|
Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/Archive 4
Pioneer Courthouse Square vandalTwo years of abuse from a gang of sockpuppets. Has started using "good hand/bad hand" accounts, registers sleeper accounts months before using them to make edits, makes a few unnecessary but usually harmless edits in order to be autoconfirmed then launches into the same trolling behavior. See also the article's talk page and archives and especiallyWikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Pioneercourthouse Other reports can be found here. Is this vandalism serious enough to list on the Long Term Abuse page? My goal is to have enough people who recognize the MO that we can block socks quickly and not waste any more time negotiating with this person, so s/he will get bored and go away. Thoughts? Katr67 (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Help Dealing With Vandal on Brother WeaseA user named User:Mosslandingpowerplant was blocked for repeatedly vandalizing the Brother Wease page. This went on for over three months, and all of that users edits were to the same page, and all were reverted as vandalism. Since the user was banned, the vandalism has continued under a variety of usernames: User:Alanlevingreed, User:Alanlevinsgreedy, User:95.1fox,User:Garbageplate. In the last 24 hours, the vandal(s) struck 8 or 9 times using at least three of these accounts. I'm not sure how to proceed, but the problem is getting out of hand, and the article is suffering. Any suggestions from more experienced editors? Anson2995 (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
JarlaxleArtemis subpage not listed on main page?Is there a reason that the Wikipedia:Long term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis was not listed on WP:LTA#Subpages, and that Grawp had a section on the main WP:LTA page (in addition to Jarlaxle/Grawp's subpage)? The subpage had more or less the same content (about "Grawp") as the Grawp section on WP:LTA. I added the Jarlaxle page to the list and removed the Grawp section...let me know if it was supposed to be like that for a reason! scooteytalk 05:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Clean upI have moved the following entries to Page 2:
More entries may need to be archived but, as I already said some time ago, this page is badly maintained, poorly organized, and almost no entry contains an indication of recent activity. Vice versa, I have moved two entries from page 2 thatdo have some indication of recent activity back to the main page:
Furthermore, I've deleted the following links from the Subpages section:
The above pages will of course remain accessible for historical reference. Cheers, theFace 19:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Serial spammers sectionI'm wondering what the point of this section is if we already have MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam as two central places to keep information about serial spammers. In case a spammer still doesn't stop after their accounts are blocked, their IPs blocked, articles protected/monitored/salted, and their sites blacklisted, we could add an entry to this page with information about information on how to help stopping them. But I see no reason why we should put those entries in a seperate section instead of among the other entries. I suggest removing the entire section, except for the entry on Terry Ananny spammer, a recent abuser, which can be moved to the bottom of the page. Cheers, theFace 19:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
While I happened to be at the sandbox, I noticed this. It's probably nothing, but I think this user should be watched, especially considered his contributions. Intelligentsium 03:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Can illiterate editing be defined as vandalism?And if so, why? I have run into a userhere who has stated previously that he has a learning disability, and, really, I believe him. His edits are just awful, but he does communicate, sometimes angrily, sometimes piteously, with other editors. Well, the question is, Is he capable of "vandalism" when he appears to be using his best efforts to (in his mind) improve the articles. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Please take a lookI'm new to all this and I have no idea how you all go about doing what you do, but I'd like to bring something to your attention. An Editor who seems to have a history of bias is marking pages as biased when it seems she has a bias herself. Re: Puella Nivis Just a thought. --Renner8592 (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Not sure about applying hereUser Annoynmous User talk:Annoynmousis active in Wikipedia since 2006. Although he's not very active, when considering his number of edits, he accumulated at least six blocks till today, of which, three in 2009. Also, as one can be impressed from his talk page, his manner of editing seems to others too frequent as disruptive. He only made slightly more than 50 edits since 2010 began and yet he already seem to violate WP:CON and to fuel edit war on this article [1][2]. Now, there is discussion going on this article talk page, the article page was protected for 5 days as a result of edit warring -and by now there is certainly no consensus with at least 8 editors involved to different extents. Annoynmous made his first revert without no discussion, and without no previous involvment on this article talk or main pages (as far as I can tell). He was the first to make revert on this article since the protection was removed about two days ago. He replyed on the talk page only after his second revert and after I opened there a new section [3]. Usually, these cases go to "page protection" notice board. But taking this step is in serious risk to to run over WP:CON. So, I would be grateful for any advice. --Gilisa (talk) 10:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Do I need to make a report?There is a vandal who targets various articles, often relating to Sony and MGM related articles, James Bond films, Irish American, German American, Harry Potter films and various other things. The edits are generally illiterate or introducing factual errors into articles. A partial list of the IPs is below, there are many more though.
