Revision as of 02:14, 8 January 2021 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,295,546 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Archive 16) (bot← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:34, 9 January 2021 edit undoNaomiAmethyst (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers, Template editors6,269 edits →ClueBot reporting after level 3 warning: Reply.Next edit → | ||
Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
I was just curious why ClueBot is reporting after a level 3 now. I don't have a huge problem with it - there is no need to robotically issue four warnings to everyone before blocking them - but it does seem to be a bit of a disconnect to have ClueBot report after a level 3, yet ostensibly (though not officially) require a human editor to wait for a level 4. Pinging ]. --] (]) 22:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC) | I was just curious why ClueBot is reporting after a level 3 now. I don't have a huge problem with it - there is no need to robotically issue four warnings to everyone before blocking them - but it does seem to be a bit of a disconnect to have ClueBot report after a level 3, yet ostensibly (though not officially) require a human editor to wait for a level 4. Pinging ]. --] (]) 22:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC) | ||
:Looks like it was unintentional side effect of Given it has been performing this way for over a year without complaint, unless there is consensus to change it back, I'm inclined to leave it as is. But it's not hard to switch back if that is what consensus is. -- ]<sup>(]|]|])</sup> 01:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:34, 9 January 2021
ShortcutThis is not the page for reporting vandalism. The page to report persistent vandalism is at Administrator intervention against vandalism. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Administrator intervention against vandalism page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17Auto-archiving period: 7 days |
|
Counter-Vandalism Unit | ||||
|
Need a coordination group against Turkish/Azerbaijani vandalism
I get tired when so many pages in recently have been marred with a lot of mysterious and unknown IP addresses that I traced to be from Turkey and Azerbaijan promoting disinformation, distortion series to represent Turkey and Azerbaijan like innocent countries that defending the honors and truth while they have also done a lot of cruel things on non-Turkic people throughout the history. I don't know if Turkish/Azerbaijani governments involve or not, but I am certain these bots from Turkey and Azerbaijan are acting to rewrite history in every countries they come to their minds. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I think I found a problematic K-12 school IP range
Where is the best place to report 24.46.136.0/22 (whois) as a possible school netblock? The contribution history shows at least as many juvenile vandalism type edits as productive ones, at least for the past few months. I went back a few years an did some spot-checking and it's similar.
I'm not saying it should be blocked now, but it might be helpful if the entire /22 block were watched by an edit filter or bot.
If it is determined to be an educational institution, putting the usual "this is a school ip" template at the top of all 1024 user talk pages may be useful as well. Likewise, if it is a school, any wiki-blocks should probably be applied against the /22 netblock rather than one IP.
I asked for help on my user page, someone told me to come to ANI, but the instructions make it look like it's for urgent cases. There have been only 4 edits this month from that range, the 2 bad ones (well 3, but the 4th edit was a self-revert) handled through normal editing as far as I can tell. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 20:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Dec 31 2020: Apologies for multiple reports of SpectresWrath
I kept getting bizarre edit conflicts, in which my edit. appended to another edit, was in conflict with a third edit. This happened at least 3 times, resulting in about 3 identical reports.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- As it turned out, none of those reports went through. Not sure what's happening here.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- AIV not taking new reports as of the past 45 min. REPORT: * SpectresWrath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Edit warring on the heels of a 1-week block for edit warring, then removed warning from Talk--Quisqualis (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Nationalistic vandalism
Ahmet Q. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Started deleting almost whole historically cited pages of Battle of Murino and Battle of Velika. He just decided to vandalise everything because he didnt like what he saw. Despite getting warned by 4 different users since 31. of December he persists even today. Please have this sortred out. Thanks in advance. Bellator9 (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Velika attacks* Bellator9 (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Velika attacks (1879)** Bellator9 (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Pinging @El C: who is familiar with the situation and the new account which launched a report in its first edit.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
ClueBot reporting after level 3 warning
I was just curious why ClueBot is reporting after a level 3 now. I don't have a huge problem with it - there is no need to robotically issue four warnings to everyone before blocking them - but it does seem to be a bit of a disconnect to have ClueBot report after a level 3, yet ostensibly (though not officially) require a human editor to wait for a level 4. Pinging Cobi. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Looks like it was unintentional side effect of this refactor of the warning logic back in 2019. Given it has been performing this way for over a year without complaint, unless there is consensus to change it back, I'm inclined to leave it as is. But it's not hard to switch back if that is what consensus is. -- Cobi 01:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)