User talk:WikiPim

/Archive/

Spambots
Please don't post on a spambot's talk page. You can report spam here, thanks --  Random Time  12:51, November 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Randomtime,


 * I had no possible clue with the information at hand that this user was indeed a spambot. Only thing i saw was two different contributions not being helpfull, and pointing that out what seemed to me a legitimate account (but not overly active and fairly new).


 * I did not consider it spam, but an error, as did Dser, because he only removed it and did not report it.


 * But i assume you have more knowledge on other contributions by this user or it's IP adress, so i won't question your decision here. I think that for a normal user however blocking is a little harsh.


 * Ah, sorry - those contribs defiantly were spam, I appreciate that you didn't know that, sorry for sounding harsh. --  Random Time  19:38, November 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Randomtime,
 * I have a feeling that with your long time work at the VSTF you have developed what in my profession is called a professional blindspot.
 * The reason i am feeling it is because you ban somebody without warning, without telling and without clarification for posting a weblink to a page, even tough it isn't appropriate nor usefull to that page.
 * That said, considering you are a volunteer, i can understand your position here.
 * It makes your work a tad harder. But maybe you should become a bit more lenient on people 'spamming'. Warn them first with a clear bit of information how they should act. Welcoming, informative, and crystal clear.
 * I have a template for that purpose over at Swords and Potions wiki which so far has been used only a single time.
 * This wiki has not been victim of vandalism, but on two occassions, where one was some misinformed person coming from CC vandalizing my personal userpage.
 * I know, it takes a bit more actions. Maybe have a global template for warning about vandalism?
 * That way you may even make from vandalizers good contributors. The way you currently treat them is not in line with how i feel the staff likes to treat people (welcoming, informative, clear and open).
 * Hope you want to consider it and hopefully act upon that.
 * This was spam - as was the other user's contributions, there isn't any question about it.
 * I'm interested to see where you think my actions and behaviour aren't "welcoming, informative, clear and open" - whilst we have to sometimes keep quiet about sensitive information about users that we have access to, and our global block system is off limits in order for people to not find out what filters are available, I don't think I've been closed with anyone, and if I have I'd like to address that. Misinformed users, as you put it, aren't normally brought to our attention, but on those occasions we don't block the account, rest assured we look at the contributions page of users before making a decision. Blocking is a last-resort option, and if we globally block we always look for legitimate contributions before doing so. Spambots don't listen to talkpage templates, and it's best to block them as soon as they crop up. --  Random Time  20:05, November 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Randomtime,
 * You are assuming by two edits that this is a spambot, while the edits where 3 days apart from eachother as well as yust a single weblink.
 * Even while i do not know why this person/ computer or whatever did this, i do think you should at least try to communicate with that person.
 * As far as i see it right now:
 * - You reverted the first edit
 * - The second edit was reverted by Dser
 * - I posted a comment on the talk page
 * - You blocked that person/ computer/ whatever with deleting the talk page (where it also is not possible to review information posted on it either.
 * I do understand that you have a lot to deal with, and that you do this as volunteer. But you could at least have attempted to communicate with this person about the actions done. It wasn't a lot of edits done and maybe there indeed was a misinformed person behind it.
 * I do not consider it welcoming if you do not communicate with a person AT ALL before blocking such a person, even tough you think the reasons are completely in order, the rules are very clear and should be known to everyone and that the edits are not in the least helpfull.
 * If you simply would have warned with a template regarding the behaviour, that person might have responded. You also might not have gotten a reaction. Heck, that person might have written a bad response to it but at least you know you got the message across and given the oppertunity to this person to learn from things done wrong.
 * Giving a block without a warning is not considered having a welcoming environment in my book. It also is possible that such a person is using a language different then english.
 * What i am trying to make you do is to realise you are not fighting bots or computers here, but in most cases, yust normal persons from flesh and blood. People who are sometimes drunk, doing stupid things, being very silly. Still they deserve a chance.
 * Thanks for taking the time to read and reply to this. I am happy to see you are open to constructive criticism.
 * There is no question about that, that was a spambot. It was able to slip past the abusefilter by adding an external link to an already existing forum. The posting of external links is spam. Using VSTF tools, RT is able to then look at their contributions and see a pattern, thus determining that they indeed had no legitimate contributions and were just spamming, thus they got blocked. If you see someone posting external links, do not try and talk with them, just report them to VSTF or an admin and we will take care of the rest. VSTF can then determine whether or global block or a warning is warranted.--
 * A drunk person does not tend to post links that advertise a product. The reason I deleted the talk page was to discourage users posting messages on people who are spambots. When a link is in all honesty spam, I have no reason to talk to the user, because they almost certainly won't respond. It does require a little getting used to, identifying what is spam and what isn't. Attempting to talk to spambots is a waste of my time - attempting to talk to users who may turn out to be legitimate editors isn't - and I'd rather spend my time talking to the users who this is likely to be the case than spambots, where it is defiantly not the case. --  Random Time  21:19, November 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no question about that, that was a spambot. It was able to slip past the abusefilter by adding an external link to an already existing forum. The posting of external links is spam. Using VSTF tools, RT is able to then look at their contributions and see a pattern, thus determining that they indeed had no legitimate contributions and were just spamming, thus they got blocked. If you see someone posting external links, do not try and talk with them, just report them to VSTF or an admin and we will take care of the rest. VSTF can then determine whether or global block or a warning is warranted.--
 * A drunk person does not tend to post links that advertise a product. The reason I deleted the talk page was to discourage users posting messages on people who are spambots. When a link is in all honesty spam, I have no reason to talk to the user, because they almost certainly won't respond. It does require a little getting used to, identifying what is spam and what isn't. Attempting to talk to spambots is a waste of my time - attempting to talk to users who may turn out to be legitimate editors isn't - and I'd rather spend my time talking to the users who this is likely to be the case than spambots, where it is defiantly not the case. --  Random Time  21:19, November 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * A drunk person does not tend to post links that advertise a product. The reason I deleted the talk page was to discourage users posting messages on people who are spambots. When a link is in all honesty spam, I have no reason to talk to the user, because they almost certainly won't respond. It does require a little getting used to, identifying what is spam and what isn't. Attempting to talk to spambots is a waste of my time - attempting to talk to users who may turn out to be legitimate editors isn't - and I'd rather spend my time talking to the users who this is likely to be the case than spambots, where it is defiantly not the case. --  Random Time  21:19, November 21, 2011 (UTC)