User talk:AntiVandalBot/Dec06

edit to the Shotacon article

Hello, the bot reverted my edit to the Shotacon article. I wasn't trying to commit vandalism, it would be great if the bot's owner could look into it. 80.133.108.59 20:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism + more vandalism

If two cases of vandalism occur consecutively, AntiVandalBot will only revert the second one. Is there a way to check if the previous revision was vandalism too and revert to the revision before that if it is the case? Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 22:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC) I concur. I find it extremely strange that it does this after I discovered an article where the vandalism was reverted to more vandalism. Adam Y 18:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot source

Hello. I'm interested in obtaining the source to this bot to experiment with and run on UMassWiki to revert simple page blanking and vandalism. Please let me know if you're willing to share. --Neurophyre^(talk) 04:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need an IRC RC feed for it to work.... gimmie a few and I'll email you a URL.

??

Hmmm....great for a bot to stop me from taking away a CD debuting at #1.....when only the first week of sales have gone through and there are no rankings at all.

Umm, page, diff - I see nothing reverted of yours in the bots logs nor on wiki -- Tawker 18:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot inappropiately reverted me at List_of_best-selling_computer_and_video_games

Hi, your bot inappropiately reverted me at List of best-selling computer and video games and left a vandalism warning on my talkpage which I have now removed. Dionyseus 21:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of my edit

This isn't a complaint about the reversion which I understand, there's no way the bot could tell the difference between my edit and vandalism. However my edit was not in fact vandalism, it was trying to undo some damage caused by a redirect causing a self-redirect on List of Naruto episodes. Given that there has been some contention over the value of Naruto episode pages even with plot, I was concerned about creating a minimal content stub. Thus I simply blanked the page to remove the self-redirect. 86.20.30.144 09:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fanny Samaniego

She's a real life model wannabe. While she claims to be top model, she's NEVER bee paid for any modeling volunteering work. She volunteers for Model Search Canada, wwww.modelsearchcanada.ca because she's part of the scam.

MSC sells photoshoots. They have no real job. Just look at the service section of their website. It's ILLEGAL in Canada for any modeling agency to do so.

Why do you edit my page when I post this to warn aspiring models? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.52.223.218 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 25 November 2006.

Wheel Of fortune

The article about the wheel of fortune quotes a Notorious BIG song which contains the word "fuckin." the word is in the song and it is not hurting anyone by adding the actual word. 74.104.204.36 00:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If so, please explain why the song itself belongs. Also, please remember that Wikipedia is not censored. You should also read Wikipedia:Profanity Will (Talk - contribs) 06:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Button too big

If you ask me, I think the emergency shutoff button is too large. Someone may accidently click it and shutoff the robot. I thought it was a prank because I saw an similar button on another website that was a prank. I didn't push it though, I have enough sanity not to push something that says "emergency" and "administrators only" --Triforce1215 04:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merely an admin clicking it won't turn it off; there must be a duration and reason for the block before an account is actually blocked. —The Gr e at Llama^moo? 04:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify. Clicking the button takes an admin immediately to the standard blocking page. The admin would then still need to fill out the duration and reason before again clicking to make the block go into effect. JoshuaZ 04:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Thank you. I'm new here, and I appreciate you not insulting me for my newbieness =D--Triforce1215 04:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False positive

I got warned for this edit removing a large chunk of unsourced material. Fagstein 09:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Another false positive

This edit was reverted by the bot: [1]. As I explained in the edit summary, the edit is to a literal, marked quotation of an interviewee who used the word "shit". Someone else changed it to "shucks" while still representing it as a literal quotation - thereby turning it into a misquote. I changed it back, and the bot didn't like that.216.59.230.140 16:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Profanity: "when quoting relevant material from external sources, rendering a quote as it was originally spoken/written trumps our style guidelines."216.59.230.140 16:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wicked (musical) revert

My edit was proper, information was transferred to new article Wicked (musical) cast lists. Otto4711 20:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

great reversion, but...

The bot reverted a badly vandalized 'Caitlin' page but oddly, inserted the line "probably the dumbest girl in the history of earth smelling of rotten cheese!" [[2]] I deleted that line. JB72 03:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indian influence on Chinese martial arts

The article is shifted to Forign influence on Chinese martial arts as stating India alone when Greece, Mesopotamia and Egypt are to be mentioned as well is NPOV. Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 03:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Vandalism of userpage

I'm not quite sure what is and isn't vandalism here. Do the creators of this page have a sense of humor, or is it vandalism?

~~sillybear25 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sillybear25 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 28 November 2006.

