Forum:Long-term IP abuse

What I'm talking about is the general trend of unconstructive IP edits, which has skyrocketed since January of this year, with the majority of them made from ranges 88.85.116.0/24, 92.53.21.0/24 and 185.100.244.0/24. These are not the only ranges used for disruptive editing, however - in the past week, there have been at least two more - 2601:981:4401:1CC0:0:0:0:0/64 and 49.145.96.0/19. How do we solve this? Maybe IP ranges should be blocked for a longer time, something like 3 or 6 months? Or maybe IP editing wasn't actually an advantage and we should just disable it? Arina (she/her) 07:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Anonymous editing is one of the fork's gains, we shouldn't disable it. When RuMCW was heavily vandalized in 2017–18 we did practice long-term blocks for involved IP addresses and ranges, but many of them were likely open proxies; our rules directly prohibit anonymous use of open proxies (added in response to that wave of vandalizme vandalism). BabylonAS 08:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

The main issue is that users from these ranges do not just vandalize this wiki. These ranges are mainly used for trolling, disruptive arguing and harassment. This is still not good-faith editing, just like vandalism is not, but it's waay harder to distinguish genuine metapedianism from bad-faith wikilawyering. Arina (she/her) 08:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Dumping my messy thoughts here: I agree that this is a problem. To be completely frank, although these IPs (referring very specifically to the IPs that frequent on MCW:CP and MCW:ANB) have brought marginal benefit to the wiki, I don't think (most of them) are editing in 100% bad faith, and not all of their edits are unconstructive. I can't really figure out whether they are the same person(s) trolling or not. I feel conflicted about how to approach this because on one hand I'm uncomfortable with the idea of getting rid of potential contributors, but on the other hand this is just too annoying and this has caused Discord active discussion bot to become significantly more unusable. GIM Dianliang233 (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Comment | This is a big issue really. I think this can be solved by two ways:

1. Unconstructive IPs should be blocked from editing for at least a month, not permanently banned. These IPs should be blocked after they have been 100% confirmed to be disruptive. There should also be a new appealing system introduced like Wikipedia has that can deal with wrongful bans.
2. Many websites have plugins or some sort of system that prevents VPN IPs from editing their website. This system should also be introduced to Minecraft wiki. If anyone decides to vandalise the wiki and gets blocked, then they can not edit unless they have been unblocked through appealing or in time when their ban is lifted. In this case, VPN's too will stand useless. They won't have any choice but to yield.

I don't know why Minecraft wiki doesn't have this already. This should be imposed with urgency to protect the Wiki from continuous vandals. If a user has to use a VPN to edit the wiki (If the wiki is banned in their country or some other reason), they can ask for special permission only on their registered account. This should only apply for IP users as registered users pose no great threat.

👁 Image
👁 Image
(talk) 10:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes but some IPs don't pose any threats, while IPs like 88.85.116.0/24 do. 98.235.155.81 10:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I am not saying that IP editing should be banned. I am proposing that if a IP is vandalising, they will be blocked for a month and VPNs should be permanently blocked from editing Minecraft wiki unless permission is granted to a certain registered user only. Also in my comment, I propose a appeal system to be imposed if any wrongful bans are imposed. If appealing system exists, then I had no idea it did not normal user will know too.

👁 Image
👁 Image
(talk) 10:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for letting me know. 98.235.155.81 10:12, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

