ParlorGames (talk | contribs) |
Nutiketaiel (talk | contribs) →Barnstar Discussion: new section |
||
Line 207: | Line 207: | ||
'''READ''' the age you are modifying. Not doing so is not constructive, and may be considered harmful by some, especially on user pages. Have a look at the history of my talk age for an example of poor practice. [[Special:Contributions/82.33.48.96|82.33.48.96]] ([[User talk:82.33.48.96|talk]]) 12:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC) |
'''READ''' the age you are modifying. Not doing so is not constructive, and may be considered harmful by some, especially on user pages. Have a look at the history of my talk age for an example of poor practice. [[Special:Contributions/82.33.48.96|82.33.48.96]] ([[User talk:82.33.48.96|talk]]) 12:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC) |
||
== Barnstar Discussion == |
|||
There is a discussion going on [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wikipedia_Awards#The_Star_of_JD_Award_for_Excellence_in_Vandal_Fighting.|here]] regarding a proposed change to the name of the "RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar." As vandalism fighters, I thought some of you might be interested in commenting. [[User:Nutiketaiel|Nutiketaiel]] ([[User talk:Nutiketaiel|talk]]) 12:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:08, 28 April 2009
Counter-Vandalism Unit | ||||
|
New User Warnings
Though the following isn't effective yet, please read the following: Wikiproject user warnings has been working to redo all templates. Originally, plans were to slowly insert these, so people would know that the warnings had changed. However, this was thought to be bad, so all of the new templates of the project have a " uw- " in front of them. Another advantage of the prefix was so that the user warning template wouldn't get confused with something else (ie. a POV template for an article page and a POV template for a user talk page of a user who's inserting POV). This means that the old templates will still work as normal. However, these new templates are more organized. Level 0 has been eliminated, and the levels now go from 1-4. In addition, block templates are organized differently. All new templates automatically insert your signature, and all templates are completely lower-cased. An important note is that the new test templates are not blockable, as they are only for tests (i.e. can I really type here?). Things that test was previously used for, like vandalism, now have their own templates. The templates are currently on review until Jan. 22. For the complete list of templates, see Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Overview. --TeckWizTalkContribs@ 21:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Question about when to use particular templates
I'm new to RCP. I have a couple of questions please:
- If an edit is obviously vandalism and not an innocent experiment, do I skip test1 and go straight to test2?
- When is a blatentvandal warning appropriate?
Thanks. Tanaats 22:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
The old-school method to rv vandalism
To all,
Since I'm not allowed to download anything on my laptop (because it's owned by the school), I've found a way to revert vandalism efficiently for RC Patrol.
- Hide logged in users. Most of them would know better, so they wouldn't vandalize. The IP's usually do the most vandalism...but they also are a big help.
- Check for an IP talk page. Chances are, the talk pages are there because of warnings. This is helpful to spot repeated vandals.
- Check bytes-but don't always count on it. Although a big drop in bytes is most likely vandalism (unless the user wrote an edit summary), AntiVandalBot usually reverts the articles. Actually, vandals may add an innocent 10 bytes, in which case evaluating the article manually is needed.
- Well known article. Well known articles are a target for vandalism. They should be checked.
- No edit summary. Lots of IP users don't write an edit summary. Users who delete a lot of bytes for no reason are most likely vandals. If you see anything suspicious, always manually check.
- Go by your gut. Anything strange or suspicious should always be checked. If more than one of the criteria fit an edit, there is a chance of vandalism.
I hope this information is helpful. Sr13 (T|C) Editor review 08:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- for ip vandal hunting i like to use this list [1] with popups. not as fast as some of the fancy-schmancy tools, but pretty close. oh, and i always check high school articles... 80% of the time the edit is "mr. fargin's class is boring" or something like that! -- frymaster 07:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Additional hint: use a browser with tabbed browsing. Configure it so that the right (or middle) mouse button will open a tab in the background (so you keep looking at the existing page, not the newly opened tab). Go through a page of 500 recent changes, opening a tab in the background for every edit you intend to investigate. Then go through the tabs investigating, closing each one after you're done with it. When you've closed all the tabs you are just left with the recent changes page; reload it and continue... — Alan✉ 11:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
mysterious "undo" button
tonight there appeared on diff pages a link next to 'edit' called 'undo'... or at least it's the first time i've noticed it. what's up? has it always been there and i just finally caught on today or is this a new thing? -- frymaster 05:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not something I've noticed before either. It's mentioned on the Help:Reverting page as a recent feature of MediaWiki. This diff would suggest is been a while since it came into MediaWiki but I suppose it depends when Wikipedia updated their version as to when we'll see it. It does slightly concern me that it makes it very easy for vandals to revert back to their edits. It does seem this is available for IP users. I would suggest that this either be disabled completely, or only available for established users. Adambro 11:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Old School
Whoever put the "old school" reference in referring to RC patrol through web browser needs to have an applause! I thought that was funny. Real96 09:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
New warning templates
I have taken the initiative to bring the warning templates on this page in line with the warnings recommended here, in order to keep us all singing off the same hymn sheet. LittleOldMe 12:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Request for Administrator Intervention Question
Is giving a person three or four minutes to read the vandalism warnings sufficient time? This appears in the paragraph starting "If the vandal strikes again". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iain marcuson (talk • contribs).
