Volunteer Developer

Spam filter

In regards to reporting spam filter hits, there is no need to report them/and or block if the users edits are not going through. The purpose of spam filter is to block unwanted edits on Community Central and by blocking the edits, the filter is doing its job. The filter isn't set to automatically block the users, but rather prevent the edit itself.

Spammers need to have something definite when they are advertising. Such as in the masthead, a spam wiki or in their profile that everyone can see. If someone tried to publish an edit and was prevented by the filter, they usually give up after that. The users who are persistent and evade the filter and manage to publish an edit are the ones we end up blocking and who we will gladly take reports on. --Icier 19:40, June 9, 2016 (UTC)

Ah, okay. My logic was that, if they triggered the abuse filter several times that they should get phalanxed to prevent the chance of them bypassing the filter, but sure, I won't report those from now on. Thanks for clearing that up! :) -- Cube-shaped garbage can 19:45, June 9, 2016 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Please do not edit war with other users. --Callofduty4 (talk) 17:21, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

How are you finding all the spam?

I was just wondering how you are finding all the spam you are reporting. Are you using the VSTF IRC channel or some other method? Reguyla (talk) 00:13, February 4, 2017 (UTC)

Usually, no. I just watch recent changes, log and abuse log of Community Central and some other wikis of interest. -- Cube-shaped garbage can 07:57, February 4, 2017 (UTC)
Oh ok thanks. You submit so much I was wondering if you were using some tool or something I didn't know about. Thanks. Reguyla (talk) 14:31, February 4, 2017 (UTC)
Well, technically, WikiaActivityLogger is a useful tool for watching recent changes, if you have somewhere to host it. -- Cube-shaped garbage can 17:18, February 4, 2017 (UTC)
You have founded a wiki for spam?--Keyblade2.PNGCavaX™Beep! 18:35, February 10, 2017 (UTC)
No, it's just a tool for logging all activity on a wiki onto a Discord channel. -- Cube-shaped garbage can 18:47, February 10, 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your spam profiles in Biglist


Please do not put recent spam in Report:Spam/Biglist. Because the Biglist is not often cleared and is meant to be 'backburner' work, recent spam belongs in Report:Spam or Report:Profile, not in Biglist. People will report spam to Report:Spam, and a week later it'll have to be checked again in R:S/Biglist, except that it's already cleared.

The second thing is to please check your lists more carefully - dumping a bunch of links for us to sort through with the message "likely to be some false positives" is not productive at all. In the last list, I covered about 2000 reports, and there were over 100 false positives in that list. Do not waste our time. noreplyztalk 23:11, May 30, 2017 (UTC)

Per Noreplyz, please do be careful with adding false positives. We are intended to clean spam upon finding it. Not so much as going through every user profile header with website information to find spam/possible spam. We appreciate the reports but the intention of the reports tool are to notify us of verified spam found by users (or even possible spam if you are not sure). When bots become thrown into the works of locating spam automatically instead of by hand it becomes more difficult all around to try and filter the false positives. Which is time being lost when it could be focused on verified (or possible) spam. --Icier 23:17, May 30, 2017 (UTC)
I believe both of you are familiar with how Wikia Watchers operate - we stack our reports until there's a certain amount of them and then move them to the respective page on the wiki. In the case of Korean spam reports, that certain amount is 20 and they are being moved to the Biglist. The "leftover" reports I recently moved to Biglist were reports labeled as Korean spam that weren't moved during the active hours of Korean spambots, and they would get moved to Biglist either way the day after, along with other Korean reports. I didn't check if these Korean spam reports in the channel were actually supposed to be in Report:Spam, so sorry about that.
I didn't just dump the link blacklist into the report page, I filtered them manually beforehand (after I ran a program to sort them), but no matter how well I look at the reports, I'm pretty sure there will always be false positives. In my last report, I reported 113 profiles and 13 (11,5%, which I know is a lot) of them were false positives (I checked through all 113 profiles I reported yesterday to see which ones aren't blocked a few minutes ago), for 7 of them I still think are spam (not saying you're wrong, though), for 3 I'm sure they aren't and for 3 I'm unsure. I know phalanx is a powerful tool and that VSTF should be sure they don't phalanx a false positive, but you would have to look through that same list either way because you can't trust a user without phalanx rights to give you a list of 100+ spambots that 100% sure doesn't include non-spambots. If you don't want to check through the whole list I can stop reporting them in Biglist and instead report them in spam/profile reports in smaller batches.
As there were multiple users involved in checking the previous 7,488 reports (there were less after the checking), I can't say anything about accuracy of those. I will filter my batch profile report list better in future.
Thank you for taking your time to explain my mistakes to me. -- Cube-shaped garbage can 11:17, May 31, 2017 (UTC)

Kindlygirl is DiegoSmilodon’s sockpuppet

Don’t be fooled by this user. He has a reputation for creating sockpuppets his original name is DiegoSmilodon and he is blocked across FANDOM and also he has abused multiple accounts: Ban evasion, insubordination, rude behavior, threats/harassment, vote interference, edit warring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidjimnez (talkcontribs)

I'm aware who they are, but thanks. -- Cube-shaped garbage can 18:41, December 11, 2017 (UTC)

Hi there!