It depends if I'm having a good day or not :o -- Tawker 02:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's 500 Songs that Shaped Rock and Roll

I legitimately restored this page back to its redirected state. I actually wanted the page deleted since a) we determined it was copyrighted material owned by the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame museum, and b) a page dedicated to talking about the list only serves to advertise the hall. Ultimately, we chose a redirect of it. So what was I supposed to do when somebody threw the list back on the page? --Happylobster 11:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Not Me

The people that commit vadalism are the shared users of this PC, I don't commit vandalism but i can get banned or blocked what can i do about this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.56.131.70 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 23 November 2006. Simply register an account if it appears that users with your IP are making bad judgment calls. --Wizardman 05:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jules Verne

Bad revert. [3]. How can the anti-vandal bot blindly revert back to a prior version made by another anon user? It just seems common sense that that won't cut it. -- Stbalbach 15:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per the crtieria the bot uses, technically it did was it was supposed to do, the other type of vandalism is really hard to bot detect, if you have any idea on patterns to get it, feel free :), thanks for reverting it :) -- Tawker 15:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Stevens

Seems the bot was reverting at the same time as someone else was attempting to revert and ended up reverting back to the vandalism (if that makes any sense) - I fixed it, but wanted you to know: perhaps there can be a way of checking these bot changes so that they don't create more work in re-reverting? Thanks for the good works, anyway Tvoz 22:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of good edit @ List of radio stations in New York by city

Bot conducted this edit - diff.

Bot's edit restored a link to a disambiguation page that I had disambiguated by introducing a piped-link.

I will not re-edit the page at this time, but will remove the warning placed automatically on my talk page.

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing an article

Hi, what I was trying to do is move the contents of an article with a capital letter (e.g. Traditional Armenian Orthography) to a lower case one (i.e. Traditional Armenian orthography). Maybe the Bot can recognize these scenarios... Or perhaps I should have deleted the article in another way... Will research. Thanks. Serouj 03:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bot reverted my legitimate Blast First edit. Profanity filters or something? but the profanity is actually in the album's title.

Users vandalized User:AntiVandalBot, but were not warned

AntiVandalBot failed to warn two users that vandalized its own user page. Not sure if the page was part of the problem or not. The edits were [4] and [5]. -Will Pittenger 04:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give it 5 minutes, it should auto fix itself -- Tawker 04:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think was wrong? Should I have waited to warn those users manually? Will (Talk - contribs) 05:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err, I should said, it won't warn for those two edits but it will start warning after it resets itself. It also only warns on the 1st and 4th edits, not sure if you got an edit in between -- Tawker 05:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto Vandalised!!

Someone has totally changed naruto article. these are articles made by our user's hard woring and timing. pls check.. --Glacious 14:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Werdnabot

This bot keeps reverting edits done by Werdnabot to archive the village pump. Maybe, I'm wrong... —¡Rand fan ! 21:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good if the bot could be set to ignore werndabot edits--172.149.170.55 23:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the edit i posted wasn't vandalism. i'm adding it again, please don't remove it this time. Ragnarokmephy 00:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor bug

Just noticed here that the bot generates a lot of whitespace when it leaves a user's first message. Maybe it should drop the section heading if there isn't already messages on the page? Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 07:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bot error

[6] — CharlotteWebb 12:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And [7] too. - 152.91.9.144 00:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Golding

Another editor blatantly copied information from the Jamaica Labour Party website about Bruce Golding, which constituted a POV and copyright violation infringement and I reverted to a smaller, more NPOV version of the article. Mr. Roboto reverted the article once again, just like last time. I really think that the robot needs to be edited to acknowledge edit summaries and realize that smaller articles aren't necessarily vandalism.--Folksong 20:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About my edit to Nickelodeon

I think that my recent edit to Nickelodeon should not be reverted as an article called Nickelodeon (TV channel) already exists. I am sorry if any misunderstanding happened. Thank you. Ac s 4b 03:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

diff The problem is solved since the page now redirects to Nickelodeon (disambiguation). --Oden 11:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit of "Long Island Iced Tea"

I didn't realize that I wasn't logged in when I made the edit the first time...It WAS a legitimate edit, though I could see why it wouldn't appear so. Oh, well, I logged in and fixed it. I just wanted to...explain. To...the bot. Hell, I don't know. Made me feel like a criminal to get that message. Which is...silly of me. -Randomglitter 10:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, the bot warns me at times, don't worry about it -- Tawker 01:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts of large edits

I've noticed that AVB is reverting legitimate reversions of cut-and-paste rambles at times; witness the history at Dell Schanze, where several of us have been reverted. I don't know if there's a way to fix this or not, but thought I'd point it out. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Meier (figure skater)

There was no act of vandalism. I simply combined the senior and junior events tables into one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geoboe84 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 1 December 2006.

my edit to Nancy Grace

I'm not sure how the page ended up blank (which is obviously what the Bot was reacting to) since it was a straight single level revert ... nonetheless the Bot reverted to the vandalized version. Fixed now, and I'm not sure there's anything to be learned, so this is just for the record.--Invisifan 22:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First diff, second diff. You were trying to fix vandalism that the bot didn't catch, can't say why you blanked the page but it appears accidental. Here's more information on reverting: Help:revert. --Oden 05:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JD

How do I prevent shared users form posting vandalism? It seems that on Nov. 26 something was posted from my computer. I am an educator and use Wikipedia for my casual research. I would never vandalize such a valuable site. Sorry for whatever inconvenience this nonsense mave caused.~JD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.45.13.181 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 2 December 2006.

