Wikipedia talk:Recent changes patrol

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Icon

I made a new icon for RC patrol, by editing the other one, and adding nice gradients. I think it looks much better. What does anyone think about it being implemented?

[edit] Diff＝0

If the change is the most recent one, the diff=0, and that is relative. The next edit will make the previous edit in question be not the most recent one, and hence the diff will no longer =0. Sometimes we may get lucky, the next edit on the same article (which may or may not resolved the issue) will not occur until the problem is fixed. Or it may, and confuse other people as to what is wrong. --Menchi 06:16, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, this is definitely an annoyance. I encounter it regularly when loading a diff from recent changes (if recent changes was loaded a while ago). The ideal solution would of course be to somehow recode the diff tool to actually mark the latest edit not with the "0" id, but with a specific one. Anyway, that is why I've asked people to give the rough time of the edit, because that can be easily mapped onto the specific edit. Always open to better suggestions, though. - snoyes 06:28, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Is this the one where new edits not visible get rolled in to the diff thing? It's annoying most of the time, but it has its moments, as in telling when a reversion has happend when the diff shows up empty. Dysprosia 06:33, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)


You could always make a blank space edit of a page, so the edit in question isnt the current version. (This might be a good temporary solution, but it might cause even more confusion.) Sennheiser! 14:15, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Now, you can use ...&oldversion=number&diff=next, if I am not mistaken. – ABCD 02:16, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IP Address Search

If someone uses a proxy site like handsoffmycomputer.com what can we do to prevent them from vandalizing?

This is a very old question but all questions are answered in due time. The answer to this is that we block the proxy IP, so no one can edit from it. --WAvegetarian07:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Visibility

It would be useful if this page could be linked from the header of Recent Changes. It would increase its visibility. However, there's very little room to add it in as things currently stand. --Minesweeper 00:26, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Removing items

What is the closed section for? Is it ok to just remove things I listed here once they've been checked? Angela. 09:21, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

I guess to prevent verified pages from reposting here. Should be some policy for clean-up though. Mikkalai
I would personally move it to the article's talk page, in case someone becomes suspicious in the future. --Minesweeper 09:26, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I think listing it on the article's talk page would be a lot more useful. I've moved the existing ones and changed the instructions to reflect this. Angela. 09:39, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

Please answer istead just reverting!

[edit] Fixed

[edit] List of diffs?

Could we make a list (protected page) of RC diffs under categories

  1. Apparently in good faith
    1. Needs to be verified
    2. Verified
  2. Vandalism
    1. User subsequently blocked
    2. User not blocked
  3. Suspect trolling

I know it sounds ambitious... but lots of stuff on Wikipedia is ambitious :)

[edit] Issues

  • Protection: Questions are bound to be raised about why non-admins are not trusted and why being an admin means that you are trusted. I have no answer but I think this idea is worth being presented. --Hemanshu 02:45, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If we can't answer that question, one wonders what the concept of administrators is good for. Surely the entire purpose of an administrative board is to grant increased control and powers of judgement to people deemed trustworthy? If the admin were set from day one, complaints about injustice would be understandable, but all a new user has to do is demonstrate reliability, non-bias and the ability to contribute, and they'll get put up as an admin sooner or later. New users who feel the admin system is too slow are welcome to propose a better way of ranking users; there is always the option of having individual user 'scores' as on shopping sites such as ebay and amazon. --boiled_elephant 15:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not completely familiar with Wikipedia's protocols, otherwise I'd fix this myself. It appears that some miscreant has completely vandalized the entry for "British East India Company." It has gone from a richly-detailed, well-researched featured article to the following text: "The Easy India company smells. / I hate it and you should too. / P.s Hitler was cool, so cool. / Love Everyone"

If someone could revert the article back, that would be great. Thanks.

I'll do this. You can do it yourself, though, if you want. Just click on "history", then open the second-to-last version of the article (right before the vandalized version.) Next, click the "edit this page" tab. Then hit "save" and you're done. Isomorphic 03:31, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] MediaWiki 1.4 release

The release note have this interesting entry:

  • 'Recentchanges Patrol' to mark new edits that haven't yet been viewed.

