The Sims Wiki talk:Admin Portal/resolved discussions 2010

Digimon spam
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="margin-left:5px; float:left; width:650px; font-size:100%; border:1px solid #007FFF; background-color: #FFFFFF;" ! colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" |Click here to expand original discussion
 * Original article from development portal talk:
 * Original article from development portal talk:

I found this http://sims.wikia.com/index.php?title=Pleasant_family&diff=155672&oldid=155669 and reverted it of course. I did not warn or ban since the user has made no other contributions, I'll keep an eye on it of course. I can remember removing the same spam from another article some days ago from another IP. I asked some of the VSTF staff if we could watch for these keywords somehow, without any luck. Just a quick reminder: Keep a lookout for spam like this. Duskey ( talk ) 14:25, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I have found the same text in thousands (not literally) pages today. I didn't check if it was from the same person.- JEA13  [ iTalk  ] 19:20, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I say we block if it happens twice from the same IP, though I'm almost sure it's just some proxy servers from all over the world. The one in my example is from Indonesia. Duskey ( talk ) 00:32, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the best we can do is use google to search for 'digimon' with the 'site:http://sims.wikia.com' paremeter. It only shows this page atm, but it appears the spanish sims wiki has had the same problems. Duskey ( talk ) 07:20, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * I blocked 118.137.68.185 for a month. The IP's seem to be from 118.137.x.x range, but we sadly also have legitimate IP users posting from that range so we cannot ban them all. Duskey ( talk ) 07:26, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Previously blocked 118.137.20.48 as well. Duskey ( talk ) 07:53, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Moved article to admin portal talk. Duskey ( talk ) 14:55, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * If we see more of this Digimon spam from the 118.137.x.x range, I suggest we block IP users from that range for a month, as a test. Normal contributors can from that range will still be able to register and then contribute as normal, but IP's from that range will not be able to edit. What do you think? Duskey ( talk ) 14:55, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think vandalism even of this type or magnitude warrants potentially blocking several people who have done nothing wrong, just because they coincidentally have an IP address that falls within a certain range. If this continues, though, it might be best to send a message to someone on the VSTF, since maybe they have an idea that will stop it, without possibly barring innocent users. Plus, to be honest, while this sort of thing is a nuisance, it doesn't do any real or permanent harm, since it's revertible and those users can be blocked. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 15:48, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for the record: The range block of IP users were the advice given by folk from VSTF. Duskey ( talk ) 20:36, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Since I just caught another, I'm doing some investigation into this: Duskey ( talk ) 08:29, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Facts

 * Common factors
 * 118.137.x.x IP's
 * So far not twice from the same IP.
 * It seems they save the old article from previous visits and then add the spam resulting in parts of an old article show up in the edit as well.


 * Ways to prevent
 * {|class="wikitable heading-blue"
 * {|class="wikitable heading-blue"

!Action!!Pros!!Cons Maybe 118.137.20-68.x||Will probably stop it||A very large range, though people can still register and edit
 * Range block 118.137.x.x anon users only
 * Range block 118.137.x.x anon users only
 * Semi-Protect affected pages||Might stop it||No immidiate pattern of pages chosen, Will affect all anon users instead of just the ones in the range block
 * }
 * }


 * What to do now
 * Discuss the issue and come up with countermeasures.
 * Check history and try to find more incidents for comparison.
 * Admins follow targeted pages.