You can create a personal account that distinguishes you from other user who might be sharing the same IP address as you. Follow this link for more information: Wikipedia:Why create an account?. --Oden 04:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False positive - Goodwill Zwelithini kaBhekuzulu

Hi there bot-owner: Just to let you know of a false positive... the bot reverted a change on Goodwill Zwelithini kaBhekuzulu in which I removed an editing comment that should have been in the comments page if needed. --211.30.121.10 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the One who made the Nolan Kamitaki Article. I was at the DCYSC as a contestant. I made it the next morning

Darkwolf 325

Aang page

In the last episode of Avatar Aang was killed by Princess Azula —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.126.77.202 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 3 December 2006.

mistake

AVB is a great thing, but it just made a mistake. AVB and I simultaneously tried to revert a vandal edit on American football. AVB ended up reverting my edit, instead of the vandal's one. -- Mwalcoff 02:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just fixed a similiar issue at [Che-Lives]. AVB reverted one vandal back to another vandal. Turlo Lomon 09:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't vanalism!

Sorry about the delete! I was just trying to delete that hoax that is untrue! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kurtmcgee2448 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Why?

I just cleaned-up the vandalism[8] [9]. ♪♫ĽąĦĩŘǔ_Қ♫♪ ^(Ŧ) 18:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

151.197.39.197

i'm sorry antivandalbot i won't do it again -- 151.197.39.197 21:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False positive on PKCS

I've added a link to the PKCS#11 page, and received a message stating that it was reverted by this bot. It's a false positive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.239.134.161 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

False positive on Chuck Palahniuk

This bot made a mistake reverting my edit, which was meant to fix actual vandalism. -- LGagnon 03:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking of an attack page

Hi. Apparently, the bot has reverted the blanking of an attack page: [10]. Tizio 14:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot Error

I just got a meessage from the AVB that an edit to Wii (diff) I had just done was deemed vandalism and reverted. It was a legitimate edit, so I reverted it, and in accordance with the message I received, I'm now making you aware of it so that you may improve the Bot's functionality. JQF 16:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Health Wiki Research

A colleague and I are conducting a study on health wikis. We are looking at how wikis co-construct health information and create communities. We noticed that you are a frequent contributor to Wikipedia on health topics.

Please consider taking our survey here.

This research will help wikipedia and other wikis understand how health information is co-created and used.

We are from James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. The project was approved by our university research committee and members of the Wikipedia Foundation.

Thanks, --Sharlene Thompson 18:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you make...

Hi how do you make bots? I want to know because I want to user bots for one of wikipedia's sister sites.--Pediaguy16 19:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom pages

The bot reverted me in voting the ScienceApologist arbitration case. Please call the thing off. Charles Matthews 19:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the bot has not been working for the past 3 hours

Did it actually get shut off? It had been working correctly when it stopped working. Academic Challenger 00:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Question...

I'm not sure if this came to your attention yet, but this bot reverted User:Werdnabot a while back. Was it supposed to do that? I can see how it, a bit, looks like vandalism, but wasn't it just archiving the pages? Huanghe63^talk 04:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MartinBot/AntiVandalBot is reverting legitimate edits.

I noticed that AntiVandalBot reverted this legitimate (if wrong) edit. I made the correct change here and MartinBot reverted it. Please stop your bots from reverting valid edits - it wastes my time, it wastes other people's time, and only serves to antagonise useful contributors. Let me know when I can put the legitimate edit back in place without the fear of a bot undoing my work. 62.31.67.29 11:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual science

I tried to make a redirect to the article spiritual science but forgot to capitalize "REDIRECT". This bot reverted. Just so you know. --ScienceApologist 18:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamburger

I reverted a vulgar vandalism, and replaced hamburger's deleted article. I was warned, even though I put on my edit summary reverted vandalism. It put back the vulgar message left behind, making someone else take time to revert it again. Just thought you should know. Shy1520 01:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

moon vandalism

You're fast. Jecowa 09:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

I feel safer my home page will not be damged with you around! Fattdoggy 12:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Unnecessary revert

The bot reverted a legitimate edit I made to an article pertaining to Starcraft. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zerg_Overmind&diff=91895068&oldid=89272798