...but I have yet to figure out how to use this new feature. Any ideas? -- Beland 02:14, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I see in the URL "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges&hidebots=0&hideminor=1&hideliu=0&hidepatrolled=0&limit=50" that probably setting hidepatrolled=1 will enable this feature. But there's no link on Special:Recentchanges to toggle that. I guess it's a minor bug. -- Beland 02:17, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think RC patrol is enabled on en:. Manually changing the value of hidepatrolled does nothing, and I suspect one would have to do more than just view a change with a logged in user to mark an edit as viewed, though I don't know what. --fvw* 02:55, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
It has been enabled now! I don't know who can mark pages as patrolled: anonymous, logged in, or only admins? It would also be nice if we could agree on what has been checked when an edit has been marked as patrolled. Thue | talk 11:35, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If patrolled edit is enabled on en: where can I read more about it? This page seems to be about an exclusively manual process. __meco 18:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD

Voting is open on Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD. Multiple proposals to expand speedy deletions and change the procedure for handling them. Ends at 0:00 UTC on January 16, 2005. -- Netoholic @ 03:59, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

[edit] page move

User:Spingo just moved this page to Wikipedia:Pelican shit patrol. I moved it back; hope I did it right. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 07:58, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unless the page wasn't originally called 'RC patrol', that you did. Thanks.

[edit] Reverting process — too many steps?

Please see discussion at Talk:How to revert and reply there, not here. Thanks! —msh210 13:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bots

For those who frequently do RC patrolling, please keep an eye on new bots. If there is a problem with the bot, please make sure you cite it at Wikipedia talk:Bots. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:24, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Automatic edit summary generation

A tool that would really help in patrolling RC or watchlists would be automatic edit summary generation. Good idea, no? - Omegatron 19:45, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RSS

I was interested in getting more involved in RC, and I noticed the RSS button. It looks like it's potentially a great tool for showing multiple diff pages at once, but when I tried to use it, I just saw two black columns of text. Is the lack of color (which would let me quickly see what was edited) a deficiency with my browser (Safari 2.0), or with Wikipedia's software? If it's the former, does anyone know of a more sophisticated RSS reader I can run on my mac? It would make patrolling RC a whole lot easier.

Thanks in advance, Dave (talk) 20:24, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Live RC

What happened to Live Recentchanges? ‡ Jarlaxle 02:36, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New delete templates

There have been a few new delete templates that have been created recently, including {{nn-bio}}, {{Db:a1}}, {{Deletebecause/empty}}, and {{Deletebecause/vanity}}. Most of these new templates have been nominated for deletion, and are currently being discussed at Templates for deletion. BlankVerse ∅ 18:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I am, as discussed during the TfD for {{nn-bio}} renaming all the speedy deeltion templates to have names starting with "Db-" all the previosu names will be left as correctly workign redirs. DES (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Experimental Deletion

Hello, I'm setting up some experiments at Wikipedia:Experimental_Deletion. So if you see XD templates or messages popping up in recent changes, that's just the experiment working, and we promise to clean up after ourselves.

Of course you can help out if you like! Kim Bruning 20:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Google Translate - copyright issues

The page currently recommends:

Run the page through an on-line translator, such as Google translate.

If you're implying to post the result back onto the page, it appears that would be a copyright violation against Google's terms of service. [1] --Dforest 13:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RC patrol edit conflicts

The answer to this is probably somewhere really obvious, but can anyone tell me if there's a way for RC patrollers to coordinate so two don't both work on the same article at the same time? I never know when my help is needed and when it's redundant. Thanks in advance, delldot | talk 20:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Users cannot edit experiment

Is everyone keeping statistics? Kim Bruning 16:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Someone needs to replace the image with this one. anthony 01:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes - Suggested improvements to catch Libel and Misinformation

I posted this on Village Pump (proposals0. Thought I'd put a copy here.

