI-experienced admins (not necessarily clerks) are probably competent to do the deletion in such (out-of-scope) cases. I have my doubts about whether such speedy deletion would work well with a CSD tagging system, and I'm not a fan in general of carving out CSD criteria for a subset of admins. In defining out of scope I'd have to evaluate each case - I think we all know what I'm talking about, a few IPs doing a bit of vandalism is not LTA. I'd probably also evaluate personal information for out of scope cases, but out of scope is out of scope.
- I do support "editors in good standing" helping out with LTA. I should mention some caveats. It's not a good place for beginners to concentrate for a variety of reasons, and I'd observe that a number of people who have helped out have been blocked or given up. It requires experience of knowing what LTA is, knowing how to find it, and knowing how to collaborate with relevant admins and other people. If they can do that and spot the right cases, I've no problem with them archiving or recommending pages for deletion. Hopefully that clarifies my opinion; I'm a bit short of concrete recommendations. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with MfD not being a great option. In the past I've typically archived anything that would have qualified for a case at some point and G6ed anything that never qualified. I tried to CSD the two MfDed cases, those CSDs were both declined which led me to believe that G6ing LTA cases was no longer acceptable.
- That's another argument, which I probably wouldn't entirely agree with. However, I'm also of the opinion that these should be generally speedied (or archived) rather than MfD'd. Probably the best way to speedy is informally with IAR or G6. And probably the best way to achieve that is by getting hold of checkusers or other relevant admins (whether directly, or by posting here or at WT:SPI). It has traditionally been a bit tricky having a regular speedy process that is not part of CSD, and I don't know if CSD is ready for LTA. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think WP:LTA cases should be marked as historical and no new ones should be created per the spirit of WP:DENY and the fact that SPI archives pretty much all the relevant behavioral issues, not to mention this seems to be a hot spot for over eager new editors dabbling in areas where they shouldn't be. Overall LTA entries have very little value and do far more harm than good. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Let's not remove useful information. Aside from obvious vandalism which should certainly be deleted, the LTA case pages are generally informative. I see the LTA case pages as preserving institutional memory; a living history to inform new shepherds of the wiki. Marking a case page as inactive is sufficient. Deleting a page is an extreme measure to be applied sparingly. Binksternet (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Mention on boingboing.net
Wikipedia's list of "long-term abusers" reads like a roster of pathetic supervillains --2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:9593:9F2A:DF7D:5B03 (talk) 04:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- I guess it was only matter of time. Well, it will be interesting to see how long it takes before "top 10 weirdest long-term vandals on Wikipedia" listicles appear. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- They must have missed when list of banned users was an actual list (instead of a redirect to a category. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 20:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Proposed change to 3RR exemption
There's a discussion happening at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of a ban, and sockpuppets or meatpuppets of banned or blocked users., and input from people experienced in anti-LTA work would be appreciated. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Climate color vandal appears to have moved across Canada.
(Previous casepage is at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/24.68.2.110)
FYI for anyone familiar with this one, they were almost exclusively editing from IPs in or around Victoria, B.C. on Cox Communications, but are now apparently at the University of Western Ontario on the 129.100.xxx.xx range. I've knocked out two already, but perhaps a rangeblock is in order if this keeps up. (short version: they have a large set of articles in which they like to change the colors in the climate boxes. That is literally all they do. They make no effort to hide and are extremely obvious. It's tedious more than anything else.) Beeblebrox (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Blanking practice
At special:permalink/1125251255#Blanking_inactive_LTA_pages some editors set a practice to start blanking documentation of long term abuse which is over 5 years old.