I didn't know how else to make this known. The previously unsigned comment was written by 163.118.216.41 on 00:35, 5 December 2006

Are you sure this is a valid edit? I don't know enough about Starcraft, but it seems a little suspicious. 2help 06:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not spend 5 seconds looking on Google? Searching for "infested kerrigan" and "queen * of the universe" reveals that there are plenty of quotes from the game where Infested Kerrigan calls herself "Queen Bitch of the Universe". Don't make unhelpful, kneejerk reactions based on ignorance. 62.31.67.29 11:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the comment by User:62.31.67.29: "Don't make unhelpful, kneejerk reactions based on ignorance." see Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

I would criticise anyone who felt the need to add comments based entirely on ignorance, especially when the subject matter is as easily and reliably verifiable as a quote from a videogame. Such comments do not move a discussion forward. 62.31.67.29 17:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the edit to the article by User:163.118.216.41: most of the instances where editors introduce foul language into the articles are vandalism, but occasionally an editor will make a good-faith edit and have it reverted. The bot gets it right over 98 % of the time, though. --Oden 14:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the bot does not assume good faith, and will undo the good work of 1 in 50, driving them away from Wikipedia? It's a good job that bots and their owners are not required to adhere to the same strict guidelines that we peons are required to. 62.31.67.29 17:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Fuhrman

Why is AntiVandalBot blanking out Mark Fuhrman? Bscottbrown 18:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot revert of GAUSSIAN to Gaussian

This rv on Molecular modelling was incorrect. GAUSSIAN is the computer code. Gaussian is a disambig page to all things pertaining to Gauss. GAUSSIAN has links from a whole lot of chemistry pages. Most are likley to be on my watchlist so I'll catch them. --Bduke 20:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Living persons

Reverting page blanking on articles concerning living persons can result in negative material being restored to the article. It might be best if these kinds of reverts are left up to human judgment. Frise 14:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missed revert by same vandal

I would just like to bring to your attention this post [11] I made regarding vandalism that was missed. It seems not to be the first time it's been missed and I beleive it should be vandalism that can be easily dectected/avoided. --Stux 16:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can i change the view of the article that is now changed and not the way i want it to be viewed. And the information that i submitted was a minute ago was a legitimate information from a liable source that i was going to citate for the article after i finish writing the article.

The Black Wall Street 19:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism to Joshua Fineberg article

155.207.255.121 has once again vandalized the Joshua Fineberg article. Please block this IP. MdArtLover 20:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idea

Since bots usually make legitimate edits, all of them should be put on AntiVandalBot's whitelist. --AAA! ^{(AAAA • AAAAAAAA)} 01:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

limerick and Dolly Parton

i was just harmlessly messing around with kaini on the limerick, nothing to get too worried about.oh yeah and i noticed on the Dolly Parton page that the phrase owner of massive tits was used and i was shocked,so i changed it immediately to owner of really massive tits.lol user 159.134.156.199. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.134.157.234 (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Wardick

The AVB has consistently changed or reverted links to this legitimate Wikipedia article - usually involved in changing War Shark (incorrect redirect name) to the correct Wardick. Can you please do somehting aobut this?

Thank you - --170.65.188.1 03:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC) (Falsly accused of valdalisim by an overzealous bot)[reply]

One bot to another, ok?

Hi -

I'm doing clean-up work on categories listed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working. Your bot is reverting my deleting the information on the category page once all the members have been removed (the rename or merge is done, or the category is going to be deleted without renaming or merging).

AntiVandalBot hates when I do this. Is there a way to make your bot "play nice"? Thanks.—DomBot ^talk ; Chidom ^talk, owner/operator. 08:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the information that i just wrote was legitmite information but if you want to check it for yourself than you can if you want to i don't mind if you look at it.

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DINOMAN

Hi i was trying to withdraw my request but i dont know how?DINOMAN 17:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eirgrid

The material on that page is copyrighted from www.eirgrid.com and this is why I have blanked the page as a temporary measure before I rewrite. Djegan 17:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting Vandalism

I am reporting MBFAN06 for slandering my name and for vandalizing the Justin Hayward page. Please send an email to this person and ban him/her from this site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.121.40.57 (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Interesting behavior

On the page Large bust, which is clearly garbage, AntiVandalBot revrted a page blank. The only catch is that the page blank removed the {{prod}} template, and AntiVandalBot replaced it. diff. I don't know if you want to catch re-insertion of a prod or not. In this case, I doubt the page blanking user was contesting the prod, and no contesting reason was given, but it is still a situation I thought you might want to think about handling in some special way. Or not. Anyway, on that page, I'm leaving the prod in place, and assuming the editor who blanked the page didn't intend to contest the prod, so the bot behaved exactly as a human would. AubreyEllenShomo 20:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mariah Carey Page

I changed the main image. I think I have been receive bot messages for it. Did I do something wrong?Blueandgold200 06:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

street press

The contents of this page were recently accidentally overwritten by the contents of Steve Roach. I attempted to revert the change, but was reverted by the bot. Page History here. It seemed to work the second time, but it spun me out for a second before I realised what was going on.