But open proxies aren't currently a problem on this wiki? All IPs I mentioned aren't proxies. Arina (she/her) 10:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Comment It's unfortunate that I have to agree - disruptive IP participation have gained in scale, especially notable the one in discussion pages. It is to detriment of wiki functioning as responding to this endless chattering is taking away time from editors who might have spent it more productively. I'd be surprised if some of IP users didn't actually intend to disrupt/troll with their edits on the wiki, because some discussions really do feel like purposeful engaging in unneeded discussions. I don't think straight up disabling IP edits is a way to go here at the moment, though at this point of time I offer no solutions to the problem. To those suggesting blocking all VPNs: yes, VPNs are also used for vandalizing, but I'd also want to mention that the vast majority of those unconstructive users come from residential IP addresses, all of the ones given by Arina in OP are as far as I can see residential IP addresses. I'm opposing restrictions like the ones proposed in the response above when it comes to blocking VPNs outright. Frisk (talk) 10:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Can anyone just get a valid point? You are assuming as fact, and can you just provide evidence to support your claim? And if you're an IP, just . 117.121.242.109 08:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Also forgot to mention this range. Arina (she/her) 10:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Also this, this and this range. Arina (she/her) 10:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Vandalization from IP users cannot be prevented completely. There are IP users which contribute to the wiki too. Even if given a range block for a longer period, it would not prevent vandalizers coming back using VPNs. But there is a solution which can prevent atleast 90% of vandals, which is, by blocking VPNs to edit on this wiki. As @HruthRuchir said that all VPNs should be blocked from editing on this wiki. That would prevent any vandalizers to vandalize the wiki repeatedly. He also pointed out that if a user has to use a wiki due to restrictions on its usage in their region, they can ask for a special permission to edit using VPNs. But to do that, MCW:ANB would have to be exempted from 'disallowing editing through VPN'. - 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD^(talk) 10:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Even if given a range block for a longer period, it would not prevent vandalizers coming back using VPNs. - but they don't. And never did. But there is a solution which can prevent atleast 90% of vandals, which is, by blocking VPNs to edit on this wiki. - currently no vandalism or just any edits occur from open proxies so again, it's not a problem. Arina (she/her) 10:22, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I think you need a reality check, most users who vandalize the wiki often avoid using their local real IP for vandalization because they know they will be banned. After getting their one IP banned, they log in from another IP and so on. Most vandalism come from VPN users. If VPNs are blocked, it would significantly reduce vandalism. - 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD^(talk) 14:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

After getting their one IP banned, they log in from another IP and so on - that's called NAT. NAT isn't VPN. Arina (she/her) 14:42, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

You really need a reality check as NAT is used for hiding IP address and not changing it. VPNs are a very quick and easy way to change your IP. I've been dealing with a lot of vandalizers and most come back through VPNs after ban. You can ask anyone. - 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD^(talk) 14:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Arina (she/her) 11:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I think we should add more users who have been known to vandalize this wiki to that list. Maybe that could help too. 98.235.155.81 11:22, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

This entire forum and long-term abusers page created is simply feeding the trolls. Stop acknowledging them. Stop interacting. Mudscape 👁 Image
talk 13:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

We don't interact with trolls. We discuss how to stop them. Arina (she/her) 13:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

This forum is not feeding the trolls it's simply just a way and recap on what to do with IP vandalism. 98.235.155.81 14:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Mudscape. Most people who vandalise Wikis or make disruptive edits are likely doing it intentionally, probably to get attention. Publicising their "names" (in this case, IPs) is just giving them exactly what they want: attention. It's better to just revert their edits, report them, and move on. 👁 Image
reverentpsycho | Talk 👁 Image
14:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

If we can discuss, find a solution and stop them all once and for all, it is better than ignoring them and let them vandalise. This can be agreed by everyone that stopping them once and for all is better than ignoring them and hope that they will yield.

👁 Image
👁 Image
(talk) 15:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

wp:IP editors are human too -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  14:21, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Nobody said they weren't. All Internet trolls and vandals are humans, just humans that choose to do wrong online. 👁 Image
reverentpsycho | Talk 👁 Image
14:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

you had a typo in link wp:IP editors are human too (should be IP instead of Ip) 👁 Image
Miner(👁 Image
talk 👁 Image
contributions) 14:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, they're humans too so they can deliberately troll, harass and otherwise act disruptively. We're discussing how to prevent them from doing so. Arina (she/her) 14:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