Continued discussion
Thoughts, questions, ideas? As mentioned above I've asked some people from VSTF and they suggested the range block. Duskey ( talk ) 08:29, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I did a whois on all of them . They all return the same information, they're all from Indonesia and owned by some ISP called Firstmedia there. This means that either the spammer is their customer or he's using their server as a proxy. The company doesn't have a "Report abuse" button or anything like that so they probably won't react in any way if we contact them. Duskey ( talk ) 14:41, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Though I was hesitant, I say that a range block may be in order. My only concern, however, is a question of numbers; if we block all IPs starting with 118.137, how many people could that potentially block from the wiki?-- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 14:47, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert, but my guess would be everyone from Indonesia using Firstmedia and who isn't registered. Unfortunately there is no way we can search for IP users, but I have seen legit edits from that range. We could contact wikia to see if they have an alternate solution and maybe request an estimate of the amount of traffic from that range. If we implement the range block I imagine we make a news post and a site notice about it. Think of unregistered editing as a luxury, it's not something users can demand. Duskey ( talk ) 03:09, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * That might be a good option... if I recall, you can set a separate site notice for IP users... you could make a message there that says basically "if you can't edit, your ip may be blocked - please register in order to edit articles." Then it would be important that the block is set so that the blocked ips aren't prohibited from creating a new username. Registered users are altogether easier to handle, vandalism-wise. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 03:19, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any reason to add a message for all IP users. As I wrote earlier we'll do a blog news post, a quick sitenotice and then adding a note to the block message people get. It's at MediaWiki:Blockedtext. I'll send an email to Wikia today asking for help/solutions. Duskey ( talk ) 16:53, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * I forgot to add: I suggest we do the range block as a test at first in a 3 month period and then see if we catch any more of them. Duskey ( talk ) 17:00, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Mail to Wikia sent. Duskey ( talk ) 10:40, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Another one caught. I added it to the tables above. Duskey ( talk ) 11:33, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Fixed
I finally convinced VSTF to add some stuff to the global block filter and we shouldn't be bothered by Digimon spam any more. If you spot some, don't hesitate to report it here though. Duskey ( talk ) 19:40, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * }

Flame war
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="margin-left:5px; float:left; width:650px; font-size:100%; border:1px solid #007FFF; background-color: #FFFFFF;" ! colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" |Click here to expand original discussion
 * ===Admin Only===
 * ===Admin Only===

There has been an incident regarding the actions of, in which at least two TSW users ( and ) have participated in what I consider to be very hostile behavior. I have instituted a cool-down period for both of them (a 1-hour block from the wiki) and am working to prevent any further hostilities between users until we can decide what to do.

I do not feel that one administrator alone should be making the decisions in this situation, so I would really appreciate as much administrator input as possible. What are we going to do about Auror Andrachome (if anything), and what should we do about the other users? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 21:12, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think auror should be banned forever because she has been negative to me on irc and tsw and to the people mentioned above.
 * If anyone disagrees tell me.--Monster2821 (Talk) 21:51, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think a user should be banned just because they're a little abrasive. However, if there was a consensus that her behavior has been consistently detrimental, then there would be grounds to do something. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 22:04, October 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Any pointers on where to look to get up to speed on all of this? Perhaps a quick recap with links would be sweet. I can't really give my opinion on something I know nothing about. -- Duskey talk 22:19, October 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest edit wars are handled as normal: Warn, block, block longer, block even longer etc. as always. This goes for both participants. If someone disagrees with another users edit, it's a good idea to contact that user on their talk page and see if you can reach some sort of agreement there. If not, take it to the talk page of the article and see what other people think. I don't suggest any further action unless new violations of policies and normal conduct is made. -- Duskey talk 22:55, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * This is really about more than edit warring - if it were a simple case of an edit war, I wouldn't be bothered to even bring it up. This is about the conduct of members of this community. I think we need to decide what we are willing to accept from our members, whether the actions made by Auror can be allowed to stand, or whether we are going to allow open hostility towards Auror by the other members. We don't have any real policies that dictate what to do here. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 23:04, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's some pages on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Edit warring, Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Dealing with disruptive editors, Wikipedia:Requests for comment (this would appear to be the stage we are at), Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (examples of disputes and resolutions.)