Lankiveil 11:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Zugzwang

You reverted the wrong one when you reverted me on the Zugzwang article. Bubba73 (talk), 18:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Frederick Windsor

Your foolish bot rv my replacement of a bad (difficult to read) link with a better more news-worthy one. Make it stop.204.126.251.218 18:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Mount

I was warned for removing plagiarized content (the whole article) that received no citation. TuckerRoo62 19:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)TuckerRoo62[reply]

Responded on the user's page. - TexasAndroid 19:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

That Antivandal bot use the same vandal template that user reports do on WP:AIV. That way we can look at the Whois link, and the other goodies that the vandal template has.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 19:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Middle School

I was trying to add an article about it but my internet went down when I was writing it. I cleared the MCPS article because it should be in the MCPS article section. So, I was writing it, but my internet went down and as a result it automatically saved it (I don't know why). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.140.51.138 (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Anonymous spammer

User Special:Contributions/64.236.236.254 has in the last couple of days added external links to MGM and Warner Brothers online retail stores to various WP pages at least ten times. Whyaduck 02:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

all wheel drive

attempted to add nissan attesa awd link to four wheel drive page. 68.224.14.81 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.224.14.81 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 10 December 2006.

WAFF

I edited the List of TV Stations (W Call signs), specifically WAFF, so that it wouldn't lead me to a list of other "waff"s, and go directly to WAFF-TV, and AntiVandalBot reverted it back to what it previously was. I will edit it again and see what happens. 68.44.150.142 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.44.150.142 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 9 December 2006.

Proposal: run the bot on complete histories

In this discussion, I came up with an idea to run an antivandal bot on all revisions of a page, instead of watching for latest changes only, in order to look for unreverted historical vandalism and automatically undo it in the latest revision without damaging the interim good edits. Do you think it's doable and/or worthwhile? I honestly think it's worth at least some investigation, because the problem of unnoticed vandalism slowly eating into good articles is real and very alarming. Perhaps we could at least run an experiment on a few random articles to see if the idea works? I'm a bit of a programmer myself so I might lend a hand. Trapolator 05:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The idea sounds good, there's nothing worse than finding vandalism that's been unnoticed for a long time. However, since AVB ~~has a small error rate~~ isn't always perfect (alhough it does a magnificent job), the consequences if multiplied by all the articles could be fairly significant. What if AVB could scan the page histories and post suggested improvements on the talk page instead? --Oden 06:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Oden 06:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it should run supervised, at least at first. Reviewing the proposed diff and choosing approve/cancel would be a relatively easy thing to do for a human editor, much easier than scanning the history manually. Also, I guess the bot calculates some "vandalism score" for each edit, so, if the first tests are encouraging, we could switch it to do automatic commit when all vandalisms it has found in a history are above some threshold. Trapolator 06:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to false positives, there will certainly be cases where the bot finds a vandalism but is unable to revert it because of the "drift" of the subsequent edits. In that case, it should also notify a human editor and let him/her decide if this vandalism is still there and needs to be dealt with. Of course the ultimate goal is to minimize such situations by more intelligent searching and patching algorithms. Trapolator 06:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are two main technical challenges that I see:

Correct recognition of the fact that a given vandalism edit was never reverted.
Correctly applying a revert of the vandalism to the latest revision.

Perhaps these tasks can never be solved with 100% accuracy. I think a baseline implementation, limited but already useful, might use these approaches, correspondingly:

Check if at any point after the vandalism edit, there was a revision exactly matching that of immediately before the vandalism edit. If there's none, consider the vandalism "never reverted."
Use the same context-sensitive fuzzy algorithm as in the unix "patch" utility.

Both approaches can then be improved in various ways. One thing that comes to mind is this: before analysis, attempt to break each edit into smallest possible non-overlapping subedits, so that, for example, if the user edits two disjoint paragraphs in one revision, this is broken into two consecutive subedits. After such "edit grinding," an edit which, for example, undid some vandalism but also changed some other paragraphs, would be correctly recognized as reverting. Also this would more often work for partial vandalism reverts, where an inexperienced editor manually undoes one part of a vandalism but misses other parts.

Another improvement for the patching algorithm: make it ignore wiki markup and whitespace when finding fuzzy matches. Trapolator 08:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a great way to catch damage done by the invisi-spambots (eg: display:none followed by a bunch of 'no changes' statements, and sometimes URL's, all within a div tag). The invisi-spambots tend to add the pattern junk, then clobber a portion of the content, in some cases only a few words - in others, an amount of data you could recognize by a large decrease in size like this one.

