The Sims Wiki talk:Admin Portal

Digimon spam

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)

Site Notice

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)

Warnings

I'd like to make a few changes to the way we handle warnings, and specifically the {{warning}} and {{warning2}} templates. Presently, we really only have two types of warnings; one for unconstructive edits, and another for negative behavior. I think it would be better to get rid of Warning2 and combine both into the Warning template, with the addition of another parameter. So, entering a warning would look something like this:

{{subst:warning
|type=spam
|reason=inserting advertisements in an article
|~~~~
}}

or

{{subst:warning
|type=harassment
|reason=attacking another user
|~~~~
}}

or

{{subst:warning
|type=final
|reason=continuing to insert nonsense into articles
|~~~~
}}

It could be set up to where there is a preset list of types which will produce a warning with different text, images and/or colors.

On a related note, Wikipedia has a policy adopted about removing comments from user talk pages; it says that messages on talk pages shouldn't be re-added if removed, as doing so would force a user to keep a badge of shame. I think this is reasonable, so I'd also like to remove any requirement to keep warnings on user talk pages. Since everything is still kept in edit history, it wouldn't be difficult to determine whether someone has already been warned. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 17:27, August 10, 2010 (UTC)