Most of the vandalism I deal with nowadays I pick up when I am typo fixing. I rarely check the same typo as frequently as once a fortnight, so a lot of the vandalism I find is from over a week ago. That means it has got past several layers of defences, including the watchlisters (watch lists default to 7 days).

But when in the past i have been active at recent changes I have honed in on edits by editors with redlinked talkpages.If they made a good edit I'd welcome them, if it was vandalism I'd warn them. Cluebot and users of Huggle and Stiki are great at watching for edits by accounts and people who have previously been warned, and if you are editing manually you are wasting time trying to compete with them. But someone with a redlinked talkpage is either a goodfaith editor, or a sufficiently sneaky vandal not to be picked up by cluebot and the like.

On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 at 17:19, Haifeng Zhang haifeng1@andrew.cmu.edu wrote:

Hi all,

This might be a known fact already.

Does it take less time (on average) for an editor to identify a vandalistic edit when using counter-vandalism tools, e.g., Huggle or STiki? If so, what features of these tools support such decision?

Thanks for your time,

Haifeng Zhang _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l