Hello everyone, it took me a while to process everything. Here are answers to @Bináris:
> If this is a repeated activity, does it have recognizeable patterns? > Yes and no at the same time. If so, can it be handled by abuse filter? We already tried it. According to CU investigations, would there be useful a range block? I'm unsure if there were any CU investigations. If it comes from a few recurring vandals, would it be useful to complain at > their ISP? > No, as Serbian ISPs are unresponsive regarding abusing their services. Do you have enough admins who can be on duty and easily detect these > attacks and block the invaders and do mass reverts (or bot reverts to keep > clean the recent changes page)? > We do have enough admins, but as it's repetitive, it can get hard. Do you have enough CUs? > Yes, we do I guess. Would it be useful to use admin bots or give bot right for admins for a > while to clean RC page? We're considering some bots from English Wikipedia, but we're still thinking about it. Can you create a continuously running bot on a toolserver which alerts > admins in these cases? > I think I could give it a try, but I'm sure that there are better ways. Are there statistics on new users' new pages, regarding the ratio of > vandalism? I would have to check that and let you know. @Novem: Thank you so much for letting me know, but I'm already aware about that part. To all: We've started considering using FlaggedRevs instead, as the mass creation of vandalism (and threatening pages targeted to a few users) has stopped. But I'm unsure if enabling FlaggedRevs is possible (if I remember correctly, it's not, because it's not maintained much, but I saw some efforts and tasks on Phabricator regarding code stewardship). I think that using the FlaggedRevs extension could be the best solution at the moment, as it doesn't interfere with Wikipedia's spirit of "anyone can edit". FlaggedRevs is considered an option because of questionable edits mainly coming from IP (anonymous users), including "new users" who are making mistakes. I'm still thinking about everything. If I come up with something additional, I'll let you know. Thank you so much so far! Best regards, Zoran уто, 10. сеп 2024. у 06:43 Bináris <[email protected]> је написао/ла: > I am sure youe are over these steps before opening such a talk, just > thinking loudly. > > If this is a repeated activity, does it have recognizeable patterns? > If so, can it be handled by abuse filter? > According to CU investigations, would there be useful a range block? > If it comes from a few recurring vandals, would it be useful to complain > at their ISP? > Do you have enough admins who can be on duty and easily detect these > attacks and block the invaders and do mass reverts (or bot reverts to keep > clean the recent changes page)? > Do you have enough CUs? > Would it be useful to use admin bots or give bot right for admins for a > while to clean RC page? > Can you create a continuously running bot on a toolserver which alerts > admins in these cases? > Are there statistics on new users' new pages, regarding the ratio of > vandalism? > > Wikis that deny createpage to anon, mentioned by Bryan, have made this > decision because of vandalism or quality reasons? I am really interested in > this. > > I have been admin on huwiki approx. for 15-16 years, and we also had > troubles several times. When newer admins have fears or vandals are too > proud that they can do anything, I always tell the same: we are more, we > are stronger, they will give up. Because it happened every time in the past > two decades. > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikitech-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
_______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikitech-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
