Wikipedia talk:Recent changes patrol

Obvious vandalism missed last year?

Maybe it will be helpful for some script/bots/etc: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Science_fiction_(disambiguation)&diff=prev&oldid=1227691586 _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

@Piotrus: looks more like a test than anything, and the issue is that there are all sorts of good reasons for removing DAB entries e.g. no linked article, linked article was deleted, or there was never any ambiguity in the first place. Beyond the lack of edit summary which is already factored into automated assessments there isn't much to be done. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I think I found one...

I might have found vandalism, but I will assume good faith and say he was just linking something.[1] here it is. Please notify me if this is a mistake, or hit me with a trout if needed. Thank you.

AstronomyKid1 (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@AstronomyKid1: looks like someone was just expanding with statistics from Institut national de la statistique, and the source was included with the edit. Doesn't hurt to check the reference against the content, but those kind of edits are reasonably common when an article is being built out. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Do I need to warn all users?

Should I place a warning on all talk pages of users that make non-constructive or vandalising edits? I've noticed a lot of these are just IPs who may make one edit and never edit again, and their IP may even be used by someone else later. Is it still a good practice to place a warning message on their talk page? SnowyRiver28 (talk) 08:48, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

@SnowyRiver28: this is a complicated topic. Most users on IPv6 connections are going to cycle rather rapidly so if the edit is more than an hour old or so a warning will probably never reach anyone. Warning isn't really incorrect per se but it is unlikely to accomplish anything either. Same goes for users on dynamic IPv4 connections though the time scale may be longer. Even with accounts, if an edit was made more than a few days ago and the account has never edited again it probably won't. Worst case scenario in all of these if they do reactivate is getting in one more edit before being reported to AIV; not that big a deal. With clear tests or jokes that seem unlikely to repeat I may not warn even if it isn't all that stale especially if originating from IPv6, but it's a judgement call.

In general, LTAs do not need to be warned either, they already know what they are doing is wrong. As a heuristic pay as little attention to them as practical and DENY. Sometimes if they just used an IP briefly but you expect they may reuse it in the future after a delay {{uw-multipleIPs}} can be useful as a mark for future patrollers, but as with so many things it's a judgement call.

As a converse, if an account or IP has made two or more disruptive edits at intervals of more than a few minutes you will want to warn unless the delay is much longer than the interval since that indicates the connection is stable over that time. It may also simply be a shared connection but warnings have there use in that case as well.

Hopefully that clears things up a bit. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the detailed response! Very much appreciated :) SnowyRiver28 (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Recommendation for Huggle replacement

I'm getting tired of Huggle. Too many issues. What is a good replacement for Huggle? I do have rollback rights. Thanks Adakiko (talk) 22:26, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

@Adakiko: a list is kept at Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism/Tools though my activity level has been low in recent years so I'm not sure how well maintained that list is and I won't claim to be up to speed with all the latest preferred scripts. Offhandedly, ultraviolet seems to be reasonably popular, but I haven't used it myself and can't vouch for it. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)