FANDOM


  • Hi,

    Do IPs have message walls on the new platform? I've just tried to message an IP who posted nonsense on a page on my wiki, only to be told the user doesn't exist.

    Thanks.

      Loading editor
    • I believe it doesn't exist (yet?) mainly because IPs wouldn't get the notifications. They can post to other places, like article comments and other people's walls.

      I think this is pretty much a half feature, half bug - so feel free to report it to Staff via Special:Contact.

        Loading editor
    • As a sort of workaround for communication, you can use a subpage of the user IP as a talk page (For example User:23.145.67.00/Talk

      The following link will lead any user to their own subpage so you may put it on a visible place and ask anonimous users to check their talk page periodically - Special:Mypage/Talk

        Loading editor
    • So there's no way to communicate with IPs? (except perhaps temporarily disabling Message Walls?)

      I tried PseudoTalkPages, but it doesn't appear to have worked :(.

        Loading editor
    • Well, I didn't know about this script, which uses the same idea I suggested above. The script can't add a Talk tab to IP's because they don't have any tabs, but as I said you can put this link on a visible place: Special:Mypage/Talk.

      Just to clarify, you don't have to disable MW for that.

        Loading editor
    • Regardless of how you attempt to contact an anon, the issue remains the same. There is no way for an anon to receive a notice that someone is trying to contact them. So unless they intentionally check the page or stumble upon it, they will never see it. Also, most anons change their IPs periodically so you would have to keep making new pages each time their IP changes.

      HumansCanWinElves, I checked after you mentioned this in the other thread. Apparently anons can now post on message walls and blog comments. So it seems a but odd that:

      1. They don't have their own message walls
      2. You can't see who they are (i.e. their IP address) from the comment they leave. The name link just takes you to the top of the page rather that their contributions like on legacy.
      3. Their social activity cannot be viewed using Special:UserProfileActivity.

      This seems like a major hole in Feeds moderation to have a whole group of users who can use the feature but whose activity can't be tracked by admins/mods.

        Loading editor
    • Indeed the lack of notifs and the IP change was always a strain on moderating anons' edits. However, I saw many times unregistered users surprised and happy to discover that they have a MW or a talk page, so putting the responsive link I suggested above in a public place may help.

      If an anon is repeatedly making bad edits, one method is to block them and put as a reason "Please check your talk page" - they may see that on their contribs page. However with fake talk pages they won't be able to respond until the block expires.

      I agree about the big hole in moderation, and I know that it was already mentioned by admins and mods.

        Loading editor
    • Andrewds1021 wrote: Apparently anons can now post on message walls and blog comments. So it seems a but odd that:
      1. They don't have their own message walls
      2. You can't see who they are (i.e. their IP address) from the comment they leave. The name link just takes you to the top of the page rather that their contributions like on legacy.
      3. Their social activity cannot be viewed using Special:UserProfileActivity.

      This seems like a major hole in Feeds moderation to have a whole group of users who can use the feature but whose activity can't be tracked by admins/mods.

      I hope this gets fixed soon. It's not good to have a situation where anon users can do things without being tracked: if, for argument's sake, one leaves a really abusive message somewhere, how are we supposed to know whom to block if we don't know whom it's from? (unless it appears on Special:RecentChanges? But it would be odd for it to appear there but not actually on the page where they posted)

        Loading editor
    • It does appear on Special:SocialActivity. However, given that it appears to be modeled after Special:RecentChanges, I assume that page only shows logs for a limited amount of time. This is fine for dealing with a burst of spam/vandalism but it doesn't help if, for example, you need to show that someone has a long history of spamming.

        Loading editor
    • As long as the person is using the same IP address, or IP addresses that can be covered by a rangeblock, you can add a link inside the block reason that directs them to a different page where they can read further information why they were blocked. Examples:

      • See [[Thread:12345|this message]] as to why.
      • Please do not add fan fiction. Fan fiction is not allowed as per our [[FAQ]].

      They can't respond back by editing the page due to the block, but it is a way of getting their attention in cases where you had to block them for being disruptive but it could be a misunderstanding or they just need to do something different to adhere to a wiki's policy such as fan fiction needs to be clearly identified or put on a different wiki.

        Loading editor
    • Is this not essentially what HumansCanWinElves suggested? Also, if anons don't have a message wall, then Thread:12345 would not be a valid page. That is only for the legacy discussion features which wouldn't be available if the wiki was on UCP (which is what prompted the question).

        Loading editor
    • The first example used to work pre-UCP when anonymous users had a Message Wall and can still be used for registered users. It's what I've used in the past and is the same as what HCWE suggested, but by putting it in the block reason, the anonymous user will see it if they come back under the same IP and the "you can't edit because you're currently blocked" notice appears on the page.

      It gives them a chance to see why what they did was wrong and gives them the opportunity to change their behavior so it won't happen again. Whether they actually read it or try to change their behavior is a separate matter, but at least the admin can show they tried to communicate with the anonymous user because it isn't as straightforward as it used to be.

        Loading editor
    • Ah. I see where the difference is now. Thread:12345 still won't work even for registered users though. Not if the wiki is UCP as has already been stated.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.