Well, if we are to activate a bot, I would like to see a proper
waiting time before suspected vandalism is reverted. An hour or so
would be nice. That leaves people enough time to act, which is always
better than just an automated bot reverting everything.
Regards,
ChrisiPK
2009/1/20 Robert Rohde <rarohde(a)gmail.com>om>:
A bot is a very good idea.
While I don't want to besmirch people who do follow recent changes, in
my experience vandalism that gets through tends to be very long lived.
I would guess this is because there are so many files and
proportionally far fewer people watchlisting each page compared to
other wikis.
-Robert Rohde
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Al Tally <majorly.wiki(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 5:47 PM,
<abigor(a)forgotten-beauty.com> wrote:
I don't think a bot could get this kind of vandalism. Using a page
blanking bot could be nice but most work has to be done by humans.
I am happy to notice when I am patrolling new edits I get a often a edit
conflict with somebody else that is also reverting the vandalism. But I am
afraid not everything can be found while paroling.
Does Flagged Revisions also works on images?
Best regards,
Huib
I'm not sure how familiar you are with anti-vandal bots, but English
Wikipedia has several such bots that do an excellent job. ClueBot, for
example, would have easily caught that vandalism. We have a lot of coders
who would be willing to run such a bot on Commons, with modifications if
necessary.
--
Alex
(User:Majorly)
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l