This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Hi everyone. Quick question. When the tool is reporting an IP to AIV after a final warning is found, does it take into account when that last warning was issued? The reason I ask is because, if the last final warning on an account was from several weeks prior to a report, such as [1] this report here [2] would likely be declined as stale, unless it happened to be a fresh pattern of disruptive edits or fresh of a recent block [3]. Was wondering what the current length of time between final warning and an AIV report was. Also is there a way to vet whether the report is sent, or whether one wanted to send a different warning. An example would be if someone incorrectly placed a final warning on something like a content dispute, or an immediate final for something small like a test edit. Currently, I'm not sure exactly what kind of warning (#1, #2, #3, #final, or AIV report) until the request has been sent. Am I missing something in the interface that would help with this, rather than opening up the user talk page link and user contributions before each warning? Thanks in advance. Calmer Waters 16:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Discussion originally posted at
User talk:Calmer Waters#STiki warning messages
|
---|
Hi Calmer Waters, You have a reply at Wikipedia talk:STiki#IV reports on stale final warnings. It seems to have turned into an interesting discussion about how the system of warnings should work. So as not to interupt that, I will respond to the other bit of your message here. You said "Currently, I'm not sure exactly what kind of warning (#1, #2, #3, #final, or AIV report) until the request has been sent. Am I missing something in the interface that would help with this, rather than opening up the user talk page link and user contributions before each warning?". The answer is that you are not missing anything. The only way to tell what level warning STiki will give is to look at the user talk page and look for the highest warning listed under the current month. As Andrew alluded to, if there is more than one section named after the current month, the first such section will be interrogated by STiki. Obviously if no warning have been given in the current calendar month, a level 1 warning is given. Yaris678 ( talk) 17:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
|
Discussion of various ideas, which led to the one
below
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I think Yaris' suggestion is a good one, in theory. In practice, building a table like this is a whole lot of querying! Especially if we have to look to see if the user deleted templates off of their talk page. Counting reverts can also be error-prone. A first step, I think, is reworking the automated logic to something we like. For example, we should increment the warning if the last occurred < 2 weeks ago, regardless if it spans a month. Warnings should be restarted if the last warnings was > 2 weeks ago (and an IP account). We should look at the *last* warning instead of the *highest* warning. We should consider what other tools do and try to make this agreeable with our approach. I think it is fine to pop a prompt to users if an AIV report is about to happen (and let them confirm). The table just might be information overload (no offense). Instead of processing all those statistics, I'd much rather just see the talk page (and feel this is probably easier for most editors to interpret).
West.andrew.g (
talk) 07:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
This editor has been warned a number of times before, how would you like to proceed? Information
See also Options No warning Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 (final) AIV
|
OK. Let's forget about the table for now. Arguably it's more trouble than its worth, and we can always look at the idea again later if there is an obvious need. The main thing we want can be achieved without the table.
The first priority is for a popup if STiki thinks that AIV is in order. Arguably a level 3 or 4 warning should also have a popup because they are quite sternly worded and you don’t want to send them if you don't mean them. Finally, I think it is worth popping up a message if STiki's limited revert detection system thinks that a user has been reverted a lot recently. If the user has not got a high-level warning it may be that the user is blanking the page. If it is just that the reverts have all been without a warning it may still be worth going to a level 2. The thing about this is that it leaves all this interpretation up to the user so STiki doesn’t have to investigate the history of user talk pages and it doesn't run the risk of misleading people by reporting an inaccurate number of reverts.
So if we are going to do that, we want something like the following popup message:
<specific message>
How would you like to proceed?