My points are really unappreciated, aren't they? Maybe try actually reading the article instead of guessing the meaning. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  14:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

My points are really unappreciated, aren't they? - if you continue to wikilawyer then yes, they won't be appreciated. Maybe try actually reading the article instead of guessing the meaning. - it says that over 80% of edits by unregistered users were not vandalism. Sure, but we're not Wikipedia. We don't know how many IP edits here are constructive and how many are disruptive. Arina (she/her) 14:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Uh huh. It's totally fair that you're making block requests almost every day and I'm trying to allow the wiki to comply with a guideline, and I'm the one being unappreciated. I find these things hypocritical. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  14:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Her block requests are for actual disruptive editors, not every single IP editor that contributes to the Wiki. Know the difference, please. 👁 Image
reverentpsycho | Talk 👁 Image
14:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

"know the difference" I know what the difference is, but apparently MCW:AGF is no longer in effect. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  14:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Assuming good faith has its limitations. Or do you think that, for example, this person is a completely adequate and good-faith editor, who should've never been blocked for their actions? Arina (she/her) 15:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Of course it does. But only if it's clear that the user is a vandal, right? That's what the essay says, at least. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  21:41, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

It's totally fair - I think you're seeking fairness in the wrong place. Arina (she/her) 15:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

IP editing was an advantage because it brings in more editors. 173.209.48.122 07:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Let us get some things straight or this will be yet another discussion with more of fighting and less of solution. Arina opened this forum to address the issue of IP vandalizers and called upon everyone to find solutions for it. This forum is not for debating about humanity and good-faith of IP editors. And the point that ignoring them and not giving them attention is the way to go is pointless and baseless because it isn't working at all is it? They were only being blocked and ignored until now and it doesn't work. Also, about VPN's: I have mentioned in my comment above why VPN's should be disallowed until permission is granted to a registered user. Here is the thing - Wikipedia, which is the largest wiki on earth, disallows VPN, and they would have done that for a reason. They did it to be transparent and prevent vandalism. Therefore, I propose that this discussion should now focus more on what will be the solution rather than what began to happen above after Frisk's comment—Fighting 👁 Image
👁 Image
(talk) 15:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Arina opened this forum to address the issue of IP vandalizers - not just "IP vandalizers", but the general trend of unconstructive IP edits, which has skyrocketed since January of this year. It's not simply vandalism. Wikipedia, which is the largest wiki on earth, disallows VPN, and they would have done that for a reason. - Wikimedia Foundation banned using open proxies globally waaay back in 2006, and only because there was too much disruptive editing occuring from them. Again, we're not Wikipedia and here I don't see any disruptive editing occuring from open proxies. Arina (she/her) 15:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Good point that we are not Wikipedia but that doesn't mean we can't borrow ideas from Wikipedia. Both the Minecraft wiki are Wikipedia and open-source, information-providing wikis. You pointed out that they blocked proxies from Wikipedia to tackle Vandalism. Disregard time, this is exactly what this discussion aims for: a solution. Also, refer to this

👁 Image

Computer security means security against damages to 'data'. Wiki is nothing but pages and pages of data. "security against damages to 'data'" is basically prevention against vandalism. Preventing users using VPN to edit is a no-brainer move to stop vandalism. Wikipedia blocking proxies is the proof that vandalizers use VPN.

👁 Image
👁 Image
(talk) 16:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia blocking proxies is the proof that vandalizers use VPN. - yes, on Wikipedia. Not here. Arina (she/her) 16:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