Following the Seigenthaler incident, it would be easier to keep an eye out for possible libel on Wikipedia if there was an option to view the Recent changes special page by category.

  • Firstly this would allow people with specialised knowledge to keep an eye out in all articles across a knowledge area and reduce the risk of misinformation getting in .
  • Secondly we could have a new category called something like " Biographies of living people" which would identify all articles where there is a high risk of a libel being committed. Changes in this category would be given the highest scrutiny.

The number of categories offered could be limited to the biggest ones. Lumos3 08:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism in progress

User:FlaBot has created a Bot that is adding Simple English to pages. This is creating extra pages in english about pages that already exist in english, thereby duplicating unnecessary pages that peole will just go into and edit up the same as the existing pages; if you get my drift. 86.2.136.146 12:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Pse unterstand the differenz between simple and en. Until today there is no policy that say doent link it. But perhaps you should first get an account and be part of the wiki. --84.169.214.26 16:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know anything about how to alter Wikipedia pages; this is only my second posting on a talk page. I'm writing because someone has vandalized the Chinese New Year page quite badly, and today is the Chinese New Year, so a lot of people will be visiting it. I'm hoping that someone will read this posting, and then go fix the page as soon as possible. If you want to give it a shot, read the section on "Good Luck" and "Bad Luck." In the middle of the bad luck section, someone has posted a profane statement. When I try to edit it, it doesn't appear on the edit screen, so I don't know how to change it. I hope someone else does. Thanks! Cliffordrosky 17:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted edits userbox

Not that any of us have editcountitis or anything...but don't you hate seeing all those {{db...}} and {{subst:afd}} edits disappear. I just created {{User:WAvegetarian/deletededits}}. It is a userbox to display the incredible number of deleted edits you have. It links to Kate's tool, which is back up now :), and has a very simple syntax: {{User:WAvegetarian/deletededits|number of deleted edits you have more than}}. There is full documentation on the talk page. --WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 01:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A request for sensitivity

To the new pages patrol: a problem arose yesterday with an overzealous patroller. I contribute to Wikipedia frequently. Wikipedia has highlighted three of my recent articles at "Did you know?" (details at my user page). Yesterday I embarked on my most ambitious article yet: Thou shalt not give Hitler posthumous victories. This very serious subject touches a nexus of sensitive issues including the Holocaust, Nazis, Talmudic law, and intermarriage. My computer sometimes fails and I have to save frequently. I left an edit note to that effect and saved when the article had two paragraphs and three references. Despite that, it received an instant deletion nomination. The nominator has ignored my message and overwhelming support at AfD: the nomination has not been withdrawn.

I invite the editors here to view the article, which is nearly complete now. It cites five full length books and some two dozen external sites. It quotes rabbis, two ministers, a priest, and several lay scholars.

A voter who was unfamiliar with the subject suggested merging a few moments after the nomination. The nature of that suggestion gave deep offense to three Wikipedians. We're supposed to have think skins on the Internet, I understand, yet a few truly hot button issues exist in the world and this is one of them. The precipitous nomination really did no good for anyone. I hope the editors here will correct the situation and consider future new articles in light of this incident. Respectfuly, Durova 03:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

As a suggestion you could try making your pages in your user space and then only put them in the main space when they're ready. (This would be a good work around to your problem of needing to save often, and not wanting to have incomplete articles in the main space). --Bachrach44 04:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Also you might consider the {{editing>> tag for saves in progress (as well as userspace suggestion). novacatz 04:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Newpages patrol: patience in AfD nomination?