I fixed a bunch of these in the last week most were a few weeks old, some a few months.. Thankfully, Google/Yahoo indexing had caught the "no changes" junk before it was removed, as in many cases the spam had been removed, but the clobbered content wasn't fixed.. searching history would handle cases like this.. even just generating a list of potentially clobbered articles that humans could follow up on might be a big help --Versageek 23:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it would be nice to nix such hidden vandalism from history. However I think a more urgent task at this time is to make sure such things are in AVB's trigger patterns and are therefore caught in current edits. Make sure your diff is listed here. Trapolator 01:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great idea, but there are some difficult technical hurdles to overcome. Nevertheless, I do think it is possible, as it does not seem to require strong AI. Another idea I have: keep vandalism metrics on a per-user basis, and as users commit blatant vandalism their evaluation by the bot goes down, and the bot goes back through the user's edit history and alerts on any possible unreverted vandalism. --Cyde Weys 19:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love this idea, especially the per-user vandalism metric triggering contribs-history examination. :) E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk 19:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely. I thought about it too. Perhaps it's even a higher priority than analyzing article histories, because factoring in the user's past "vandalism level" will _drastically_ improve the performance of AVB on recent changes, and this improvement will then carry over to analyzing page histories when that is implemented. I venture to predict that a new generation AVB taking into account all of user's contributions will in some cases outsmart even a human editor who's only looking at one article's edit and not considering all of the user's contributions.

So, as a first step, I would like to try writing some code that answers a simple question: what share of the user's edits in the article space was reverted. It must be smart enough to recognize not only direct reverts in the next revision, but also cases where multiple edits are reverted in one go, as well as cases where a vandalism is reverted manually, piece-by-piece, or after several good edits. That's a task which is reasonably difficult to be interesting but does not require me to work directly with AVB codebase. If and when I succeed, I will give the code to you for incorporating into AVB. Later, the same code will be a crucial part of the article history cleaner, because that bot will need to know if a specific vandalism edit was ever reverted or not. How does that sound?

One technical question that I have right now: naturally the first thing I need is a good diff algorithm to analyze changes between revisions. The best wiki-optimized differ that I could find is the one that Mediawiki itself uses for its diff pages, and I would like to reuse it. However, as the rest of Mediawiki it's written in PHP. As I understand, the AVB is in Python. Myself I can write in PHP or Python, so what would you suggest? Should I port DifferenceEngine.php to Python, or can you integrate AVB with a PHP module, or can you suggest another differ implementation? (I tried Python's difflib but it does not seem to lump the changes together so intuitively as Mediawiki does.) Any suggestions are welcome. Trapolator 22:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, AntiVandalBot was primarily written by Joshbuddy. Tawker and I only contributed very minor changes (plus hosting). You should definitely bring him into this conversation. AVB uses the Python Wikipedia Bot framework, which is written in Python as the name would suggest. It definitely helps that you know how to write in Python. As for the diff ... I don't think it's necessary to reinvent the wheel. Diffs are implemented in pretty much every language, or you could just use the GNU diff program (which is what many other applications use, including CVS and patch). I don't know by how much MediaWiki's diff algorithm differs from GNU diff but I do not think it will be by that much. --Cyde Weys 18:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer, I will contact Joshbuddy. As for the diff algorithm, it is certainly not trivial to make a good differ that would produce useful (and not only correct) output. The standard diff utility is mostly fine for program source but is hardly appropriate for natural texts. Many other diff algorithms exist. According to the comments in Mediawiki source, their code borrows from three different implementations, plus adds its own optimizations, and by comparing it with some others I can say that it's one of the best differs for wiki-like texts. I will likely have to extend and tweak it further for my purposes, but it's the best starting point that I could find. Trapolator 04:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very interesting idea. Actually, I wish I had thought of it first. Python includes difflib. I would be happy if you translated the mediawiki diff implementation to java or python. It would make for a good starting point. joshbuddy, talk 20:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for encouragement, I will start looking into porting Mediawiki code to Python. (Although I cannot promise to be fast, as I have a lot of work these days, so if you can start the project instead, it would probably be faster, and I would join in a little later.) I have played with difflib, but I could not get such meaningful diffs from it as from Mediawiki. Perhaps I've overlookied something - I have tried many different "junk characters", yet difflib always returns much more fractured diffs than is desirable. Trapolator 00:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consummate

Changes to consummate were reverted inaccurately, presumably because it included the word "cum", which is Latin for (in this case) "with." Check for italics maybe?71.193.207.229 06:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help!!!! WAMU

