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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l