→VoABot: comment |
Italianization-vandalism |
||
Line 88: | Line 88: | ||
:::Luna: In my experience, most (individual) vandals don't do more than two unconstructive edits; they're merely curious about how WP works, rather than outright malicious. |
:::Luna: In my experience, most (individual) vandals don't do more than two unconstructive edits; they're merely curious about how WP works, rather than outright malicious. |
||
:::I did a cursory check of VoABot II's edits, and didn't see any false positives or premature reporting. It all looks good. --<font color="#3333FF">健次</font>([[User:Derumi|derumi]])<sup>[[User_talk:Derumi|talk]]</sup> 07:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC) |
:::I did a cursory check of VoABot II's edits, and didn't see any false positives or premature reporting. It all looks good. --<font color="#3333FF">健次</font>([[User:Derumi|derumi]])<sup>[[User_talk:Derumi|talk]]</sup> 07:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC) |
||
== Italianization == |
|||
On this article Users [[User:Giovanni_Giove|Giovanni_Giove]] and [User:Ghepeu|Ghepeu] are vanadalizing the article |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fascist_Italianization&diff=171686441&oldid=171686194] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fascist_Italianization&diff=171686441&oldid=171656008] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fascist_Italianization&diff=171549206&oldid=171400838] |
|||
They simply delete the entire paragraph . I remind that [[User:Giovanni_Giove|Giovanni_Giove]] has alimit afor editing per week and I believe he broke it with this. |
|||
--[[User:Aradic-en|Anto]] 17:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:41, 15 November 2007
Index
|
||||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Edit conflicts
Tried five times to post:
- 82.198.250.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Given last warning on 11 October. First edit since then is vandalism to Shetland
but each time is an edit conflict. Can we have the bots report somewhere else please? Ben MacDui(Talk)/(Walk) 17:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- When you make a report, click on the + tab at the top of the page to add a new section. This way you never get any conflicts with anyone. Just be careful not to add anything in the "Subject/headline" section, since that creates a new heading and confuses the HelperBots. The only drawback is that (since the subject is blank) there is no edit summary, but the benefit of not having 5 edit conflicts outweights that minor cost. --barneca (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- You could get a script to do the reporting for you - WP:TWINKLE has one of the better ones. It makes the report so fast it hardly ever gets edit conflicts. Anti-vandalism bots report to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/TB2 rather than the main AIV page, so if you're getting edit conflicts with bots its the helperbots cleaning up rather than anti-vandal bots adding reports. Hut 8.5 18:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
OK - thanks for the tips. Seems incredible that after a year here I didn't know about the '+ tab' trick - but then there is very little reason to use it for that purpose elsewhere I suppose. It might be worth putting on the project page? The helper bots kept removing the 'User reported' heading as well btw. Ben MacDuiTal)/Walk 20:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- I noticed the problem myself. What I do now is, before I hit Save Page I highlight what I just added and hit Ctrl-C (Copy), just in case. Solves the problem right there. --Blanchardb 01:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that I can do, but by the time it was repasted & the vandals ID copied into the edit summary there was a conflict again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben MacDui (talk • contribs) 09:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
user:Strothra
I put this on the page but it got deleted by a bot. This kid keeps editing my user and talk pages. I wish to retire but he keeps doing this stuff. So I can't. --LtWinters 00:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- This user is logging back onto Wiki to add personal attacks against Wiki users and the project onto his user page and talk page - a clear violation of WP:USER. I have reverted this a number of times and given him WP:NPA warnings. I've brought the complaint to WP:WQA. The user should further note that this is not the page he wants. --Strothra 00:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- LtWinters, you are blocked for disruption. You can edit your talk page, but not to continue your disruption. If you persist, your block could be extended and your user page protected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism by bot-uploading from nl:wikipedia to commons
I nl:gebruiker:Havang bot-uploaded an image to commons, but the texte page was infected by an image coming from en: wikipedia, [1]. Please, check this user and his vandalistic activities. See the contents and the history of the page vandalised at [2]. 81.207.177.214 22:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Vandalisim Info template
I suggest that we place the {{Wdefcon|prefix=User talk:ILovePlankton/}} template right under the large green one on the top to show how much attention is needed. Do you agree. If so, I will do so. The template looks like this
2.23 RPM according to EnterpriseyBot 11:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC) |
Marlith T/C 00:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Anything but that last ugly box that got removed. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 00:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- No thanks. The size of the backlog is the only reliable indication of how much attention is needed. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
User RogerBurks and Mercy Corps
Can you please stop User:RogerBurks from editing Mercy Corps? He's gone a bit nuts. --Busy Stubber 00:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see the problem. User:RogerBurks appears to be being WP:BOLD and editing the article in good faith. Looking at his last 10 or so edits he's attempting to remove ambiguity and statements that could be construed as unnecessary self-promotion of the article. User:Hu12 keeps reverting the edits but never provides a clear rationale for why. I think User:Hu12 needs to be informed to not bite the newcomers. --Mperry 01:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- The descriptions of any change I made were stated in the Edit summary. RogerBurks is no newcomer, this account has been active since, 3 February 2006, over a year and a half.
- Hope that sheds some light on the long term nature of the problem that wikipedia faces. For well over a year half the sole purpose of these accounts (and I'm sure others) were here for the sole purpose of promoting Mercy Corps. --Hu12 01:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
VoABot
Maybe I'm missing the obvious, but what's the point of a bot that reports users who have vandalized twice? What are we supposed to do with that? Lara❤Love 13:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- I noticed that, but all the reports were correct. I have no idea why it said (2+..) here, but it does seem a bit pointless saying that. -- Jack 15:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've come across at least two cases where the editor was reported after two edits. I don't recall the other case, but User:Eng rashid (contribs) was reported for edits to an article he or she had created and was adding on to. I've reported the bot to WP:AN/I. --健次(derumi)talk 15:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've been trying to get VoA to address this issue for nearly two days KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 15:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- The bot has been blocked indef until the issue is fixed. [3]. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 15:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've come across at least two cases where the editor was reported after two edits. I don't recall the other case, but User:Eng rashid (contribs) was reported for edits to an article he or she had created and was adding on to. I've reported the bot to WP:AN/I. --健次(derumi)talk 15:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- I had assumed the idea was that the person would keep vandalizing, and that, by the time an admin looked at the request, those 2+ edits might be something more like 4 or 5... but it wasn't working out that way, most times. Was an interesting idea to try, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- VoA appears to have corrected the issues and VoABot II is back to kicking vandal ass. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 06:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Luna: In my experience, most (individual) vandals don't do more than two unconstructive edits; they're merely curious about how WP works, rather than outright malicious.
- I did a cursory check of VoABot II's edits, and didn't see any false positives or premature reporting. It all looks good. --健次(derumi)talk 07:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- VoA appears to have corrected the issues and VoABot II is back to kicking vandal ass. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 06:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Italianization
On this article Users Giovanni_Giove and [User:Ghepeu|Ghepeu] are vanadalizing the article
They simply delete the entire paragraph . I remind that Giovanni_Giove has alimit afor editing per week and I believe he broke it with this. --Anto 17:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)