Someone redirect WAMU (the radio station in Washington DC) to Washington Mutual. Initially this isn't a bad thing, since WAMU is Washington Mutual's NYSE code, but it's also the only name for the radio station, WAMU. I cannot access the radio station now. See my comments on the talk page for redirections and WAMU:

WAMU is the only name American University's radio station goes by. By redirecting that name exclusively to Washington Mutual, users cannot access the information they want, such as when I went looking for WAMU (the readio station) in Wikipedia. Denying users access to the information they seek does not make finding information any easier. Instead, it goes against Wikipedia's original aim, and any database's aim for that matter. In a Google search, WAMU as a radio station is displayed second, which suggests that at least by the standard of online bibliometrics, American University's radio station is reasonably well searched. At the very least, users should be directed to a page from which to choose their ultimate destination. Destitute 06:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked into Alexa.com, which measures web traffic, which is not a very good indicator of network analysis. Bibliometrics, the standard used for deciding the rank of webpages in an Internet search is a far better gauge of information control. Destitute 06:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would add too that WAMU is the 5th highest Public Radio Station in the country. Destitute 06:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could do a disambing, having WAMU to Washington Mutual w/ a redirect to WAMU (radio) - would that work? -- Tawker 07:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Rick Mount

I removed plagiarism that was not sourced, yet was warned and the page was restored.TuckerRoo62 19:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a revert to non-vandalism

your bot reverted my request on computer and video games articles. The request for Bandai Satellite was removed for unknown reasons. plz fix? thank you

Quatreryukami 16:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

you made a wrong edit

you lier 143.167.226.173 19:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- Tawker 17:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requiem for a Reality Show

I was not vandalizing. An editor removed the profanity from an exact quote from the show; I merely restored the wording to what it was supposed to be.Raymondluxuryacht 21:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, please just revert again, the profanity issue is still screwing up some regexes -- Tawker 17:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It reverted my reversion.

Somone made an article called "Yaho!" And filled it with profanity and anti-wikipedia spam. I reverted it and the AntiVandalBot reverted it back... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tolone (talk • contribs) 04:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Revert this please

Wikipedia:Translation/ de/Completed Translations/November 2006 needs to be deleted Jmfayard 10:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh/Comment

I think AVB is running a bit slow. It reverted my revert of page vandalism... (Your recent edit to Pie (diff) was reverted) Might need to look at that. User:Logical2u_Talk 17:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert Wild Turkey Breakfast

This is just an article about a party some guys have. I tried to delete it but the bot restored it. I may have deleted it wrong but some one should do it right.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.247.131.62 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 17 December 2006.

Dethklok -> Metalocalypse

I restored a redirect from a Dethklok page to the Metalocalypse page, for reasons stated here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Metalocalypse#Re-redirected_a_Dethklok_page_to_here). I'm glad AntiVandalBot is here, but I'm not a vandal. --Boradis 23:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess AntiVandalBot removed my redirect because it wasn't formatted properly at first? My second (correctly formatted) edit stuck. --Boradis 23:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was reverting vandalism!!!

I got reverted by your Anti-vandal bot. I was reverting copyvio and text addition to a category. Don't know why your AVB would think my edit is vandalism!!! Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PowerQUICC

Greetings.. the bot reverted stuff on PowerQUICC page that was not vandalism. This was not a correct reversion. -- Henriok 10:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

bad revert

This diff was erroneously reverted. Why don't you make a whitelist of known non-vandals? Dicklyon 17:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err, it does, it's hard to make a list of 10K+ editors though, now you're on it though -- Tawker 07:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

suucks, etc

It didn't pick up this, by an anonymous user: Inserted text: Poooooopppppppp i think this game suucks!!! it is the worst game everrrrrrrrrrrrr Maybe the repeated letters at least could set off the bot.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zephyr103 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 18 December 2006.

Biloxi High School

I inserted information that User:ElKevbo had deleted, and this bot picked it up as vandalism. The computer I was using to repair the vandalism had the IP address 216.229.196.218. This computer is now blocked from editing information for a seven day period.69.92.176.200 07:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Call of Duty 2 weapons list

I noticed that the Weapons list for the Call of Duty 2 page was incorrect. When I attempted to correct it, the bot replaced my work with the erroneous content again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.202.17.20 (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Category:Boxing promoters

I removed inappropriate material from Category:Boxing promoters as user 70.57.246.22, (I didn't realize that I had been logged out) and the robot reverted to the "article in a category listing" version. I have re-removed the offending material as myself User:Bejnar. So if there remains a problem, let me know. --Bejnar 00:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FIX THIS VANDALISM ON THIS PAGE (ironic isn't it?)

