Anthony wrote: > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Anthony <wikim...@inbox.org> wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Thomas Dalton >> <thomas.dal...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> I would put money on a significant majority of reverts being >>> reverts of vandalism rather than BRD reverts, it may not be an >>> overwhelming majority, though. >> >> I don't know about that, though I won't take the other end of the bet. >> Have you done much editing while not logged in? If so, I think you have to >> admit that it's quite common to find yourself reverted for things which are >> not properly classified as vandalism. >> > > Just going through recent changes looking for "rv" (which is not the only > thing detected by Robert's software, and is probably the most likely to be > actual vandalism)... >
Most vandalism reversion on enwiki (I believe) is done with automated tools and/or rollback rather than manual reversion. They typically leave more detailed summaries: "Reverted N edits by X identified as vandalism to last revision by Y" "Reverted edits by X (talk) to last version by Y" -- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man) _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