No one has provided any evidence that VPNs are being used in this vandalism. I think the ignore and report was working fine when it was being followed, which hasn't been the case for a few weeks. Mudscape 👁 Image
talk 15:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

ignore and report was working fine - it wasn't because these ranges and ips were being blocked for a laughably small amount of time. For example, this block for one month is the 5th time blocking this range. Arina (she/her) 16:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Vandals were being identified and blocked, what isn't working about that? Sure, increase the block time, but it's not indicative of needing a paradigm shift. Mudscape 👁 Image
talk 16:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Vandals were being identified and blocked, what isn't working about that? - it isn't working because after 2 weeks, they came back. Because they came back even after being blocked for one month. Because for some reason, admins can't just block a tiny /24 range, with only one person using it for months and editing disruptively, for a year or two. Arina (she/her) 16:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I have extended the block of the range you mentioned to three months. GIM Dianliang233 (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I think few of the users require some context here as to why few of us are speaking about VPNs here. In around Oct-Nov of 2024, there was an even bigger wave of vandalism than the one we are experiencing now. There were almost 100-200 blocks per day for more than a week. Now, do your think thousands of readers suddenly decided to vandalize the wiki? No. Most of these IP users were switching between VPN or proxies to come back and vandalize. This can be pointed out by seeing the similar or exactly same disruptive edits these users were doing. Mudscape is asking for an evidence of VPNs being used for vandalism. There is no evidence we can put in front of you because we are not sitting besides the vandals when they are making disruptive edits. We can only provide our experience and the way we can assume that the vandals are switching between VPNs to vandalize. - 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD^(talk) 16:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

If you cannot show that vandals are using VPNs to vandalize, then how will blocking VPNs stop vandals? If you don't know what VPNs are being used, if any, then what do you block? Mudscape 👁 Image
talk 16:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Here, see this, this and this. When a user is blocked, their IP is blocked too. Still, the same user is coming back, making similar edits in a very short amount of time. - 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD^(talk) 16:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

All these accounts belong to the same one person using ranges 46.113.0.0/19, 2a02:a316:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 and 5.173.0.0/16, and no, these are not proxies ranges. Arina (she/her) 16:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

You are repeatedly stating assumptions as fact and unless you can provide evidence to support your claim then your entire logic must be dismissed. Mudscape 👁 Image
talk 16:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Am I one of the few who agrees with you here? Sure, IPs can cause problems, but I agree with you, because IPs can still be useful. 173.209.48.122 07:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Many IPs don't know much about VPNs, If a IP is blocked, it blocks them more strictly unless they use a VPN, while an account is blocked, they could come back without a VPN, because IPs change over time. 173.209.48.122 07:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Most of these IP users were switching between VPN or proxies to come back and vandalize. - do you have any evidence besides your assumptions? There is no evidence we can put in front of you - you can. There are hundreds of IP lookup and proxy detection tools - this one, for example. Arina (she/her) 16:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Comment | Using IPs to edit is not wrong if this assumption is being regarded firstly. Wikipedia banned the use of VPNs and proxies because of constant vandalizm, there is no bigger evidence than this. Arina says that they did it on Wikipedia not here; does that make any difference? Both are open-source wikis. No one uses VPN to edit wiki and if someone does, they can ask for permission. This is the most evidence that can be given. If an IP gets banned, then the vandalizer can not come with another IP. Simple as that. There is no harm in trying this. Constantly asking for evidence does no good. I repeat with emphasis: There is no harm whatsoever for the wiki to try this.

👁 Image
👁 Image
(talk) 08:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

People rarely use VPNs to edit this wiki. Most usually do it from their residental address 117.121.242.109 08:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Banning VPNs could stop vandalism, but some people have multiple routers, so if each router has a different IP, they could come back on a different network. 117.121.242.109 08:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Here is an example of the same person using VPNs to vandalize again and again:

• Special:Contributions/103.50.33.107 (India)
• Special:Contributions/146.70.150.63 (Egypt)
• Special:Contributions/197.140.142.116 (United Kingdom)
• Special:Contributions/45.248.77.67 (Australia)

Same person, three different countries, three different IPs, coming back withing minutes. If we block VPN from editing in this wiki (unless those who have asked for special permission), that is more than 75% reduction in vandalism in the cases similar to what I've provided above, if you take any one of them as vandal done from their local residential IP. - 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD^(talk) 08:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)