What AntiVandalBot is not

   * AntiVandalBot is not an admin (although its owners, Tawker, Joshbuddy, and Cyde Weys are), it does not block users. AntiVandalBot does not have the intelligence of a human being and it will not catch everything.
   * AntiVandalBot does not catch all vandalism, only some obvious vandalism. Human RC patrollers will always be needed.
   * AntiVandalBot does not revert page-move vandalism.
   * AntiVandalBot does not detect redirect vandalism (users redirecting pages to inappropriate locations)
   * A Southern Peruvian chipmunk tamer. (yet)   <----REMOVE 24.107.103.220 01:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was overlooked vandalism (I just remived it). You can actually remove this yourself by clicking "edit this page" at the top. –The Gr e at Llama^{sign here} 02:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not Vandalism!

As I narrated in my edit, I was disputing the notability of the entry.

The entry Virginia Gilbert had no links to anything external and is clearly not Wiki-worthy.

Thanks, Chanel —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.140.211.86 (talk) 11:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The bot reverted an edit by an anonymous user to Tom Vilsack (diff) which was actually not vandalism. I just wanted to bring it to your attention. Alienmercy 15:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - but I've edited stuff unsigned before and it was not reverted, and my IP address is logged in which reveals me publicly really, is this a rule or a guess? (Asking not fighting...). Thanks, Chanel

Hello

Hello, again.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.166.70.11 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 21 December 2006.

reverted back to vandalized version!

I reverted some extensive vandalism on the article for Pope John Paul II. This bot reverted my edit back to the vandalized version. I think it's because the original vandalism consisted in removing words like "fascism" and "sexual" and my edit restored them, which naturally would look like vandalism out of context. Mycroft7 23:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning levels

Can AntiVandalBot and its siblings take into account the warnings a user has already received? I noticed that its warnings never include a level number for us to use for the next warning, but it does block some users. Will (Talk - contribs) 22:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first one is it's type of test1, the latter test4, attempts to detect the other ones are there, only if people would use a standard template! -- Tawker 07:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do attempt to use the templates listed on Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. However, I have a tough time of it when warning users that were already warned by AntiVandalBot. Either it failed to use a WP:BLP warning when it was needed or the warning doesn't provide the level number. Without the level number, I can't escalate readily. Will (Talk - contribs) 05:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

good service

AntivandalBot provides a good service. Sometimes. Why not have it checking all recent changes, so it gets things like this dif. Bubba73 (talk), 13:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It checks it, didn't match a bot revert rule (yet) -- Tawker 16:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, anything that refers to body parts or bathroom or sexual functions is likely vandalism. Especially if it comes from an IP address, and especially if it is the first one from that IP address. Bubba73 (talk), 20:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bot seems to be getting only a tiny fraction of the vandalism. I have about 150 pages on my watchlist, and quite a few times I've seen AntiVandalBot revert vandalism. However, on the pages I watch, I alone have manually reverted more vandalism than the bot has. And that is just counting myself. Bubba73 (talk), 20:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, we're gonna roll out an new version soon that should be better. The bot wasn't exactly designed to get all vandalism, just the obvious stuff :o -- Tawker 21:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking forward to it. Of course, my opinion is that it should revert everything by an IP address. Bubba73 (talk), 16:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

upgrade U

I recently got a message that said I edited the page titled, "Upgrade U", and I did not. I don't even know what that page is about. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.244.206.92 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 22 December 2006.

72.144.92.71

72.144.92.71 is still vandalizing teh Croats article. I read his/her talk page and it states "teh next time you vandalize, you will be blocked". I believe a block on 72.144.92.71 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:72.144.92.71]) is now in order - 124.187.83.27 03:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bot doesn't block on its own, a mortal being has to be around to do that -- Tawker 06:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous. You're holding Wikipedia entries hostage??

I'm trying to revert changes to the Norma Chavez article. The current one is literally a press release, probably issued by her or one of her supporters.

sil1re —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sil1re (talk • contribs) 20:28, 23 December 2006.

Minor Edits

Should AntiVandalBot be marking all its edits as minor? Taken from the template minor it says "The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'." What are your thoughts? DXRAW 02:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback flags edits as minor I think, lemme double check -- Tawker 13:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelo/Mercelo

Hello. I mispelled "mercelo" instead of "marcelo" in an entry (marcelo del debbio - brazilia writer)and cant erase the wrong one. The error was made in an other writter´s page that I mentioned his name (the author was marcelo cassaro) and when it opened to a new section, I translated the article from the portuguese wikipedia but in the wrong entry.

I´m translating the brazilian pages of the wikipedia of role playing games authors to english, but I dont know how to erase this mistake.

sorry and thanks for the help.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.52.180.226 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 26 December 2006.

Page move requested in place of cut-and-paste move from Mercelo Del Debbio to Marcelo Del Debbio. --Oden 10:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thank you antiVandalBot :)Katie Ewing 04:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]