Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2603:8001:8400:dc34:fc99:cc60:e776:8381 (talk) at 18:43, 10 August 2023 (→“ Usernames and edits can often be derogatory to Asians.”: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ok, but after it archives, if any progress is made, we should come back here. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe the AN discussion has been archived.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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 Not done:  On hold -Lemonaka‎ 12:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -Lemonaka‎ 21:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on marking the Long-term abuse page as historical for declining involvement, and to also deny recognition to vandals

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Non admin WP:SNOW close to keep this page and not mark it as historical. -- Prodraxistalkcontribs 21:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One thing leads to another. I saw a bunch of LTA pages that should have been archived and requested that to be done [1].

Looking at the discussion, I saw that one admin recommended that the page be marked historical due to a relative lack of recent edits over the past 7-8 years [2].

I think Wikipedia has gotten better at preventing long-term abuse, so the number of LTAs has declined in the past few years. Many vandals also celebrate the recognition they get from these kinds of pages. The Long-term abuse page should be marked as historical. What do you think? 2620:8D:8000:10A6:71B7:9282:F1A9:BA79 (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The page is incredibly useful for identifying and keeping track of the vandalism patterns of the LTAs so we can block any new socks of them. interstatefive  22:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you give an example? SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not Interstatefive but I'd say WP:LTA/HOY has helped me identify a lot of Piermark sock puppets. -- Shadow of the Starlit Sock 23:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Interstatefive. Jusdafax (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. LTA is mostly operated on sub-pages, so the number of edits to this page is not particularly relevant. By the same logic, Wikipedia:Village pump isn't looking too active either. Not only that but the pages need to be judged by usage instead of edits. I've been doing this a while, and I don't see anything to suggest that the number of LTA users (or even page users) is declining. LTA is far from a historical phenomenon. And when we see someone "celebrate the recognition", that's often taken as a queue to altogether avoid recognising them. Lots don't want the recognition. Lots who do don't get it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • IPs should not be welcome in projectspace. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia backroom process talk, register, so that we know who you are. If you have previously registered you are violating WP:SOCK by editing projectspace while logged out. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per reasons provided by nominator Jack4576 (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, need ways to track their abuse in case they show up again. Heart (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per zzuuzz; the edit history does not particularly indicate abandonment to me, and it is only meant to be used sparingly anyways. Theepicosity (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because a lag, of any duration, in abuse does not signify measures against abuse should be relaxed or dropped - or even mummified in the History museum. There is absolutely no technical or procedural need for what is proposed here. -The Gnome (talk) 08:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: If the use of this page has declined, that can also simply be a sign that we got better in stopping vandalism early. That still doesn't mean the page is obsolete, because new stuff can still be hidden somewhere deep in an article, and then we have to list that to get even better at fighting it: Vandals sometimes change their methods, and then we have to learn about these methods, and the best place to do that is right on this page. Qxyz123 (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose marking historical, as the pages here are still in use. I do think, however, that there is a legitimate discussion to be had about reforming this page as I think the process could be better structured and more useful. This is still very much rough ideas rather than a firm proposal, but in my opinion we should be looking at merging these pages into SPI as "notes" subpages attached to cases. By doing this they could better serve as records of behaviour that is useful for identifying socks, we could remove a lot of the duplication of efforts that leads to outdated information ending up here (e.g. I don't see the point in maintaining a list of accounts at SPI and a duplicate of that list at LTA) and we would avoid splitting information across multiple places. This would also bring the pages under the control of the SPI clerks, who are best placed to deal with sockpuppet related pages and could merge/redirect/blank/delete the pages as required. As an example of the kind of implementation I have in mind: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/ItsLassieTime could be moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime/Notes, the table of accounts and IP's would be removed from the page as being redundant to the SPI archive, so we would end up with just a list of behaviour to look for. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose LTA pages are still being used, with the most recently created ones being WP:LTA/HOY and WP:LTA/LB2. Not to mention as Interstatefive mentioned the LTA cases are useful to keeping track of long term vandals so new socks are dealt with quickly and efficiently. -- Shadow of the Starlit Sock 23:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – my LTV submission above is contemporary and plenty valid. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's snowing hard, should we close up? interstatefive  18:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I shall close the RfC, then. -- Prodraxistalkcontribs 21:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alphabetical order on lists

I started to notice that Zhmailik and Zhoban are in the wrong order. In the LTA unsorted case list, Zhoban is before Zhmailik. However, in alphabetical order, Zhmailik is before Zhoban. I suggest the unsorted case list to be in alphabetical order.

218.212.76.59 (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minor fix to AudiGuy LTA

Hey, I noticed AudiGuy-1204 LTA and found an error. It reads AudiGuy-1024 instead of AudiGuy-1204. 119.75.204.218 (talk) 04:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is on the LTA list, not the actual LTA title. 119.75.204.218 (talk) 04:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done by Vanjagenije. 119.75.204.218 (talk) 04:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“ Usernames and edits can often be derogatory to Asians.”

“ Usernames and edits can often be derogatory to Asians.” should be changed to “ Usernames and edits can often be derogatory to East Asians.”. 2603:8001:8400:DC34:FC99:CC60:E776:8381 (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Long-term_abuse&oldid=1169700322"