Despite being blocked many times for vandalism (may not be apparent from the IPs above, but I lack the energy to track down more IPs than a representative sample) they seem to be back on a regular basis, possibly daily but I can only go by the articles I know about. Can anything be done about this to assist dealing with this vandal? O Fenian (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
WP: Long term abuseI am wondering if this works. Ive been doing some checking of some people listed here and ive seen a few circumstances of those on this list bragging about being on LTA. Which would be going against wp:deny? It is very difficult in the pages current state to get information off this and to interpret it correctly (seems to be vague collections of partial SPIs). Essentially if someone on the list comes back and someone can identify its prudent to build a SPI about them to keep track of the new socks and Ips. But thats just the point, why not merge the information here to the releveant SPIs. At the very least perhaps have the SPI cases that are archived sorted here so they can be easily refrred to in case they do come back. Im just brainstorming but Id like to know others opinions of this page I just think theres a few fixes that could be done for improvement to make this run better. Happy editingOttawa4ever (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually doing something?Wouldn't it be more beneficial to actually do something regarding these long term vandals instead of creating a museum of their works? LTA holds information regarding these vandals that other users can supposedly look up, but that doesn't help the regular recent changes patrollers who have no reason to look at this project. I'm thinking it would be more beneficial and might actually help stop the abuse if we contacted the ISP. A lot of these reports already have CU/IP information associated, so it wouldn't be too hard to contact them for action. You might already get what I'm trying to say =D - LTA probably needs tighter integration withWP:ABUSE so it can be more efficient while still doing what it was intended for. Also, can we do a complete revamp of this project? It's so messy and unorganized that it's almost useless. If no one else wants to help, I can do this by myself, with community consensus of course. Thanks. Netalarmtalk 00:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
A full record is sometimes handy. Every now and then one walks into an editor doing something strange where you think 'This editor is not new, there is something structural here'. You are right, most recent changes patrollers don't work with this page in the back of their mind, trying to spot them, but I come here every now and then the other way around. If you then find that the editor is one mentioned here, then WP:RBI is more efficient than having to go through ANI or projects, which always takes time and in a way is 'recognition' for the editor. This minimizes that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
That there is no addition, or editing to it does not mean it is dead. As I said, some editors use it as a quick place to find stuff, I believe it gets more read than that it gets edited, and I don't think there is anything wrong with that. Making it more into a repository might be fine on one side, though then the individual pages become real 'treasures' for the vandal that is mentioned there, now that is less clear. Moreover, then the overview is also gone, everything is now in one page, you can browse up-down and find what you look for, find the pattern. Then you would have to click every single link and see on every subpage. And no, I don't think that you can write a search that can find the pattern one is looking for, these are specialist vandals, their patterns are difficult. I think I'd prefer the one-page format. --Dirk BeetstraT C 13:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid you missed the point here. If I see some strange editor creating race categories in a way that shows that they have been here before, or starts with a Disney film making a fully formatted page, or I see false information appear in baseball articles, or has a username with Elokobi scrambled in it, name it. I don't see how you are going to put that in a table. Unless you manage, these search terms on this page quickly give you answers who it might be. If it is in subpages, you don't find it. You don't look for core characteristics, you look for the whole pattern, see if it fits, extrapolate on that. A table might become huge, and it is not going to help as it will probably scroll of the page. That being said, you could try and make the table, and see if it works, before considering to actually reformat this page. I don't see the problem with this page. OK, it is big and difficult to read, but it is not an article. It might give credit to the vandals mentioned on it, but a) they don't need this page for that, they can show individual edits, sock categories, etc. to show who they are, this extra page does not make a difference (and even worse, if you make individual subpages per vandal, they can use that as a trophy, here it shows that they 'share' their faith). I hope this explains. --Dirk BeetstraT C 13:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the sockpuppets are sometimes handy to identify the vandal. And how do you define the 'identifying keywords'. But as I said, you could start making such a table with all info, and see whether the difference is significant or not. I agree that organising it could be good, and subpages does not exclude that they are all again transcluded onto a top-page for those cases where the table does not give the solution in the end. There are solutions, but I don't think that a table alone will be sufficient to be able to find the cases. Some have complex modi operandi. Remember, some (most?) of these are specialised vandals, it is not 'the Disney vandal', or 'the baseball vandal', it is a whole story sometimes that makes the vandal. I think that bringing it back to keywords ('Disney') would make every vandal vandalising Disney be a possible hit here. --Dirk BeetstraT C 14:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Note that some of these long-term vandals are just trying NOT to be caught by the keywords, and can go on long undetected. But if you see the full story you can see the patterns. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
No, I hope it is one of the keywords, but some do try to evade that (quite effectively). But as I said, splitting up this page, making a table of WP:LTA itself, and having all separate cases as subpages (WP:LTA/Vandal 1, WP:LTA/Vandal 2 is the first half. Having the keywords gives you CTRL-F and find that, and one could make a searchbox to search all subpages for 'keywords' that have not previously been recognised as keywords. If those sub-pages are formatted nicely, one could transclude ALL those subpages again onto one page ('{{WP:LTA/Vandal 1}}<br />{{WP:LTA/Vandal 2}}'), which is then cluttered up, but when you are sure that the person is not new, and the keywords (and non-keyword search) don't help (or you can't guess it, or they really changed modus operandi, then either you scan some likely subpages, or you take the big page with all the transclusions on it (and that page does not have to be a high-visibility page likeWP:LTA itself, it could be WP:LTA/FullList). In that case we have a solution that would satisfy all, and the huge messy page is just for occasional use, but would not be 'in the way', nor would it really duplicate anything. How would that be? --Dirk Beetstra TC 14:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I've expanded User:Netalarm/LTA with another example, and created User:Netalarm/LTAFull as the transclusion page (I hope you don't mind). As you can see there, it shows all the subpages that are now transcluded in full. In the end that page will look like the current LTA page, but there is an actual layer between. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
|