See also
User contributions User talk User talk history
Options
No warning Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 (final) AIV
Where <specific message> is one of the following:
message | condition |
This user has already received a final warning. | STiki has determined that AIV is appropriate. |
This user has already received multiple warnings. A final warning may be appropriate. | STiki has determined that a final warning is appropriate. |
This user has already received multiple warnings. | STiki has determined a level 3 warning is appropriate. |
This user has been reverted multiple times in the last two weeks. | None of the above is the case but STiki has detected two reverts in the last two weeks. |
Yaris678 ( talk) 18:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
In its present and past versions STiki GUI shows the WP:Edit Summary as a parameter name Comment: rather than using the commonly used name Edit Summary:. I have noticed that this leads to confusion about Comment even among the established editors who are new to STiki, and they end up falsely concluding that "Stiki Does not show the edit summary in its diffs". Comment is generally referred to the comments placed on the talk page discussions.
as the Revision ID is the least useful parameter to decide about the Diff and the Edit summary is the 2nd most important parameter on deciding about the diff, (Most important parameter is the Diff itself, of course.) Putting the Edit summary on Top of the Edit properties box will reduce the chances of new users failing to notice it. And it will also be helpful to the regular users, as after looking at the diff on top one needs to wade through all the Parameters of Edit properties box and come to the bottom to look at the Edit summary.
Greeting STiki users! Looking at the STiki usage reports that flow through my inbox 4x daily, I've noticed some our vigilant users may have taken a break and/or slowed their use. No complaints about this; "real life" happens. However, rather than seeing 5000+ classifications daily that number is now <1000.
The consequence? Very high hit-rates! Hit rates had fallen to < 10% under intense use (no doubt a little discouraging to segments of the user-base). However, they have been at 70%+ for the past few days. This could be a great chance to slay some "low hanging fruit" and get some reverts. Some of this may also be attributable to "summer vacation" ending for most U.S. school students (and anywhere else they have an equivalent). Remember to use the "Recent usage stats." functionality in the "Queue" menu to get an idea of how hard the queues are getting depleted. Thanks, West.andrew.g ( talk) 05:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Would it be possible to merge any reverts done from this account to user:Thine Antique Pen? Thanks! Thine Antique Pen (public) 21:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Guys, I wont be editing much in the near future, hope others will keep a tab on the milestones and this talk page. cheers-- DBig Xray 09:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
@Everyone: A more efficient way for a non-permissioned user to get some STiki insight would be to use IRC channel where STiki spews out its scores. See a high score? Copy-paste the RID and then use the browser interface to inspect and revert. West.andrew.g ( talk) 05:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I never said IRC needs to be advertised to users, when they are here for STiki. Andrew had started this discussion on IRC, and I felt its a good idea to take it forward. At the moment if a new user with 400 edits comes to request for stiki, we do a quick check of his contributions for reverts, If there are sufficient reverts, to show an understanding, we allow him to use STiki. If there aren't sufficient anti-vandal reverts then the editor is asked to read policy pages and make a few anti-vandal reverts from
Special:RecentChanges which will be checked and then permission granted so that we can be sure the new editor will not do reckless reverts. Now Andrew in his message on top gave a suggestion to use STiki feeds. I feel this would be better because
Special:RecentChanges shows all the edits good or bad, but the STiki IRC feed or
#cvn-wp-en gives you filtered diffs, which will be efficient for the new users who are asked to make a few reverts to show their judgement and get permission.
Of course one can say that why take all this trouble, just simply redirect anyone who comes here to
WP:CVUA and let them handle newbies, but then one should not assume that every new user would like to get adopted.
WP:Adoption is a voluntary process, and I have seen few new editors who did not responded and lost interest in adoption for whatever reason. Also to me it seems awkward, that a user comes here asking for STiki permission and we tell him to get coaching/adopted. The new user came here with good intentions to help in fighting vandalism but found out that he will need to go through all this bureaucracy, and then if he changes his mind and goes away then all this fails its purpose. They did not need to go through adoptions when all they need to do is read a couple of pages and make few reverts to show their understanding. I hope I have clarified myself now, would be glad to address any other concern--
DBig
Xray 21:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
In terms of the options DBigXray gives, I think that if someone has a low number of edits we should say:
We recommend that new users interested in using STiki should sign up for the counter vandalism unit academy.
If someone has between 400 and 1,000 edits, we should say
We recommend that new users interested in using STiki should sign up for the counter vandalism unit academy. However, if you reckon you know enough about Vandalism already, try seeing if you can spot and undo some in Special:RecentChanges
The quiz idea wouldn't be that easy because if we used the normal wiki interface it would be very easy to copy someone's answers.