- For me, I've never really thought about giving vandals time to read the warnings, because the "you have new messages" tag will come up immediately after the warning is left. I'd say one or two minutes tops should be plenty of time, instead of three or four. Any other opinions? -- P.B. Pilhet 15:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Need more help on subtle vandalism
Alright so I've been doing some experiments over the past few days. Basically I take an RC page with ip-only, main space only. I let it up for 5mins so the bots and rc-patrollers are done with them. Then I go thru them one by one, and it's not uncommon that I can find 5-10 subtle vandalism unreverted. These are all things that don't have watched words, almost all from new or recent IPs so they are not watched, but they are very obvious vandalism. I think at this point all the obvious stuff is well handled, the bots and scripts are doing a very good job, and any -50,000 chars edit is gonna have a good 20 people checking it in seconds, but we need more people to do what I did. Filter IP edits, and get a popup script to show the actual diff (not the summary) and you'll find a huge number of easy to spot edits that would otherwise go unnoticed. To take it to the next level, if anyone is able to do so, a tool or modification to one of the current tools like VP would be to have a list of edits by IP addresses with the actual diff on mouse-over, but then each entry would be checked and removed from the list by the program as soon as it gets edited by a logged in user. Elfguy 04:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Another Userbox
I made another userbox. Any comments or suggestions? -- Hdt83 Chat 21:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
RC Patrol on a Mac?
What is the best utility? Please reply on my talk page. thanks. —Gaff ταλκ 20:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Lupin
Anyone else having problems with Lupin antivandal tool not filtering RC pages?—Gaff ταλκ 02:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Volunteering
I'm volunterringmy efforts, let me know if I should report that on a different page :) Mathiastck 10:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Incorrect use of template substitution
This article page had become out of date due the improper use of template substitution. Therefore I have edited the page to remove all template substitution. If you compare the prior versions of this page that used template substitution to the current version (do not use "diff" for the comparison) you will find that several of the displayed templates no longer represented the current version of the template that would be displayed when using template substitution on user pages. When templates are displayed on policy pages they should NEVER be substituted. They need to display the current version of the template, not some older unknown version that may or may not be the same as the current version. Archive (dated) copies of policy pages should use substitution, as they are an attempt to record what was at a particular point in time. Current policy pages should display current templates which cannot be reliably done using substitution. Dbiel (Talk) 01:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Mark patrolled pages?
At the dutch Wikipedia I (or any registered user) always had the option to mark a recent change as patrolled. I couldn't find this option/feature here. Do you have something like that here? And if not, how do you know which recent changes have been checked for vandalism? Freestyle 22:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- We don't know if it's been checked. It's available here, but I think it's disabled for performance reasons that I don't know. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 00:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- A huge amount of inefficiency results from many editors looking at the same edits. I load Recent Changes set for only fifty edits, go immediately to the top change, immediately hit the Twinkle vandal button, and, easily two times out of three, it's already been reverted. (Usually with Huggle.) I don't know how the Dutch do it, but I would guess that for a registered user, other than accidentally, to put a patrolled tag on a vandalism edit, would be taken as seriously as vandalism itself. Presumably, the user would need to be at least auto-confirmed. Perhaps having rollback could be taken as a mark of being trusted sufficiently. (I don't have rollback, but I'd ask for it just for this purpose, if that were in place.)
- Yet, if I go down the changes list a bit and look at articles that interest me, I often find vandalism that was missed, apparently. Our process is too hit-and-miss; instead of redundancy making sure that everything is caught, we have needless duplication with gaps. --Abd (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Advice on a monitoring tool?
