AntiVandalBot
AntiVandalBot Global Notice:
|
SIGN YOUR POSTS - I will not respond to unsigned posts. I may not always respond to posts (due to volume) - please be assured they are read and looked after
- Note to new users: you can do this by typing four tildes at the end: ~~~~
- These will be automatically replaced with your username (or IP address) and the date.
Click here to leave a message - don't forget to leave some shells for the big guns - (oh and no more VandalProof warnings please.....)
For information about AntiVandalBot, please read AntiVandalBot's Frequently Asked Questions
Any non civil messages may be sent straight to /dev/null (aka deleted) so please be nice. This includes all caps messages :)
Archives @ User talk:AntiVandalBot/archives
rollerblades
I was attempting to return the article to its original content after vandalism had occured.24.60.26.178
Also...
Is there somewhere where I may see a programmatic listing of the AntiVandalBot rules? Would be interesting...
Fey Sommers
I'm just eliminating the (Ugly Betty) tag. Robert Moore 22:13 6 January, 2007 (UTC)
How come?
=| How come your userpage got vandalized a lot? Didn't you add the {{sprotected}} code while remodifying it? And over 100,000 edits.... That's a lot! - Qasamaan 21:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- The page is a target because of its purpose. Vandals hate this bot. So they attack it, apperantly in hopes of breaking the bot or wearing down its owner.
- I see. Hope it's not wiring you down too hard. :) - Qasamaan
- As for the {{sprotected}} template, simply adding it to a page doesn't protect that page. You have to be an admin to protect pages. They see a special tab. (I know because I am an admin at Wikia:ChristianMusic:.) Will (Talk - contribs) 21:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
IP user 68.55.69.23 nearly blanked a page, but I stopped him/her!
Dude, IP user 68.55.69.23 nearly blanked the Arctic "List of places in Codename: Kids Next Door", but don't worry! I fixed the damage, and I'll leave you to discipline the mischief maker.
TREEHEMOTH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TREEHEMOTH (talk • contribs) 02:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
bad boys blue, 89.200.212.78
Hi, please protect the article from this vandal (89.200.212.78) who deletes sections of the article that are neutral and replaces them with info that is biased and favors one group member, whom he represents, while erasing all other info. he's done it repeatedly, please protect the page.
An error with the AVB
I made a change on the [Wii article]. I think the AVB should know this wasn't vandalism. My change was adding Mexican prices to the article.
No
I never went to any wikipedia page called Age of Majority — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.40.123.176 (talk)
Arg, I was using my laptop and I was just tapping on my touchpad and it clicked on something that I didn't know I clicked so apparently, I clicked a edit thing and got a warning so should I just leave it alone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.245.73 (talk)
This IP address is a public school computer. Please do not band or inhibit users such as myself from using this great site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Audioelite (talk • contribs)
I have never changed anything here. I don't know what had happened but I couldn't access wikipedia for a short period of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.54.156 (talk)
Comment moved from User page
Mr. Bot, the vandalism edit I, Bybbyy, made on July 25/26, 2006 was actually my little brother's fault, not mine.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bybbyy (talk • contribs).
Chaparral High School (Temecula, California)
I deleted this page not for vandalism, but because it failed to provide any refernces or citations, and failed to meet WP:N requirements, my apolgies for any inconvenience my actions caused.
Cliff Padgett
I submitted a minor edit to the Cliff Padgett page that I created. However, the page is no longer available, probably because I forgot to log in first and the edit was considered 'anonymous'. I'm still learning the protocol for formatting my Wiki contribution and would appreciate any help you can give. Stan sfzeene@hotmail.com ````
Twinkle Suggestion
Please disable your bot from reverting rollback edits that were made using the twinkle script. I was just fighting vandalism [1], and your bot fought me [2]!!! :o) In any case, these edits are almost never vandalism, unless someone is rolling back a reversion. Also, could you title the message that the bot leaves on the user talk page [3]? Thank you! tiZom(2¢) 01:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
To
I recentley created a page on VM Jones. However, HarperCollins (her publisher) contacted me to inform me of their displeasure, they would rather have just one, official website on VM Jones. Could you kindly delete the page?
im sorry
i am very sorry if i offended ur site. i was just seeing if it came out. im new in the computer so i dont know much please forgive me...i will never do it again i promise.
The googol article...