Please check out Wikipedia talk:Please do not bite the newcomers#Proposed policy - Good faith articles cannot be nominated for deletion too quickly. Melchoir 20:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iconbox

What happened to the old iconbox (RC Patrol)? Was it changed? Gadig 22:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

There seem to be a lot of userboxes that got messed up today. I think syntax is changed, I don't really know. Brokenfrog 03:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Machine translation

New page patrollers should not create machine translations. (In fact, nobody should submit machine "translations"). From WP:TIE: "Never use machine translation to create an article! (This doesn't mean you can't use machine translation as a tool, but it does mean that machine-translated material dumped into the English-language Wikipedia is worse than nothing.)". People at WP:PNT are helpful and quick in dealing with foreign language material, and always produce much better articles than online translators. I have edited the respective section of the page. Kusma (討論) 18:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Changes Slices

An idea to help RC Patrol by slicing up the RC feed. Please comment there: User:JesseW/Recent_Changes_Slices. Thanks in advance! JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IRC Channel Problem

Does anyone happen to know why the link to the IRC channel leads to a page that says 'This page does not exist. Sucks, does it?'.Answerthis 19:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Probably because you don't have an IRC client configured for your browser. If there is no program handling irc:// links, it will do that. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges

For those of us who enjoy fighting vandalism, but are not admins, this proposed policy could make life easier. Let's go over and try to make it into something the community can accept. --Measure 23:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. But would this lead to abuse? --Siva1979Talk to me 17:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Try using User:Voice_of_All/RC/monobook.js. I've found it tremendously useful. --Bachrach44 01:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
of course there will be abuse! i don't think that's any reason for not adopting said policy, though. the whole structure of wikipedia is open for abuse as cvu-ers well know, and it still works.frymaster 14:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] QVD

Is QVFD even used? There wasn't even an article until I went and made it.--Vercalos 06:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikisource

I know the Recent changes patrol are often the first people to come into contact with newbies. You are the most likely people to set a newbie in the right direction. I would really appreciate it if you all could take a few minutes to read s:Wikisource:What Wikisource includes . We have recently re-written this page to makes things clearer. I hope this helps you guys with all the good work you do. Feel free to direct anyone with questions to me as I check my Wikipedia talk page daily.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 14:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anyone see this user page?

Roxanne Harman (talk • contribs) claims that she is Willy on Wheels. Anyone want to check out her user page?

There's no reason to believe her. (Hey everybody! I'm the crown prince of Abu Dhabi!) However, just her claim was apparently enough to get some admins to block her. She is clearly trying to get attention (why else would you do that?), to what end I do not know. --Bachrach44 01:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terminatorius bot blanks warnings

On March 15, 2006, the [[User:Terminatorius]

[edit] Can I patrol?

I've registered, but I think I can't patrol. Why? What are the requisites? Thank you in advance. --Gionnico 04:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Anyone can patrol. Just click the Recentchanges link on the left and check edits you think are suspicious; you can also check the recent changes by newly created users, etc. There are various tools like VandalProof available; if you can't run vandalproof you can still check the diff of IP edits, or anything you like. There are no requisites - if you look through RC and check the edits are valid, then you're an RC patroller. --Firien § 10:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Something wrong with this?

Hi, I've just spotted the new page Dharani Sutras of Peaceful Home. It looks like just plain religious material. Could somebody please check it out and see if it conforms with Wikipedia's policies? If it doesn't, what is the correct action to be taken regarding this kind of article? Thank you. --Húsönd 13:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Nothanks-vanity

The term "vanity" is frequently considered derogatory by the subjects of articles, who then complain about it to the Wikimedia Foundation. This is undesirable, and it is a situation we can alleviate by trying not to use the term "vanity" in deletion debates and such (there's a host of other terms that are not offensive, such as "unencyclopedic"). To give people the right idea, I would suggest renaming the {{nothanks-vanity}}. Since (assumedly) the RCP uses it a lot, I would like to hear suggestions and feedback about this. >Radiant< 12:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that the best way of avoiding people taking offense is to explain WP:NOR, and that the reason we can't accept their contributions is that we aren't qualified to do so, not that they're unencyclopedic (-: JYolkowski // talk 22:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Thing is, we've been doing that for years and it doesn't really work. If someone's article is called "vanity" and that person takes offense (which happens quite often) that person isn't going to ask for or listen to an explanation of how we use this term differently from the rest of the world - that person is going to make an official complaint to the office, which is bad for public relations. >Radiant< 08:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I've moved the template to {{tl|nothanks-personal}] and reworded it to emphasise the fact that we're not qualified to evaluate original research instead of saying that the subject isn't encyclopedic. My personal opinion is that most of the damage is done in AFD discussions, not by the template. My suggestion would be to create some tips for nominators as to as to how to nominate articles for deletion without biting the newbies. Short version: Cite content policies as reasons for deletion instead of WP:VAIN and WP:N. JYolkowski // talk 22:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Sounds good. Shall we do the same with start-vanity-end and {{vanity2}}? >Radiant< 10:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I would say not, because they've already been warned once. It's good at first, but not later. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 14:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coordination

