Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Bug ID 9213

Bug ID 9213
Bug ID 9213 -- VectorPotential Talk 15:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Um... what about it? // Decaimiento Poético  21:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just that about 99% of vandalism patrollers report anons here with the messages "Vandalism past final warning" when anons haven't been able to see these warnings since some time in December-- VectorPotential Talk 21:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Some of them see the new messages bar all the time, some none of the time. I spent a while testing it with my IP a week ago and found that when I left and came back, I would get the new messages bar.
 * Anyway, what are you suggesting should change at AIV? I also find the situation somewhat uncomfortable, but I don't have any solution to it. CMummert · talk 22:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, I also noticed this. The "orange messages bar" never show up as an IP for me and I also tested it at school and the messages don't work. Really wish that a developer or someone with access to the code for Wiki can look at it and fix it. -- Hdt83 Chat 00:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh. I happened to leave a message for the IP at my school, today, and it was working fine with the orange box. Spotty coverage, perhaps? – Luna Santin  (talk) 08:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, it works differently for sharedips, where the new messages bar is more prone to stay on for long periods of time, than it is to remain off-- VectorPotential Talk 14:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Without the messages, most IPs never see the warnings or that they are going to be blocked. Unfortunately, a solution still doesn't exist Bugzilla (Bug ID 9213). I know that the messages bar isn't working because when I see people vandalizing on a computer at school or in a library, I send a warning but it never shows up. -- Hdt83 Chat 23:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've attempted a partial solution at MediaWiki:Anoneditwarning, however that's nowhere near as obvious as a bright yellow bar appearing at the top of your screen-- VectorPotential Talk 14:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's better than nothing but it still doesn't get the warning out to IPs. I also noticed many editors at [{WP:AIV|AIV]] making reports as (not listening to warnings) suggesting that they don't know about the bug with the messaging bar. The problem is still ongoing and many messages such as welcomes or suggestions in addition to warnings are not being received. -- Hdt83 Chat 23:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * At this point, I just don't see the developers pulling off a complete fix, this may just be something we have to live with for the long run, seeing as how the cause is still unknown-- VectorPotential Talk 17:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason why developers are having such a hard time fixing this? Or is it simply just that there is no solution to this problem?-- Hdt83 Chat 01:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably not a very high priority, since it only affects anons-- VectorPotential Talk 20:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But, anons are responsible for most of the vandalsim. It should be a high priority. -- Elaich   talk 16:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Heres another anon who has the new messages bar not showing: User_talk:71.107.183.141. -- Hdt83 Chat 02:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I created Category:Wikipedians who are terribly frustrated about Bug ID 9213 for anybody who is frustrated with the inability to communicate with anonymous IPs. Thanks to Scientizzle for suggesting this. -- Hdt83 Chat 19:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent! &mdash; Scientizzle 19:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Awww...now it's up for deletion. &mdash; Scientizzle 07:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Another IP user seems to have been blocked without the new messages working User_talk:71.113.12.223... Why haven't the devs come up with anything yet?? It is frustrating when you know they are not getting the warnings you are placing on there talk page... -- Hdt83 Chat 04:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just as a follow-up on the "Probably not a very high priority, since it only affects anons-- VectorPotential ": Sorry, I disagree. It affects anyone either is an IP or wants to contact one. And through vandalism, it affects anyone who is affected by vandalism (users, readers, ...) or the project as more vandal fighters likely have to spend more time fighting (rather than working more constructively). If this isn't a major problem, I don't know what would be. Maybe if the user log-in malfuncioned and assigned a random user name to everyone who logs in? ... --Ibn Battuta
 * I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't a major problem, just that it's possible the developers don't consider it urgent, or it's also possible they just don't know what's causing it. To be honest, I was just trying to say something to keep this thread from being claimed by MiszaBot II before its time-- VectorPotential Talk 15:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The bugzilla entry shoiws it as "high" priority, and shows discussion as to the cause among developers, it appears that they aren't sure what is causing this, which makes it hard to fix. DES (talk) 15:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems as though the vast majority of registered users are still unaware of this bug-- VectorPotential Talk 19:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep. Eleven strong in the category, though... &mdash; Scientizzle 15:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I made another suggestion at MediaWiki_talk:Anoneditwarning, but it seems unlikely to be approved-- VectorPotential Talk 19:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It would seem, based on the reports that tend to end up here on AIV, that most users either don't know that anons can't receive new messages, or perhaps don't care-- VectorPotential Talk 17:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This bug may now also be affecting registered users. See here & here. --Hdt83 Chat 19:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Any follow up on that?-- VectorPotential Talk 22:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems like it might have been an isolated incident, thus not really associated with this bug-- VectorPotential Talk 17:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is User:ACBest, logged out. After editing my IP talk page, i decided to see for myself. And I could see the new messages thing, and even now, even though ive looked at my talk page, the New Messages bar is still there 86.8.101.232 12:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)  AC Best  12:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Anonnotice
Perhaps we could add a little link here so that anons can easily click to check if they have messages on their talk page? Maybe this: Click here to check for new messages. --Hdt83 Chat 04:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds good, how about:

