209.249.71.55(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·filter log·WHOIS·RDNS·RBLs·http·block user·block log) I reverted an unconstructive but fairly benign edit from this school IP. Turns out almost all contribs have been reverted, and the two recent ones that weren't are also questionable. This probably needs a short block, hopefully they'll create an account so we can actually talk to them. Toadspike[Talk] 19:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
This username matched "Used x instead of cks attempting to skip filter: fu*c+k. Violating string: reddasfcksk" on the blacklist. -- DQB (owner / report) 16:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
This username matched "grief(er|ing)" on the blacklist. -- DQB (owner / report) 09:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Note on file in gaming slang a "griefer" is an aggressive player that gets their kicks from disrupting others -- DQB (owner / report) 09:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
This username matched "Promotional? 1" on the blacklist. -- DQB (owner / report) 18:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Note on file Usernames containing this string are often promotional in nature - check if this is the case -- DQB (owner / report) 18:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Not a blatant violation of the username policy. Given their contributions, I've seen nothing to indicate that this isn't a person using their real name. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 18:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
I respectfully request Rollback access to facilitate the use of Huggle, which will allow me to promptly and efficiently revert vandalism. I've been monitoring Recent Changes for the past 2-3 months, reverting disruptive edits.
I'm familiar with some Wikipedia policies, including: Reporting repeated vandals after 4 talk page warnings at WP:AIV, reporting reporting sock puppet accounts at WP:SPI and following the 3-revert rule (WP:3RR). And also I'm familiar with the use of Twinkle. ®asteemTalk 20:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
I see that you are failing to consistently warn editors when you revert their edits. Why? It's important to leave a notification for every revert you make (especially when reverting good faith edits). Are you aware of tools such as Twinkle or Ultraviolet which make this extremely easy? -Fastily 21:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Fastily, I'm already using Twinkle. I've warned many users for vandalism, but I don't warn new users who have made only one edit, as per "Back Biting" guideline. Instead, I typically warn a user after their second vandalism attempt. But in future I'll consider warning users even after one non-constructive edit. ®asteemTalk 21:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
No, that is incorrect. You need to be leaving notifications (or warnings) for every revert, regardless of how many edits the user has made or whether this is the user's first instance of vandalism. -Fastily 01:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
{{Done}} I'll always leave a warning notice on their talk page without digging into their number of edits. ®asteemTalk®asteemTalk 01:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Great, could you please now go do some RC patrol in which you demonstrate how you will always be notifying all editors when you revert their edits? Also please don't use {{Done}} or {{Not done}} in your replies to me; on this page at least, these are for admin use only. -Fastily 02:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Sure, I'll do RC patrol & will always notify users when I revert their changes. I sincerely apologize for using {done} or {not done} previously. ®asteemTalk 03:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
Protected by Mifter on 2017-03-25: "Considering the main page was unprotected by a compromised sysop semi recently, perhaps transcluding it to a cascade protected page will provide a small increase in protection"
