West.andrew.g (talk | contribs) Moving barnstars to "awards" section of WP:STiki |
→Bot activity: new section |
||
Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
Thank you all for the barnstars, I've moved them over to the "awards" section over at [[WP:STiki]]. Thanks! [[User:West.andrew.g|West.andrew.g]] ([[User talk:West.andrew.g#top|talk]]) 16:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC) |
Thank you all for the barnstars, I've moved them over to the "awards" section over at [[WP:STiki]]. Thanks! [[User:West.andrew.g|West.andrew.g]] ([[User talk:West.andrew.g#top|talk]]) 16:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC) |
||
== Bot activity == |
|||
While performing some data analysis, I ran into your account as an oddity because some of your activity resembled bot-like activity, yet you do not have a bot flag. Upon review of the bot-like edits, I see a '''ton''' of structured edits from your account over the course of nearly a year. Are you operating a bot (external automated program that edits the wiki) through your user account? If so, please cease doing so immediately and contact WP:BAG for approval of a bot-flagged account to run your bot under. If not, how is it that you are making several edits/second for weeks at a time? --[[User:EpochFail|<span title="ohai" style="font-variant:small-caps">EpochFail</span>]]<small><sup>([[User_talk:EpochFail|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/EpochFail|work]])</sup></small> 18:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:49, 13 April 2012
Talk page for West.andrew.g:
Response to unblock request
The Arbitration Committee has reviewed your block and the information you have submitted privately, and is prepared to unblock you conditionally. The conditions of your unblock are as follows:
- You provide a copy of the code you used for your "research" to Danese Cooper, Chief Technical Officer and to any other developer or member of her staff whom she identifies. [Note - this step has been completed]
- You review any future research proposals with the following groups: the wikiresearch-L mailing list <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l>; the wikimedia-tech mailing list for any research relating in whole or in part to technical matters; and your faculty advisor and/or University's research ethics committee for any research that involves responses by humans, whether directly or as an indirect effect of the experiment. Please note that your recent research measured human responses to technical processes; you should be prepared to provide evidence that those aspects have been reviewed in advance of conducting any similar research.
- Should this project, the Wikimedia Foundation, or an inter-project group charged with cross-site research be developed, they may establish global requirements for research which may supersede the requirements in (2) above.
- Any bots you develop for use on this project, whether for research or other purposes, must be reviewed by the Bot Approvals Group (WP:BAG) in advance of use, unless otherwise approved by the WMF technical staff.
- You must identify all accounts that are under your control by linking them to your main account. The accounts used in your July 2010 research will remain blocked.
Please confirm below that you agree to abide by these conditions when participating in this project. Once you have done so, a member of the Arbitration Committee will unblock.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree to these conditions, and offer a sincere apology to the community. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Some context on this block would later be published in a paper published at WECSR'12. West.andrew.g (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Meta feed thoughts
I was thinking about the idea of a "meta" queue combining data from, say, the Cluebot-NG and STiki (metadata) queues. The most obvious form of such is to take the Cluebot-NG feed and check to see if its output also falls afoul of the STiki (metadata) detection system (using current thresholds or, if need be for getting some output if the two mechanisms should not intersect very much in their output, more relaxed ones). This idea is obvious enough that I'm sure you've thought of it. As a modification of it, I suggest having a fusion as follows:
- 50% of the time, use the above double-filtered system.
- 25% of the time, use the Cluebot-NG feed.
- 25% of the time, use the STiki (metadata) queue.
The advantages of this are as follows (there may be others):
- It keeps gathering data usable for improving the STiki (metadata) algorithm (including coming up with a better version for filtering the Cluebot-NG feed, if adjustments to its parameters for this purpose are needed).
- The output will be false positives sufficiently often that people won't be just madly clicking "vandalism".
- If the double-filtered system isn't outputting sufficiently many cases (is too stringent), it can just fall back to more frequently doing a mixture of the Cluebot-NG and STiki (metadata) queues.
Your thoughts? Allens (talk | contribs) 10:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
STiki
Is there a way that STiki can run as a Wikipedia script (on my monobook.js page) or a Firefox extension or plugin? What about a Greasemonkey script? Allen (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- What do you mean by this? Have you ever used STiki in a desktop environment before? STiki is not Javascript, nor is intended to be used while using a wiki in a typical web browser. The closest thing I can imagine to your suggestion is running STiki as a Java applet embedded in a webpage -- but I am not sure what that would gain. Or perhaps I am misinterpreting your suggestion? Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe I am misunderstanding what STiki actually is.