Is there a method so that RC patrollers can coordinate their work and make sure each edit is checked once and only once? Nossac 23:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge to Cleaning up vandalism/Tools

I'm going to merge the tools section of this article into Cleaning up vandalism/Tools. They're pretty much the same thing. I'll then transclude it into here. Any opposition to that? --BradBeattie 04:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A new newpage patrol tool

I've just finished coding a beta version (pretty stable, I feel) of a program to easily facilitate Newpage patrol, and am looking for testers. If anyonw would be inerested in giving it a go, could you please either leave a message here or on my talk page. There will be some form of verificatiopn needed (like edit count, much like WP:VPRF, just to avoid abuse), but the conditions won't be very stringent! Thanks Martinp23 00:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm posting here rather than on the main page because it is a beta still, and is quite hot off the press (I only finished it about half an hour ago). Martinp23 00:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm interested in giving it a try. GringoInChile 02:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] splitting off new page patrol

I've proposed splitting off new page patrol. I don't think this will be controversial. If no one objects in a few days, I'll do it.--Kchase T 08:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Sorry. I lost power just as I was typing my response to you. Anyway, it just seems odd stuck right in the middle of the RCP page, since they are pretty distinct. I'd also like to expand the NPP page into a more extensive guide.--Kchase T 17:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Mind giving me a bit of your reasoning? --WinHunter (talk) 08:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
No one has objected, so I'm doing it.--Kchase T 05:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Watchlist request

I have just semi protected the article Albinism, it has been coming under frequent vandalism attacks unfortunately theres not enough people watching the article over the past week there has been periods of over 3hours between the vandalism and its revert. I most cases these attacks are naming individuals with offensive comments. Can you please consider adding this article to your watchlists. Semi protection will reduce IP problems but some of these edits are coming from logged in accounts as well. Thanks for your helpGnangarra 14:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I try to keep a daily (and then some) watch on this article, but I'm going on a RL vacation that may mean a 2-3 week wikibreak, and I think I am the only antivandal consistently watching this article (aside from bots). So, anything anyone can do would be Very Cool. That said, I think that the semi-protect will eliminate most if not all of the vandalism, which appears to be almost uniformly from mean-spirited middle school kiddos at organizational IP addresses. The only problematic non-IP attackers experienced so far are "Aren't all white people albinos?"-type trolls on the talk page, who get dealt with handily. The article itself is rarely (though sometimes, as Gnangarra notes) attacked by non-IP editors, so it doesn't need constant watching. Also, there is a merge in-progress to get one section out of Albinism and into Albino bias, so don't be surprised if material on "albinos in fiction" (or something to that effect) disappears from the main article. If something like the "Causes" or another well-cited section not dealing with fiction goes away, then "Houston, we have a problem". Thanks for the attention; I don't think it will take much, all things considered. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion.

I have recently made a small Recent Changes Patrol emblem (a large image is needless). The opinion I state here is that using this image is quite better, and has originality than borrowing clip art:

Image:RecentChangesPolice.png

What do you think? --Sub6 04:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, we can at least use it in addition if not instead. delldot | talk 19:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [2] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/c/Wikipedia_talk%7ERecent_changes_patrol_bbed.html"