I've been trying my hand at patrolling for a few weeks. It's pretty fast paced. I am using popups and Twinkle, but I think I need to add a monitoring tool to speed up the identification process. Can anyone recommend which one of the monitoring tools would work best with popups and TW? I'm on a WinXP box using Firefox, and it isn't the fastest computer around. TIA. - Crockspot 15:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- PS - I just got IRC up as well, using ChatZilla. - Crockspot 16:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I think I filled the void. Vandal Fighter seems to be the thing I needed. - Crockspot 02:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Archive
I've archived old discussions from 2004 to 2006. Hopefully that'll make this page a little easier to follow! As always, please do not edit the archives. If you want to continue a topic found there, create a new topic on the main Talk page instead. -- Kesh 03:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Joining
Do you have to go through some special procedure to become a rc patroller, or do you just go right on ahead and volunteer? Vandalism destroyer 01:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Just do it. Dive in, nothing to sign up for. AndrewJDTALK -- 12:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Just go for it. I would recommend that you install WP:TWINKLE, it's very easy to install and use. (It adds into your wiki environment, so no extra programs to run, it just adds extra wiki buttons and tabs in your browser). If you don't have some sort of automated tool, you will be living in edit-conflict Hell trying to report someone to AIV. With Twinkle, it's just one-click reporting. - Crockspot 20:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
What anti-vandal tool to use?
I've been doing RCP on and off for a few months now the old school way, primarily because I haven't been sure which of the anti-vandal tools would work best for me. Do any fit the following criteria:
- work in both IE and Firefox
- don't need to be downloaded to a computer; I prefer portability if possible, which would most likely be one of the scripts
These 2 criteria are largely because I use 2 different comps during the day and use both browsers alternately. Yes I could d/l Firefox to comp #2 and only edit Wikipedia with that but the portability issue would be helpful if I find myself on computer #x at some point. Any ideas? BrokenSphere 03:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I've been very happy with Twinkle. I don't think it works so hot on IE though. - Crockspot 05:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
No...Very unstable on IE but otherwise an improvement over the old school method. Enhanced recent changes helps out a bit. BrokenSphereMsg me 00:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Barack Obama and RCP
I want to thank RCPs who have masterfully contained IP vandal incidents on the Barack Obama article in recent weeks during its brief intervals of unprotected status. I would also like to draw your attention to this thread and would appreciate your contributions to the discussion. Thanks again for keeping Wikipedia safe from harm, both the intentional kind and the other kind driven by good intentions. --HailFire 21:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Missing external link icon
Shouldn't the link titled "assume incompetence instead of malice" have an external link? I didn't boldly change it because it looks like some kind of special "meatball" link and I don't know the rules but I like those external-link icons when appropriate. RobI 20:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Request
Can I be promoted to that rank?--Arceus fan 23:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Recent change patroler is not a rank, anyone can be one. So, go right ahead! If you want to tell people you are an RC patroler, you can add {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} to your userpage. :) --Mschel 23:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
On the mario wiki patroller is a rank.--Arceus fan 21:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Proposal to add 10 day delay into A7 CSD process
There is discussion about adding a ten day delay into the A7 CSD process, since that would affect this wiki project significantly, I am posting a link to the discussion to obtain wider input from the community. --Fredrick day 14:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Allowing IPs to create new pages
Since it appears that this change is going to happen, whether we like it or not, you guys might need a lot more help in the next month. Tim Vickers 01:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello
Hi, I'd like to help out here. Littleteddy (talk) 12:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Can we become a RCP by ourselves?
Do we just put the stamp on our pages and we become one or do we need permission? If we need permission may I please be an RCP?
Thank you, MichaelJelly MichaelJelly (talk) 02:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, I understand, thank you! MichaelJelly (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
RCs containing specific words
Is there any tool that lets you display only those recent changes that contain words from a specified list? --Doopdoop (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Lupin's AVT does this, using the badwords list. You could easily take your own copy of AVT and modify it to point to your own copy of badwords. Philip Trueman (talk) 11:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Collaboration
Is there a tool, or could one be created, to allow collaborative RCP? What I had in mind, is a way of marking the RSS feed to cross out recent edits that had been verified as constructive (in green) or as vandalism (in red), or as good faith (in yellow), in a wiki so that others could see if someone had already looked at the recent change and verified that it was ok or not. Even better, add that as an attribute to the edit. There are a ballpark of one or two thousand people searching for something on Wikipedia every second, but only about half a dozen edits per second, which works out to less than five hundred per minute, more than any one person can monitor, and with every RCP'er randomly looking at edits, I am finding that as much as 20% of vandalism is falling through the cracks, lurking to be discovered as much as a few months later. We have all heard of stories of that. This would create a page that would buffer the last 500 edits until someone marked it and a minute after being marked it would disappear from the buffer. Give users the option of viewing the most recent/or oldest 50/100/250/500 edits in the buffer. 199.125.109.105 (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Private equity articles
I wanted to bring your attention to some of the work we, the Private Equity Task Force, are doing in the private equity and venture capital universe. We know that for most Wikipedians it is difficult to discern a notable PE or VC firm from the hundreds if not thousands of non-notable firms.
