| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 1,328: |
Line 1,328: |
| | Hi I saw inappropriate content being added by the ip address 172.69.195.23 at 17:29 15 February 2023 (UTC) (an image of porn). Could you please ban that person? --[[User:1234231587678|1234231587678]] ([[User talk:1234231587678|talk]]) 18:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC) | | Hi I saw inappropriate content being added by the ip address 172.69.195.23 at 17:29 15 February 2023 (UTC) (an image of porn). Could you please ban that person? --[[User:1234231587678|1234231587678]] ([[User talk:1234231587678|talk]]) 18:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC) |
| | : Unfortunately, there are currently no active admins, so there's nobody that could ban users like that. -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 18:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC) | | : Unfortunately, there are currently no active admins, so there's nobody that could ban users like that. -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 18:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC) |
| − | :: It's not so much that, but 'that person' being an IP (much as I am, though I'm not them) adds other complications. While actual admins don't tend to ban IP(-ranges), that's mostly because a combination of the current main monitoring 'Bot and the rest of the community quickly handle these sort of issues. As in this case... the 'bot restored from one or two attempts, named users did a subsequent restore before/instead of the 'bot seeing the next attempt, and I also helped out when I noticed something overlooked by the prior username who helped out.
| |
| − | :: This is not the first time such things have been done (that image has been used before, and clearly the instigator has picked up tips and tricks to refine their vandalism, as we've picked up on how to counter it). Totally locking out vandals from this sort of thing is never going to be as easy as simply banning a user (or IP), although such suggestions then also cue up the obvious discussion of "update the wiki, then add this/that/the other mediaWiki extension" (with various pros and cons).
| |
| − | :: Personally, I like the current setup, where we don't need a group of active moderators to whitelist everything, because we have a good community of users who can rectify (most) issues as they happen. Even restricting to registered users only wouldn't help much (we've seen enough usernames spam-or-vandalise the site, and yet there's also already good reason to praise the background systems that intercept almost all the spam-accounts).
| |
| − | :: I think the current balance works well. Yes, it'd be nice to have a bit more active moderation. That some of the few registered accounts that go onto spam haven't been banned indefinitely is hard to accept, but the fact that these ones (that got through the main anti-spam protection but then got sorted out by the community/'bots reverting again) have seemingly not even ''tried'' anything else (either not been as lucky to get further attempts to work or the script behind them had 'moved on' to its next fake-username) seems to suggest that this balance is working well enough.
| |
| − | :: Preferably, none of the idiots who do this sort of thing would do it at all. But we have seen that we can get past these occasional issues. You (@1234...) are fairly new here, but take it from me, with quite a few years lurking (and posting) here. It's a different contribution scenario to the xkcd fora (where I was originally far more active, until they finally fell over for unrelated technical reasons that yet shows how full-username interaction has its ''own'' potential issues), but all the problems here over the last decade-or-so have generally been dealt with promptly. With top-level moderators intervening when ''really'' necessary.
| |
| − | :: Still, horses for courses. This is my assessment of both the recent incident and all the rest I've been around to help deal with, but YMMV. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.165|172.70.86.165]] 20:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
| |