- Am I mistaken, or can STiki be used on Wikipedia? No, I have never used it before.
- It sounded like a cool tool for editing wiki pages. I just didn't want to download anything.
- Can you please help me understand? Allen (talk)
- I have started using STiki. It is pretty cool. How do I change the "Warn Offending Editor?" box to show the edit that caused the vandalism? At least one editor has asked me what was the edit. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- Again, I am little unclear on what you are asking? I quickly searched your user-talk page and couldn't find any mention of such a request. The "Warn Offending Editor?" option is simply a checkbox, how could it possible show an edit? Isn't the diff window "showing the edit that caused the vandalism?". Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for such a valuable tool. I don't know what I was thinking about, but I think it should be this: "How do I get STiki to give me an option to watch the talk page of the user whose edit(s) I reverted?" However, as I said, at least one user has asked what kind of vandalism was being committed. I honestly have to say "I don't know". I go through so many edits with STiki, that I don't know what edit was on what page or where committed by what user. Is there some way that this can be resolved? I have a feeling that some editors are going to get really angry and -- who knows what will happen? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, your query is much clearer now. First to answer your question: If you want to watch the talk page of a reverted editor you should wait until the edit is reverted and appears in the "last revert panel". From there, you can use the "(talk)" link to visit the user's talk page in your browser and watchlist it in the standard fashion. STiki does not provide this functionality directly because I don't see it as a good idea. Do you really want a watchlist containing 100's or 1000's of IP talk pages? I don't. It is convention they should come to your talk page if there is any issue.
- Continuing with your other comments: I don't understand how a user could ask about "what kind of vandalism" is being committed. Vandalism is WP:Vandalism. I realize you may do many edits with STiki, but if someone complains, it should be no issue to track down the instance. Go to the complainants talk-page, STiki should have left them a warning there. This warning will indicate the page affected; visit that page's history and looking for your edit with STiki. This should be enough to produce a diff of the actions in question. Finally, why would some editors be "really angry"? If it was truly vandalism, who cares. If they have a reason to be angry, then why are you irresponsibly using the STiki tool?
- I guess I shouldn't be adding the IP addresss.
- I feel a bit dumb about how to find the edits. That should have been easy to figure out. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for such a valuable tool. I don't know what I was thinking about, but I think it should be this: "How do I get STiki to give me an option to watch the talk page of the user whose edit(s) I reverted?" However, as I said, at least one user has asked what kind of vandalism was being committed. I honestly have to say "I don't know". I go through so many edits with STiki, that I don't know what edit was on what page or where committed by what user. Is there some way that this can be resolved? I have a feeling that some editors are going to get really angry and -- who knows what will happen? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Again, I am little unclear on what you are asking? I quickly searched your user-talk page and couldn't find any mention of such a request. The "Warn Offending Editor?" option is simply a checkbox, how could it possible show an edit? Isn't the diff window "showing the edit that caused the vandalism?". Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have started using STiki. It is pretty cool. How do I change the "Warn Offending Editor?" box to show the edit that caused the vandalism? At least one editor has asked me what was the edit. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
CHANGELOG for 2012-04-11 STiki Release! (and 2012-04-12)
Significant changes were rolled out in this version, causing the version number to bump up 2.0 -> 2.1. Many of these were front-end modifications to the GUI. These feature requests were a little easier to accommodate than I had expected, meaning: (a) STiki has a nice organizational framework or (b) I've screwed up and I am about to be bombarded with bug reports. The major changes are as follows:
- Good-faith revert is now available as a fourth classification option. Good-faith reverts do not post any messages to the offending user's talk page. The comment left with good-faith reverts is visible -- and can be modified -- via the (newly!) tabbed comment panel (see the screenshot). The leader-board now also contains a good-faith ("AGF") column.
- The notion of rollback is now fully integrated. Any revert action is now a "rollback" (including good-faith revert). For users that do not have the native rollback permission, we implement rollback functionality in software. To this end, the diff browser now displays all edits that will be undone (not just the most recent one). If more than one edit would be rolled-back, this is noted beneath the article title in purple font (see the screenshot).