 * I don't know what the specific issue was but from what I saw, all three of them participated in incivility/personal attacks, but only and  were involved in an edit war, correct?, and the three-revert rule would apply to them. A brief block may be necessary for all involved (already done.) Once consensus is reached on the content issue (if not already) and they continue to edit-war, a stricter revert rule may be put in place for the users and topic(s) involved or a longer block. --a_morris (talk) 17:27, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked Auror for 3 days due to &. She was previously warned and blocked for 1 day for the same thing (edit warring). I spoke to Auror on IRC where I explained the best course of action if you have an issue with an edit, is to contact the one who made the edit and work something out. If that's not possible I told her to take it to the article talk page so others can offer their opinion, but she has clearly chosen not to do this, hence the block. -- Duskey talk 20:39, October 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * Consequently I've also blocked Guilherme for 1 day since he has recieved a warning for this earlier. -- Duskey talk 21:11, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Regular user response
Perhaps the rules of this wiki should be looked over and maybe have something about personal attacks added and be tougher on such attacks. I agree with a warning the first time an Edit War is started and maybe one hour to a day suspension if on is esculated a second time by the same users, both regular users and admins. Also maybe a limit on age for becoming a full admin. main reason i say this is because with age usually comes maturity. also i noticed the users in the issue above are below the age of 18 and Patrick, Duskey and Dharden are adults. just a suggestion.Bafendo 04:06, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Auror must receive only a warn about her behaviour, I think she was a bit mean to many users on this wiki and she doesn't want to change her mind and reactions on here. Thanks --- Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 22:07, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. --- » Яσdяigσ X  [̲̅т̲̅α̲̅l̲̅k̲̅][̲̅b̲̅l̲̅σ̲̅g̲̅] « 22:33, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that RodrigoX, GG, BobNewbie, and myself should all just get warnings and no perma-bans for any of us since all of us are hard-working users who just want to help out and add new information.
 * I don't want to sound like a victim, but I didn't do much to receive a warning; I just commented on you guys wars. Sure that I disliked Auror's bbehaviour, but I didn't actually entered in the war, I just commented, which IMO isn't that harsh to get a warning... --- » Яσdяigσ X  [̲̅т̲̅α̲̅l̲̅k̲̅][̲̅b̲̅l̲̅σ̲̅g̲̅] « 11:50, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes you're right Auror, me and you should receive warns, Rodrigo X not and BobNewbie maybe a friendly one (Note: I don't see you as an enemy and I hope we could repair our relationship)---Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 10:32, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * you don't know if somebody is an adult just by them telling you they are because people lie and it's harder or impossible to know that there telling the truth on the internet, these people could be 100 yr.old's , 5 yr.old's,etc.--Monster2821 (Talk) 04:22, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

it was just a suggestion, calm down. I also believe we should all recieve warnings.

All of us over reacted, and Auror, I apologize greatly. --BobNewbie (talk)(blog) 11:45, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

All I actully wanted to do was defend my friend, and those who got hurt by Auror. Rodrigo only commented, he does not really deserve a warning. --BobNewbie (talk)(blog) 12:52, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned, I don't think we need to write warnings on talk pages for this, since everyone involved is already well aware of what has happened and most seem apologetic. In other words, let this message serve as the official warning for all. From what I can tell, this all stems from a couple issues, and I hate to pick on Auror here, but they are related to a lot of it.
 * So, to Auror specifically - I appreciate trying to help the wiki, but be mindful of what you say and how your actions come across to other users. What you may see as taking a firm stance, others may see as being mean or uncooperative. I will not hesitate to warn or block for what I see as negative behavior on your part.
 * With this comes a few ground rules for Auror (and for everyone). First, treat others with respect always. If you're going to do something which may cause a scene, please explain your actions and leave the door open to discussion. Do not edit war; if you make an edit and someone reverts it, instead of reverting it again, start a discussion on the talk page and work it out. Be mindful that many people here don't speak English as a first language - they have just as much of a right to edit here as a native English speaker. Instead of deleting content by them, edit it to correct grammar mistakes, and work with the users to improve their English.
 * To everyone else: taking action against other users is never OK. Always contact an administrator if another user violates policy or is in any way uncooperative - if necessary, administrators can act as mediators in a conflict. Do not take matters into your own hands, because that will only make matters worse.
 * Let's move on from this. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 17:48, October 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * }