Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change

Clpo13's block log or Future Perfect at Sunrise's block log indicates no such events occurring. Incorrect, such things did happen, but DMacks's block was (I think) a humor block, and HighInBC's block was purely accidental. I'm not sure how to correct the wording to account for this. Red Panda 25 17:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit filter[edit]

I've set up an edit filter to trap VXFC socks. At the moment it's logging only; if I get consensus it can be turned on to block. Please see Special:AbuseFilter/880. It works - it lit up on the two latest IP socks immediately. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support- It is obvious the banned user has no plans to cease editing. Many hours have been wasted on this individual. Regards, Aloha27 talk 12:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - every little bit helps. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support but it won't make much of a difference. Vote (X) is smart enough to figure out how to bypass such a filter pretty quickly as soon as they realize what's going on. Each week or so, she gets a bug up her ass about something random, and spams some barely coherant screed about it. The screed changes every week, if not the behavior, so I'm not sure what the EF is going to do when this particular text goes away and the next one starts. --Jayron 32 16:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We update the filter (I'd tell you how, but WP:BEANS). It'll save us about 10 reverts and blocks, I reckon. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. --Jayron 32 17:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, as there are no objections, I've turned it on. After I get a sufficient corpus of data, I should be able to fine-tune it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]