I am not sure what to make of this. I suppose it does not hurt. I am not aware of a real problem which it addresses. I am not aware of routine blanking elsewhere on Wikipedia. I am just posting here to put a record of the practice on the talk page of this, the concerned practice. Bluerasberry (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Quiet blanking is much better that starting a federal case over unimportant things. The bigger concern is whether the person editing old LTA pages has the trust and competence for it. I wish that there were a rule that only SPI clerks or checkusers were qualified. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- To avoid fragmenting discussions, let's continue this at the unarchived AN thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Blanking inactive LTA pages. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 10:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, but after it archives, if any progress is made, we should come back here. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe the AN discussion has been archived. While the general feeling was that selective blanking of inactive LTA pages is okay, there was some talk of deprecating all LTA pages and merging its content with SPI. Do you think it is worthy trying to get consensus for?
- I for one think that actively maintained LTA pages have a function that SPI does not - it provides a quick summary to help identify an LTA in plain English. SPI archives do not have such summaries, use a lot of insider jargon and the page formatting can be hard to read to those who are not used to it. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 13:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, but after it archives, if any progress is made, we should come back here. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- To avoid fragmenting discussions, let's continue this at the unarchived AN thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Blanking inactive LTA pages. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 10:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- Doesn't CU have their own private wiki with information? Do the LTA pages help veteran editors spot? I often forget to even look at them when trying to identify primary to file an SPI against. Slywriter (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- This is not to mention that continued listing of IP addresses and so on may break GDPR principles - given that residential proxies are common among vandal nowadays which can put innocent households in crossfire. As a disclaimer this is one too because the network which I'm on was abused by date changer vandal.
- Given recent bad press coverages and scrutinies against Wikipedia due to Elon Musk's remarks about political bias, it's hard not to imagine at some point in the future, all public LTA pages will provide a perverse incentive for wingnuts to attack Wikipedia, by acting as a troll shrine or a cookbook. At minimum these pages should be moved to "countervandalism.wikipedia.org", only accessible to auto-confirmed users and higher. 176.115.14.1 (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Doesn't CU have their own private wiki with information? Do the LTA pages help veteran editors spot? I often forget to even look at them when trying to identify primary to file an SPI against. Slywriter (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Mcclian
I'd like to help create an entry for Mcclian, a persistent WP:SPA vandal of wrestling-related articles since 2009. A brief history can be seen at his SPI archive, which summarises it well. After his block in 2015, he has almost exclusively used Canada-based IPs numbering well into the hundreds, and remains active as of last week. He usually returns under a new IP every month, but it would be a fairly easy task for me to collate most IPs used by him since at least 2017.
My rationale for opening up an LTA case would be to establish a one-stop repository for all his IPs so that users unfamiliar with his vandalism can learn to spot it across the fairly wide range of articles he's touched, in the same manner as this (vandal unrelated). I've managed to acquire lengthy PPs for two such articles – WWF Full Metal: The Album and WWF The Music, Volume 2 – but he still springs up plenty elsewhere and I alone cannot keep track.
Denial should no longer be relevant because he'll continue regardless, and an LTA would be beneficial for the above reason. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Please see the discussion "blanking practice" which is directly above. I don't think that making a page is a good idea given it is moribund, risks backfire by giving attention to trolls and on top of that, the GDPR. Perhaps it'd be useful if you can ask for help at edit filter noticeboard instead to make filters that automatically flag and deny such vandalism? 188.121.168.73 (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2023
The following eight discussions have been archived and should be removed from Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/List:
- india against corruption sock-meatfarm
- jesuisbilly
- komail shayan
- malusia22
- schwabacher vandal
- scibaby
- thomas.alrasheed
- vnisanian2001
I already posted them in Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Archive.
Additionally, I posted at Wikipedia_talk:Long-term_abuse/Scibaby that someone should blank his page. Someone added an archive tag, but did not blank. I still recommend blanking. 2620:8D:8000:10D5:C4A0:B6FC:B66B:A381 (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
FYI, I found the eight by copying and pasting all the names from Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/List and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Inactive_project_pages?from=Lo, then comparing the two lists in Excel. 2620:8D:8000:10D5:C4A0:B6FC:B66B:A381 (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)