This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello, and thank you for your anti-vandalism efforts. I do not believe, however, that this IP's edits were vandalism. They were perhaps misguided, as I noted in a pending changes revert, but I do not understand why you reverted these seemingly good-faith changes as vandalism without explanation (in accordance with WP:ROLLBACKUSE), even the first time (before one could argue that the IP was edit warring). Could you please explain this rollback, or why you believe this to be vandalism? ComplexRational (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
I saw filter triggers from her that suggested bad faith. CLCStudent (talk) 12:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Reviewing the filter log, I see what you mean. However, your first rollback was at 19:08 UTC whereas the first filter log entry was at 19:15. This behavior seems rather typical of a user who doesn't understand why their initial attempts were reverted (and perhaps grows frustrated); it still isn't clear to me what seemed vandalistic about the first edits reverted at 19:08. ComplexRational (talk) 15:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
They typed "Moo" in that last edit where it clearly did not belong. It was clear cut to me. CLCStudent (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
It's worth separating out behaviour that might be editing tests vs vandalism. Moo could actually be both. I like sticking with Twinkle for the vast majority of cases just because I can leave an edit summary, or one of the rollback variants. You were likely right in this instance, so I guess it's a risk tolerance level Nosebagbear (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough, I missed that exact diff, but Nosebagbear raises important points as well. Thank you both for your replies, and happy vandalism fighting. ComplexRational (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
