This is an old revision of this page, as edited by imported>LostInRiverview at 22:40, 11 September 2010(Created page with '{{Archive}} {{TOClimit|2}} == Decommission the 1 week rule for warnings == 40px|left''Resolved: Seeing no opposition, ''{{t|Warning}}'' has been mo…'). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Resolved: Seeing no opposition, {{Warning}} has been modified to remove the one-week requirement. An explanation has been placed in the description space explaining the change. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 00:32, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
Click here to expand original discussion →
Based on LIR's comment in an earlier discussion and the WP guideline Don't restore removed comments; I think we should get rid of the rule. A 'Badge of Shame' is a bad thing and if they remove it, it's safe to assume they've seen it. As for keeping track of when a block is due after a warning, admins simply need to enter 'warning' in the edit summary and it'll be easy to find in the history. Duskey(talk) 14:12, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
My only concern for placing warnings in the history is that they may be just a little hard to find. Might I suggest something like adding a wiki-link in the summary, perhaps to Template:Warning, and also perhaps to The Sims Wiki:Policy page to cite a specific rule-breakage. For example:
Since it's in the history, it will automatically place the username and date, so a signature isn't needed. This could be considered a "badge of shame" but I don't think so; the edit history isn't something everyone sees, and the user isn't forced to look at the warning every time they visit their page, plus it makes it known when a warning was given, who gave it, and under what circumstances. I would suggest bolding the word 'warning' but, alas, that doesn't work in edit summaries. Another alternative would be to place 'warning' in all caps, but that might be too "loud." Failing all these options, perhaps it might be a decent idea to keep a Warned Log, which would record who has been warned, when they were warned, and for what they were warned. I know that I've been hesitant towards this (some vandals might see it as a "badge of honor" - we're stuck talking about badges, apparently), but if it could be done in a way where it's not readily visible to most people (like restricted special pages), or in a place not likely to be visited, it might be a good way to keep track of these things. Of course, any warning log that is generally visible would need to have full sysop protections. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 14:44, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
I think the whole point of having a warning before a block is that warnings are temporary and they're meant to be "forgotten", in my opinion it's enough that we have a block log, if we remove the 1 week rule there's no need to keep track of warnings. An admin spotting a warnable/bannable affair just has to check the recent history of the user's talk page to check if a warning was given recently. If yes, then a ban should probably be issued. Adding a simple 'warning' in the edit summary is enough in my opinion, you can always quickly search the window in your browser if you're in doubt. Adding the reason however might be a good idea.
So in short: Dislike warning logging, dislike "decorating" warning edit summaries, dislike 1 week non-removal rule of warnings. Duskey(talk) 16:49, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
No longer relevant, as 5,000 article milestone has come and passed. Similar discussion regarding the site notice should occur in a new section. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 20:08, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
Click here to expand original discussion →
I've temporarily pulled the Site Notice, since we've had a drop in the number of articles, and best practices suggests keeping messages only on a temporary basis. If you disagree, or notice the article count start to climb again (to within 10, probably), please feel free to revert my edit and reintroduce the countdown. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 16:35, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
If you do not change the sitenotice ID aswell it doesn't make much sense to clear the sitenotice unless the information gets outdated or invalid. If people dismissed the message they obviously won't see it. If people did not dismiss it, they probably don't mind it or like to keep it in order to keep up with the article count. LIR has re-enabled it already btw. Duskey(talk) 20:35, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
Resolved: Universal blacklisted item may stop ongoing problems; if problems persist, may consider a range block of responsible IP addresses. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 22:41, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
Click here to expand original discussion →
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)
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
Action
Pros
Cons
Range block 118.137.x.x anon users only Maybe 118.137.20-68.x
Will probably stop it
A very large range, though people can still register and edit
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 [1]. 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)
I've created The Sims Wiki:Assume good faith. It borrows heavily from those policies by the same name on Wikipedia, but it has been changed substantially to fit TSW more readily. Now we don't have to type out [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assume good faith]] whenever we want to cite that guideline. Please feel free to contribute to it and make improvements. The layout of it roughly follows Wikipedia's (though most section headers have been removed), but if you can think of a more logical way to lay it out, please do so. I'd prefer, as a show of good faith, that we leave it unprotected, so that any user will be able to make a meaningful improvement to it. Which is, after all, what that policy is all about. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 22:10, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
Good idea. Duskey(talk) 16:42, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