Hi. My cleanup [4] of the acronym dab page DFA got reverted because it included the f-word, which was included for the right reason though. Before I go ahead and revert this bot mistake (in this particular case; it's doing a great job otherwise :-)) I just want to ask if you can do anything to prevent another bot revert here or whether the f-word has to be left out. – sgeureka t•c 19:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's a long standing problem.... the majority of the time, its vandalism when someone adds profanity to an article hence the bot rule. Feel free to revert away... it shouldn't re-revert -- Tawker 21:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Bots should not unvandalise
I, as a vandalism partoller, can say that bots are VERY annoying when I am trying to warn someone. You and your cousin MartinBot make us vandalism protectors out of a job and you bots don't do it as well. W1k13rh3nry 20:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Huh, is this praise or ??? -- Tawker 21:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- I can't speak for W1k13rh3nry, but I think I can see a valid point. If a vandal is on a roll and a (human) vandalism patroller is following the guidelines on warning levels strictly (in the hope of getting up to 5 and reporting to WP:AIV) then it can be a bit annoying if a bot steps in and mucks up the sequence. It seems that the bots have some awareness of how far the sequence has got - they do use various warning levels - but not much. Is there a need here for a bit more structure to the way warnings are posted, particularly with regard to when to start a new sequence (if a possibly-shared IP vandal has been dormant for a while) and when to start a new section and how to name it, so that bots and humans can work together better on this? Philip Trueman 09:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well the warnings don't necessarily need to go in strict sequence, so I jsut tend to go to one higher than I would have done if the bot hadn't "beat me to it". Surely we should be hoping that the vandla sees the error of there ways before we get to blocking in any case? David Underdown 10:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- There's absolutely no need to stick religiously to the correct order of warning templates - as long as the user has more than 2 or 3 warnings in the past few hours, and one is a "last warning", an admin is likely to block. I'd like to emphasise to Philip Truman that the order of warnings doesn't really matter, especially if the vandal is returning. We always try to start with a friendly warning, to avoid biting, and get progressively more severe - 5 warnings usually aren't needed, and is a vandal is "on a roll", I would strongly suggest ditching the usual format and placing an "Imminent block" type warning. If they continue, there are grounds for immediate blocking (if it's clear vandalism, I prefer to go test2, test3, test4, even skipping test3 at times). Thanks, Martinp23 14:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Point taken, and thank you. Philip Trueman 15:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- There's absolutely no need to stick religiously to the correct order of warning templates - as long as the user has more than 2 or 3 warnings in the past few hours, and one is a "last warning", an admin is likely to block. I'd like to emphasise to Philip Truman that the order of warnings doesn't really matter, especially if the vandal is returning. We always try to start with a friendly warning, to avoid biting, and get progressively more severe - 5 warnings usually aren't needed, and is a vandal is "on a roll", I would strongly suggest ditching the usual format and placing an "Imminent block" type warning. If they continue, there are grounds for immediate blocking (if it's clear vandalism, I prefer to go test2, test3, test4, even skipping test3 at times). Thanks, Martinp23 14:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well the warnings don't necessarily need to go in strict sequence, so I jsut tend to go to one higher than I would have done if the bot hadn't "beat me to it". Surely we should be hoping that the vandla sees the error of there ways before we get to blocking in any case? David Underdown 10:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- I can't speak for W1k13rh3nry, but I think I can see a valid point. If a vandal is on a roll and a (human) vandalism patroller is following the guidelines on warning levels strictly (in the hope of getting up to 5 and reporting to WP:AIV) then it can be a bit annoying if a bot steps in and mucks up the sequence. It seems that the bots have some awareness of how far the sequence has got - they do use various warning levels - but not much. Is there a need here for a bit more structure to the way warnings are posted, particularly with regard to when to start a new sequence (if a possibly-shared IP vandal has been dormant for a while) and when to start a new section and how to name it, so that bots and humans can work together better on this? Philip Trueman 09:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
12.168.80.99
Umm, I wasnt even looking at a page about coal..I was looking at christmas trees and then you bot pops up spouting lies about where Ive been...No clue, but I didnt do anything regarding editing of pages and I dont like false accusations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.168.80.99 (talk)
- The warning in question was given to your IP by MartinBot yesterday after it reverted this edit. This was certainly a correct reversion of an editing test by the bot. However, if it was not you that made the edit in question, it is quite possible that you share your IP with other users and so someone else made this edit. In this case you can safely ignore this warning. If you want to avoid future messages that don't pertain to you, I suggest you consider creating an account. Regards. Will (aka Wimt) 19:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
AntiVandalBot not as fast as it used to be?
I remember that when AntiVandalBot first came out, it could often revert vandalism in one second. However, the bot now often takes several seconds to do so. Does anyone know what caused the change? --Ixfd64 00:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Namely the increase in load on the toolserver and the increase in the number of edits the bot needs to check -- Tawker 03:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)