''If editing the wiki – remember to check for messages. (Click here)'' GDonato (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

AIV/header
I've notice of this bug to the AIV header. I doubt it will stay there for very long though, as I'm sure someone will wind up removing it.-- VectorPotential Talk 18:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting about the bug to AIV. I was not aware of the bug before and have been adding warnings to ip address talk pages.  How should users communicate with ip addresses making unconstructive edits if this bug exists? Tbo 157   talk  20:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, there isn't a way to communicate until the bug is fixed... --Hdt83 Chat 06:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

CVU
Since most messages to IPs are warnings form vandalism, I posted a message in the current events section of the CVU. I also made an inquiry at Bugzilla to ask how far the devs have come with fixing the bug. --Hdt83 Chat 22:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a WAD?
This may be a WAD. The bug was also reported at Bug 10370 and a dev implied that the newtalk message was now designed to show up on uncached pages ONLY, such as the edit screen, but that cached pages(i.e. article and talk pages) for IPs would not show the newtalk box. It is hard to tell if this is the case, but reading between the lines, it MAY be that this is a WAD... --Jayron32| talk | contribs 04:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if it was meant for it to show up on uncached pages, the messages banner still won't show up on such pages when a message is sent. --Hdt83 Chat 05:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Do we know that? I haven't seen if anyone has checked that if a newtext banner does NOT appear on an article page when using an IP address that it will also NOT appear on the editing page... I only see that people have checked on the article pages... If it always showed up on the editing page, that would be fine, since IPs that aren't editing aren't vandalising and thus don't need to see the message... If an IP is repeatedly and actively vandalisng, the banner would appear for them on the edit page, thus the controversy would be avoided.  Anyone have concrete evidence one way or the other if this is working as intended or if IPs are not getting ANY messages, even on the edit screens? --Jayron32| talk | contribs  05:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've tested it several times and the "new messages" bar does not show up on both cached and uncached pages. We can test this out right now. If you know your IP address then I can post a test message and see if you can receive it. --Hdt83  Chat 06:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No need. I trust you.  Didn't know it had already been tried.  Well, the bug needs to be fixed regardless, and it doesn't look like the devs are that interested (the bug report is since April!!!) Oh well.  I guess we'll still keep up the good fight against vandalism... --Jayron32| talk | contribs  06:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I highly disagree that IPs that aren't actively editing don't need to see the new message banner. There are many reasons to contact an IP other than to chastise them for vandalizing. Perhaps you should take a break from vandal patrol if you've become so jaded and cynical as to think otherwise.—WAvegetarian (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right and I was wrong to imply that. It may or may not be what I meant, but if you read that in my statement, then I am in the wrong, and I humbly apologize for making any statement that would lead anyone to think that.  My fault.  No excuse.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  00:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, we should not change how we do things here
Do we have any solid information on what percentage or types of IP's are actually affected by this? I see numerous instances detailed above, but my own experience, though anecdotal, has been somewhat different. For example, I have observed: So, it seems clear that some messages are being read. For now, I have changed VectorPontential's notice on the AIV header to read "many" instead of "most", and "intermittently" instead of "incapable of", since the true situation is unclear.
 * Many times after a uw-vandalism4 message is posted to an IP talk page, a long string of vandalism will abruptly stop.
 * Many times after a warning template messages is posted, the receiving IP will vandalize the user page of the editor leaving the message.
 * Often, IP address users respond to warning messages on their talk page itself.

While I agree this is an important issue, and am pleased the developers are working on a fix, I do not believe we should change the way we are currently running AIV. Already, we tend to be fairly conservative in our blocks. They occur only after several instances of vandalism, and the first block issued on an account is for a short duration. I can't imagine that any school official is going to call up the Foundation offices and say "Our school's IP has been blocked from editing for 31 hours just because some student put 'faggot' into four articles. The student wasn't even warned that there might be a penalty for such behavior! This is completely outrageous and I demand an apology."

Except for very young children, who should not be allowed unsupervised Internet access anyway, users know intuitively that defacing articles is not a good idea, and it's likely few are shocked when their access to make changes to articles is blocked after doing so several times (even if they were not formally warned of such a possibility). Such behavior is malum in se, as opposed to a 3RR violation, which is malum prohibitum.