Should you report more? I wanted keep on going and it is fine. PictureField55 (talk) 15:44, January 27, 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is not the correct place for casual conversation. If you would like to continue this discussion please move it to Community Central or another wiki of Kocka's preference. --Icier 16:51, January 27, 2018 (UTC)

Behaviour towards VSTF Members

Hi there, thanks for your latest reports. We've been concerned about the deceptive behaviour recently regarding reporting different issues to different members of the VSTF. We know that there are some inconsistencies and we're working to fix these, but please don't exploit them for your benefit. This is particularly troubling if you are targeting members who are still new to the policies that define our scope.

  • When a report is not done, please do not ask another member to clear it. Please leave a message on the member who removed the report, and the VSTF will discuss the particular user or edit.
  • Respect VSTF decisions. While you may stumble on some inconsistencies, erroneously removed reports should be raised here on the wiki so that the VSTF can explain the removals. To make this process as easy as possible, we ask you to post on our walls.
  • If you continue messaging other VSTFs privately about reports that have been already decided as non-spam/non-vandalism, or continue this deceptive behaviour, you will be blocked.
  • If you are unhappy with our final decisions, contact Staff using Special:Contact.

Again, thank you for your support. I hope you understand why we are placing this sort of process here. noreplyz 11:47, April 4, 2018 (UTC)

I must say I've become really disappointed at VSTF when Lucky first pointed out the inconsistencies between how VSTF members handle spam. Specifically, when his spam reports were rejected as "Not spam per staff discussion". At that point I have started wondering what happened to the criteria of what is considered spam, the same criteria I've built upon my spam filters and the same criteria we've been using at Watchers. For these reasons I've asked a VSTF member through Watchers about how are we supposed to update our criteria and they told us Staff rather decided it's spam and the removed reports were resolved. That situation has also shown internal conflicts between VSTF members, something I never could have thought about, sadly exist.
Afterwards, every time we've noticed the same kind of spam reports getting rejected, we (Lucky or I) have pointed VSTF members that have told us it's fine to report that kind of spam (and also told us Staff said it's fine) to check if the removed reports really weren't spam. I have not asked other members to resolve the reports, it was their own decision to do so. For these reasons I strongly believe "deceptive behaviour" is a completely incorrect, even insulting, term for what Lucky and I have been doing. There was no "deception" involved, all report removals are public and reports getting resolved after they have been removed is a result of the varying definition of spam between different VSTF members, not of any kind of "deception" happening behind the backs of VSTF members that resolved the reports. I'm kind of doubting that's a term you would originally use, Noreplyz.
If you think about it from another perspective, the same situation could have been presented as a story of a VSTF member that was too lazy to resolve spam reports that they cherry-picked a Staff member that will confirm to them it's not spam and removed these reports. Of course the way you're presenting the current situation is way more believable than that, if one were to compare the stories, considering VSTF are generally more trusted than "some random users that report spam", but neither of them are truly correct. It's not the fault of users, it's not the fault of one VSTF member, it's the fault of VSTF as a group and the inconsistencies and conflicts happening between the members.
I'm satisfied with having to discuss spam criteria with other VSTF members on their VSTF Wiki talkpages. I'm going to note, though, that this has not been the case before and, until today, users have been pointed to Staff when they wanted to discuss spam criteria, which is in my opinion a very slow way of getting spam resolved and a very painful one for the user since they would have to explain why they believe something is spam to people who are not as involved in the process of cleaning spam every day as VSTF are so the user would have to invest a lot more time and thought to write a support request about it if they truly wanted Staff to understand why they believe something is spam. The time and thought that could be invested in catching and reporting spam.
This is particularly troubling if you are targeting members who are still new to the policies that define our scope.
I am really not sure what you mean by that. I haven't contacted any new VSTF members about cleaning up reports that other members refused to clean up.
One last question: Was this talkpage message and Lucky's on-wiki block for off-wiki things done by collective decision of VSTF and respective Staff members? I am really not sure if I can believe all VSTF are behind the "we" in your message after the things I've seen happening in the past few weeks.
I'm aware my talkpage reply isn't going to change anything, not even Lucky's unjust block even though I've been writing it for a few hours now, but I'm glad you're working on fixing the inconsistencies and conflicts between VSTF members and I'm sure these will eventually get resolved. I believe in you guys. :)
-- Cube-shaped garbage can 20:22, April 4, 2018 (UTC)
I wanted to jump in and give a staff perspective here, and hopefully bring this discussion to an end.
We have very few complaints about the performance of our VSTF team. We are always improving team training and communication. I understand your preference for talking problems out, but long discussions like this distract from the task of the VSTF. If you disagree or are unhappy with decisions VSTF members make, then please use Special:Contact to direct it to me rather than the team. Please do not go from one member to the other as that creates additional talking points for the same issue and it becomes time comsuming. Feel free to send them to me through Special:Contact instead.
Thank you for your commitment to FANDOM in finding spam/vandalism to report. It is obvious you are devoted to the success of our communities. Rappy @fandom 03:34, April 10, 2018 (UTC)

Regards due to your edits

Hi. I have to say, I can’t believe you. I helped the VSTF by removing the complete reports, but you just act like an idiot and re-add them. What is wrong with you? I was helping volunteer by removing complete reports for the VSTF. But you just go along and undo the clean-up. I bet you are an outcast in the real world just because you like polluting the environment, just like what you did with my edits. codenamed: the great tanline666 14:01, June 19, 2018 (UTC)

The VSTF have stated multiple times in past cleanup of reports should be left to them, which is why I undid your edit. -- Cube-shaped garbage can 14:02, June 19, 2018 (UTC)

I’m sorry! Forgive me! codenamed: the great tanline666 17:58, June 19, 2018 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.