- Settings are now *persistent* between STiki sessions. This includes settings such as checkboxes, form fields, and window size/placement. Only *queue selection* is not stored; this remains server-set so users can be steered away from queues that are experiencing difficulty. Configuration is stored in XML format in the user's home directory. Special thanks to User:Meiskam for his assistance with this.
- Backend: Logic added so CBNG queue will not enqueue edits made by bots.
As always, thank you for your continued use of the STiki tool. Please report any bugs you encounters. Shortly STiki will past the 100,000 revert mark, and this should be a great milestone in the software's history! Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Piggybacking on this release, a few minor bug fixes and feature requests were fulfilled on new build released 2012-04-12. Notables fixes include:
- The "activate hyperlinks" setting is now correctly read and applied from the user configuration XML. (T#007)
- Functionality has been added so the diff-browser can be scrolled using the keyboard. The keys are PG_UP and PG_DOWN (slight scrolling) or UP_ARROW and DOWN_ARROW (more dramatic). The "classification" panel must have focus for this functionality to work (i.e., in a state where pressing "v" would fire a "vandalism" revert). (T#001)
- Good-faith reverts will no longer be marked as "minor" (as vandalism/ spam edits are), per the policy of WP:Minor. Because native RB cannot be marked "minor", good-faith reverts must use "standard" editing calls to simulate rollback functionality ("software rollback"), incurring some processor/bandwidth overhead.
- Thanks again, West.andrew.g (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Piggybacking on this release, a few minor bug fixes and feature requests were fulfilled on new build released 2012-04-12. Notables fixes include:
Feedback on 2012-04-11 Release
Dear Andrew, Thanks for accepting our suggestions and recommendations in your latest release above, I have tried it and I must say that I am glad to use the new version. The "rollback derived differences" was much needed, I can now clearly see what changes my revert will make. I hope the scroll down feature will soon come up. Thanks, the 100,000 milestone is fast approaching, be ready with your Champagne bottle -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 21:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you! Yes, your "scroll issue" should be resolved shortly. To be honest, it got kind of lost in the midst of the much larger changes. Assuming it doesn't pose any unexpected difficulty, I should roll out a fix in the next couple of days (as I also take care of all the minor issues popping up as a result of the new release). Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- This feature request was fulfilled in the 2012-04-12 release. See the release notes immediately above for more information about its operation. This matter is considered closed and ticket T#001 has been wiped from the active table over at Wikipedia_talk:STiki. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 03:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
STiki Collaborator Request
You mentioned in your post on my talk page that you are looking for collaborators, I would be happy to help! -Mcfar54
- I, too, would like to help, but I know next-to-nothing about computer programming. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 01:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hello to you both (and anyone else who appears here). As I mentioned in my previous post, I'm looking for someone who can help me manage the non-technical aspects of the STiki project. This would include:
- Issuing barn-stars to STiki users when they reach milestone edits (aiding user retention).
- Being a talk-page watcher; combined with a general understanding of how STiki works
- Drumming up support/advertisement in non-spammy ways (I mentioned WP:Banner)
- Monitoring STiki users for signs of abuse (and trying to correct it)
- Your own creative ideas about how STiki can improve its reach/experience/etc.
- Ideally, I'd like to find 1 or 2 experienced individuals who are willing to get on-board for some period of time. I can provide database reports, advice, and anything else I have at my disposal -- but I'd like the person to be largely independent in their work. I don't have much to offer in return (maybe an offical "title"?) but it could be good experience for an editor. Interested parties, let me know! Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 03:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hello to you both (and anyone else who appears here). As I mentioned in my previous post, I'm looking for someone who can help me manage the non-technical aspects of the STiki project. This would include:
- I wouldn't mind offering my services for your consideration :) Orphan Wiki (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you! (x3)
Thank you all for the barnstars, I've moved them over to the "awards" section over at WP:STiki. Thanks! West.andrew.g (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Bot activity
While performing some data analysis, I ran into your account as an oddity because some of your activity resembled bot-like activity, yet you do not have a bot flag. Upon review of the bot-like edits, I see a ton of structured edits from your account over the course of nearly a year. Are you operating a bot (external automated program that edits the wiki) through your user account? If so, please cease doing so immediately and contact WP:BAG for approval of a bot-flagged account to run your bot under. If not, how is it that you are making several edits/second for weeks at a time? --EpochFail(talk|work) 18:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)