We have created a list of some of the most notable private equity firms not currently on Wikipedia. This is not a comprehensive list but should you notice a firm on that list we would ask that you give the firm the benefit of the doubt from a notability perspective and quickly alert the PE Task Force so we can help rescue a troubled article. Also, we have collected some PE-related resources and some thoughts on what to look for in discerning whether a firm may be notable. If you want to discuss any new articles or stubs we can help with any of those discussions and would ask to be alerted to any proposed AfD debates.
Our goals are :
- Protect and nurture notable PE related articles
- Prevent Wikipedia from clogging up with non-notable articles
- Encouraging new Wikipedians with an interest in finance and private equity
Thanks |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 14:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Giving notice...
In about 20-30 minutes, FritzpollBot will be running a conversion routine, making a series of changes to some geographical data. Just to let you know that the run will be fairly short, so don't panic if it clogs things up temporarily! Fritzpoll (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Coordination of RC patrol
It seems to me that I check a lot of recent changes that other editors have already checked or are currently checking. If other editors have also noticed this then it's likely that there's a lot of resources being tied up checking already checked pages (duplication) rather than checking pages that haven't already been checked. It would be useful if there was an automatically and continually updated real time list of (trusted or frequent) RC patrollers that are currently checking pages (currently "logged in" to RC Patrol, if you like) along with a real time list of recent changes they have assigned to themselves that other RC patrollers can then ignore - basically chunks of Special:RecentChanges allocated to editors currently on RC patrol to avoid duplication. Does anyone know of any efforts to coordinate RC patrolling along these (or similar) lines? If there aren't, does anyone think it would be a good idea to do so? Ha! (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Others have made the same observation, above - see the sections #Mark patrolled pages? and #Collaboration. The answer is yes, Wikipedia has a process for doing this - it's called "patrolled edits", and it's described at Help:Patrolled edit. My understanding is that this was tried in January 2005 (see Wikipedia talk:Checked edits brainstorming) and, due to lack of participation, was declared unsuccessful. It's almost four years later, and there are lots of automated tools, so perhaps things have changed enough to try again. (One possible comparison is to new pages, which had marked patrolling enable in November 2007. I don't know how well that is going - you could check at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. ) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- (Additional comment): if there is interest in going forward with this, one thing that could help a lot would be to give "autopatrol" rights to editors who are in the "rollback" group - see Wikipedia:User access levels. My guess is that could reduce the workload of marking edits as patrolled by at least 10 percent, with only a tiny, tiny risk of an editor with such privileges actually abusing it. (I think such a tradeoff would be well worth it; until/unless there are enough volunteers so that 100% of all edits are patrolled, the best use of editors' time is to focus on the edits that are the most likely to be problematical.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Becoming a Patroller
I'd like to volunteer for RC Patrol, could anyone tell me how to go about doing that? SupaaStaar (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Straw poll on 'trial' implementation of FlaggedRevisions
The discussion on the implementation of a 'trial' configuration of FlaggedRevisions on en.wiki has now reached the 'straw poll' stage. All editors are invited to read the proposal and discussion and to participate in the straw poll. Happy‑melon 18:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment & suggestion re Vandalism patrol
Like many editors, I routinely check anonymous edits to articles on my watchlist as time permits. As you know, many of these are vandals -- around half, ime. (Is there an "official" %?)
Suggestion: establish a "trusted editor" review program, to flag anonymous edits that have already been reviewed and found OK. The flag would show up on the article's Watchlist and Recent Changes listing, and save N additional editors from opening and checking the thing.
Comment: has anyone tried a vandal-bot to pick up obviously-nonsense edits such as this gdflgnfdkjgdkfjkdjnv,cm;lcxnbk;dgbfnbk;ljfb;kjfgnb;knxcvbxkjgcnb;kxfngbk;jfxgn?
Comment-2: Patroller's workload would be drastically reduced if WP would restrict editing to logged-on users. Just a thought. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Suggestion: See the FlaggedRevisions thing in the above section.
- Comment 1: See User:Cluebot.
- Comment 2: Not possible - it's one of the things that the Foundation has held sacred. ~user:orngjce223 ☺ how am I typing? 19:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Stop using auto tools stupidly
READ the age you are modifying. Not doing so is not constructive, and may be considered harmful by some, especially on user pages. Have a look at the history of my talk age for an example of poor practice. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 12:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar Discussion
There is a discussion going on here regarding a proposed change to the name of the "RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar." As vandalism fighters, I thought some of you might be interested in commenting. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)