Wikipedia talk:Vandalism/68.39.174.238 comments

message: === Total blanking ===
To the best of my knowledge, there is no legitimate reason to reduce a page to no text (0 bytes). The smallest legitimate page size seems to be 5 (, or any other one character link), hence a bot could be made that whould check page edits, and if the new revision was less then 5 printing characters it whould automatically revert with a summary like "Highly suspiscious possible blanking". This whould stop vandalisms like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Constitution&diff=prev&oldid=30541188
==== Comments ====
For what its worth, I think this in an excellent idea. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And replacing an entire article or section with the word "fuck", for example, would also be automatically rejected, being only 4 letters. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One exception that comes to mind is mainspace talk pages.  Vandals start these pages with text such as "ZOMG FOOBAR IS SO HOT" and the pages are often blanked rather than speedied due to the fact that it's just minor vandalism. ~ PseudoSudo 09:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straight up 

message: To the best of my knowledge, there is no legitimate reason to reduce a page to no text (0 bytes). The smallest legitimate page size seems to be 5 (, or any other one character link), hence a bot could be made that whould check page edits, and if the new revision was less then 5 printing characters it whould automatically revert with a summary like "Highly suspiscious possible blanking". This whould stop vandalisms like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Constitution&diff=prev&oldid=30541188
==== Comments ====
For what its worth, I think this in an excellent idea. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And replacing an entire article or section with the word "fuck", for example, would also be automatically rejected, being only 4 letters. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One exception that comes to mind is mainspace talk pages.  Vandals start these pages with text such as "ZOMG FOOBAR IS SO HOT" and the pages are often blanked rather than speedied due to the fact that it's just minor vandalism. ~ PseudoSudo 09:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total blanking 

message: For what its worth, I think this in an excellent idea. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And replacing an entire article or section with the word "fuck", for example, would also be automatically rejected, being only 4 letters. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One exception that comes to mind is mainspace talk pages.  Vandals start these pages with text such as "ZOMG FOOBAR IS SO HOT" and the pages are often blanked rather than speedied due to the fact that it's just minor vandalism. ~ PseudoSudo 09:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: === Disproportionate image use ===
It should be possible to detect the occurence of Image: ...  in a page change. If a reasonable ratio can be worked out by testing with reverting disabled and observing the diffs, this may be able to block wide accredation of vandals like the infamous penis-tile vandal: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=30559412&oldid=30559384
====Comments====
Well, first of all, we already have a mechanism for certain "bad images" such as :Image:Autofellatio_2.jpg.  See MediaWiki:Bad image list.  If we can make a "kinda-bad images" list, perhaps we can detect that a penis pic is being added two or more times to the same page, and automatically reject the edit? — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking of a bot just for excessive overuse of images, however again, it may not be worth it and it would require some fairly extensive calibration 68.39.174.238 19:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More calibratory 

message: It should be possible to detect the occurence of Image: ...  in a page change. If a reasonable ratio can be worked out by testing with reverting disabled and observing the diffs, this may be able to block wide accredation of vandals like the infamous penis-tile vandal: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=30559412&oldid=30559384
====Comments====
Well, first of all, we already have a mechanism for certain "bad images" such as :Image:Autofellatio_2.jpg.  See MediaWiki:Bad image list.  If we can make a "kinda-bad images" list, perhaps we can detect that a penis pic is being added two or more times to the same page, and automatically reject the edit? — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking of a bot just for excessive overuse of images, however again, it may not be worth it and it would require some fairly extensive calibration 68.39.174.238 19:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disproportionate image use 

message: Well, first of all, we already have a mechanism for certain "bad images" such as :Image:Autofellatio_2.jpg.  See MediaWiki:Bad image list.  If we can make a "kinda-bad images" list, perhaps we can detect that a penis pic is being added two or more times to the same page, and automatically reject the edit? — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking of a bot just for excessive overuse of images, however again, it may not be worth it and it would require some fairly extensive calibration 68.39.174.238 19:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments