EdBever

Welcome to the Simple English Wikipedia

Hi, EdBever! Welcome to Simple English Wikipedia! Thank you for your changes. If you need help, check out the Help section of Wikipedia, or leave a message on my talk page. Whenever leaving messages on talk pages, please remember to sign your name by typing four 'tildes' (like this: ~~~~); doing this makes your name and the date show up. Also, it helps if you write something in the box that says 'edit summary' whenever you change an article. Below are some useful links to make your time here simpler. If you make a short article please mark it with {{stub}}, our guideline is here: Stubs Happy editing! America †alk 16:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC) Getting Started How to: change a page • write Simple English articles Getting Help Administrators • Leaving a message for administrators Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Can this be checked? Saying where the idea came from • What Wikipedia is not Copyrights • Using images and Pictures Spam • Vandalism • Deletion policy The Community Assume good faith • Be kind Community Portal • Simple talk • TASERING Announcements • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Peer review • Cleanup • Editor review Other Useful templates • Stubs

Why

Why do you feel this edit was vandalism and not a good faith edit? I agree that it was probably unneeded, but was it vandalism? fr33kman 07:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

See this user's contributions. This user was spamming wikipedia with a number of links. If this user adds a link once I have no reason to question his/her good faith and I leave it to the local wikipedians, but if a user makes similar edits (adding only external links) on 7 wikimedia projects I see it as linkspam and I will revert all edits since I am already busy. EdBever (talk) 08:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

But was it vandalism? Could it not have been a good faith addition of (unneeded) links? It should have been an undo rather than a rollback (which can, locally, only be used for certain vandalism). BTW: thanks for looking out for our interests! :) fr33kman 08:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this kind of edits are in a grey area. Technically they can be seen as vandalism, but the user in question could be acting in good faith. Therefore I have not issued any warnings, except for an info-template on nl:wp. The user is on a dynamic IP in Russia. If you see this diff there is a pattern on nl:wp, which is what made me look a bit further. There is a Xwiki report (note that todays and yesterdays edits have not yet been registered on this list) which indicates COIbot (on meta) detected this domain as possible spam. This link has been placed mainly by IP's from the range 94.41.x.x. which originates from Ufa, Russia. The website is also hosted in this same city. Seeing the pattern and the fact that this user only adds external links to several projects makes me think that these edits have not been good faith, it looks like a spamming campaign across wikipedia. I am an admin on meta as well and I will blacklist this link globally in a few minutes. EdBever (talk) 08:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Link is on global blacklist and does not exist within any wikimedia project anymore. EdBever (talk) 08:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I can understand your actions better now. I have run a checkuser on that IP address and there are no sleeper accounts here. I'm still not convinced that the IP is being used as a vandalism account. It may simply be a person who is adding what they really feel are valid external links. fr33kman 08:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This user certainly seems to feel this link is valid, since it is most likely his own site. If you see the Xwiki report (I fixed the link above) the link has been placed 15 times until June 2nd plus the 9 times today and yesterday, so in all at least 24 times. If you look at the history on en:wp you'll see the article has been semiprotected after 94.41.x.x. placed the same link over and over again (at least 14 times). Several users from that IP range have been warned, their actions were deemed vandalism on en:wp. All in all this is enough proof (for me at least) this is vandalism an no longer good faith. I think the main thing here is that the user acted crosswiki, if you look at simple:wp alone you can assume good faith. EdBever (talk) 09:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You are probably correct. I'm going to semi-protect the article here for two weeks and see where we go from there. The one thing I fine interesting is that a named user (a new one) here User:LUUWDA re-added the exact same edit, but their IP addy is not in Russia (or anywhere even close), not that means anything considering proxies, but I see no other edits here or globally that make me concerned about them. Thankfully, you've added this to the spam blacklist. fr33kman 09:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Since chatroulettecite.com is on the global blacklist protection might not be necessary unless they start spamming other domains. LUUWDA seems to act in good faith, but the links that were placed are not relevant if you ask me. EdBever (talk) 09:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)