Let's keep doing what we do and, hopefully, this bug will be fixed in due time. -- Satori Son 15:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been routinely probing the limits of this bug through anon editing at regular intervals, and my experience is that for 100% of non-shared IPs, the new messages bar either shows up and never (somewhere on the order of 30 to 40 minutes for the bar to go away) goes away, or never (shows up 1 to 2 months after the fact) shows up at all.-- VectorPotential Talk 22:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Egads, I have been reporting anons to AIV for months and never noticed the warning about this bug until just now. As Satori said, I know it at least works some of the time, because I often have the experience that a spree of even quite vile vandalism will often stop after a single warning (apparently people either do think it's okay, or they just think nobody is going to do anything about it or something).  That makes this bug more disturbing...  I agree with Satori that we shouldn't stop the way we are doing things (If I Were King, anons would get a short block for even a single instance of blatantly offensive vandalism, especially if it was racist or homophobic) but it is still disturbing, because I imagine a lot of vandalism could be avoided if this bug were fixed... --Jaysweet 16:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I don't see the fact that they 'didn't see the warning' as any sort of viable excuse. That would be the equivalent of someone setting fire to buildings and then telling the judge that nobody told them they couldn't. Almost every bit of vandalism I've deleted/reverted has been purposeful and malicious, and the fact that little Johnny isn't getting his warnings before he gets banned is a non-issue. HalfShadow 04:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Still, there are some people getting acquainted with Wikipedia who could use a nudge in the right direction. I've seem some bad users manage to reform themselves into respectable editors. Maybe we could start something better by fixing the bug.  bibliomaniac 1 5  15 years of trouble and general madness 23:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears this bug still exists. When testing the function, the new message notification remains "stuck" even if it is clicked multiple times. Perhaps a cookie issue (or lack of a proper session cookie?). MasterXC 17:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * HalfShadow, to me the issue is not one of fairness (i.e. "They didn't see the warning so they shouldn't get blocked," no, of course not, if you are vandalizing and won't stop, you get blocked, plain and simple), but rather one of practicality. The simple fact is that a surprisingly high percentage of vandals stop after one or two warnings.  If the warnings are not always getting through, this means more vandalism and more reports to WP:AIV and more work for the admins, etc., etc.  Persistent vandals deserve to get blocked, warning or no.  But at the same time, reliable warnings == less persistent vandals.  --Jaysweet 17:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Something I never remember to do, but think would be a good idea, is to communicate via the edit summaries. If you're reverting an IP vandal, instead of using an edit summary that says "rvv", use one that says ""rvv-please see your user talk page", or "rvv-stop or you will be blocked".  I used to do this when I first heard of Bug9213, and it sort of seemed to work, but then I lapsed back into the lazy 3 letter edit summary.  Now that this thread has popped up on my watchlist and reminded me, I'll try again.  I still think the message bar works for some decent portion of IP addresses, however.  Quite often vandals will stop after I leave a level-3 warning, and the two times I've left a message for an IP editor about non-vandalism, they've replied both times.  Small sample size, though. --barneca (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Communicating through the edit summary is a good idea. However, I attempt to revert as much vandalism as possible, so I just stick to the automated edit summary, post a warning template, and move on. Many RC patrollers don't even post warnings because it slows them down. It's worth a shot though.

Overall, I agree with Vector Potential. I have used Wikipedia for research since I was ten, and it never occurred to me that blanking a pafe, or replacing it with profanities was acceptable. I didn't know about RC patrol, I didn't know about user talk pages, I didn't know about IPs, I didn't know about blocks. But I knew that blanking a page was wrong, even though I couldn't link it with a consequence. Vandals know that they are doing wrong, but many just don't know that they can be blocked if they don't have an account. Most consider themselves to be anonymous.

Fixed?
See 9213. My tests that previously usually reproduced the problem fail to now, and the fix mentioned in the bug has been applied on Wikimedia servers, as far as I can tell. Of course, with an intermittent bug, it's never truly possible to tell whether it's been fixed or not. If anyone here does find any more instances of the bug, reporting them to developers at the bug tracker page I linked earlier in the paragraph is probably the best course of action. --ais523 12:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears to be fixed but theres still something wrong with the bug. There are URLs to get on a page on Wikipedia, for example:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Shakespeare
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shakespeare
 * The new messages bar appears immediately when you read a page in the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Shakespeare URL, but only intermittently appears in the /wiki/article URL. Anybody else notice this? -- Hdt 83     Chat 03:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's probably another caching issue. It's less bad than the other one, though, because the bar will likely appear when the anon in question navigates to a Wikipedia page they've never been to before, and the old cached version will go (to be precise, MediaWiki will tell the anon's browser not to use it the next time the anon requests it) the next time the page in question is edited. Also, the anon could sort out that problem by bypassing their cache, I suspect (this is all an educated guess, by the way, I don't know for certain), whereas with bug 9213 unfixed they couldn't have. --ais523 11:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you deserve a big cookie! -- lucasbfr talk 10:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It wasn't me who fixed it, but User:Tim Starling. --ais523 12:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed!
If there are no objections I'm going to tag this page as historical, since the problem seems to have been resolved. -- VectorPotential Talk 12:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)