We could do a quiz that uses a modified STiki interface. That would take some development though.
Yaris678 ( talk) 12:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Has nobody noticed that I passed the 10,000 threshold two days ago ... poor me. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones ( talk) 07:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Some users are unable to use STiki because port 3306 is blocked. Would it be possible to make STiki default to port 80 in this case? This would be very useful. Thanks! -- Ixfd64 ( talk) 23:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, may I request access for my CVUA student Zaldax ( talk · contribs) please? Thanks in advance, Mdann52 ( talk) 15:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
See the "Possibly compromised account?" section of the current version] of WP:ANI and the "68.185.89.83" section of the current version of User talk:Gareth Griffith-Jones. It's possible to set up this tool so that it reports people to WP:AIV without you editing the page, and this can lead to confusion. West.andrew.g is already looking into the issue, but this is probably something that all users should know about. Nyttend ( talk) 00:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I downloaded the advanced version of STiki but couldn't figure out which one is the right STiki software (since there are more files and folders). Btw, are there more options like section blanking in this than in the current version 2.1? Torreslfchero ( talk) 06:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
All,
On the WP:STiki page, do we want to say more about choosing queues? At the moment it lists the available queues in a table in the lead but it doesn't even say how to choose one? Perhaps we should add a subsection to WP:STiki#Using STiki. This could obviously mention aspects such as queue exhaustion and the new feature that indicates which might be the best queue to go for.
Yaris678 ( talk) 15:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
...that the comments box in the bottom-left corner lets you tweak your response?
You can choose whether or not to issue a warning and change the edit summary made in the revert. It has two tabs - one for the message when reverting vandalism and one for the message when reverting good-faith edits.
...that you can select from a number of different queues using the "Rev. Queue" menu?
"Cluebot-NG", "STiki (metadata)" and "WikiTrust" detect vandalism in different ways. "Link Spam" detects the addition of links that may have been added to promote a website, rather than improve the encyclopedia.
...that a warning is not issued to an IP address if the vandalism is more than 24 hours old?
This feature is intended to prevent confusing messages being sent to the users of shared IP address.
I would like to request access for my student Fox2k11 ( talk · contribs) Dan653 ( talk) 01:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I would also like to add that Criteria 3 will be specially accepted if the instructors of CVUA request it for their CVUA trainees. --DBigXray"
Please reconsider - thanks - Mdann52 ( talk) 09:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Just a message to those who keep an eye on this page and not WT:PERM that User:Kudpung has started a section about STiki on WT:PERM which you may wish to comment on, or just watch. Regards, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 14:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Originally posted at User talk:West.andrew.g#Edit summaries
Hi Andrew. Having now reviewed several hundred revert made by those who use it, I find that their edit summaries are often simply: (Reverted edit(s) by (...) Using STiki) without further detail. It would be good to know if the edits were 'identified as vandalism' as Twinkle does. I've discovered for example, that many reverts were for unsourced, but good faith content. I don't use Stiki so I don't know if the edit summary options are so limited. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 01:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Reverted edit(s) by [[Special:Contributions/#u#|#u#]] identified as test/vandalism using [[WP:STiki|STiki]]Seems pretty clear to me. Any customization a user wants to perform for WP:DENY or other reasons is at their discretion. I don't really know what this audit of STiki users intends to prove, but to each their own. West.andrew.g ( talk) 15:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I wanted to use STiki to revert edits faster and quicker, and that I wanted to hunt quickly for vandalism so simply I can revert the edits. I will also look out for users blanking pages. Hto9950 ( talk) 12:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Note: User has only 53 mainspace edits (17 vandalism reverts) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 12:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Hi everyone. Quick question. When the tool is reporting an IP to AIV after a final warning is found, does it take into account when that last warning was issued? The reason I ask is because, if the last final warning on an account was from several weeks prior to a report, such as [1] this report here [2] would likely be declined as stale, unless it happened to be a fresh pattern of disruptive edits or fresh of a recent block [3]. Was wondering what the current length of time between final warning and an AIV report was. Also is there a way to vet whether the report is sent, or whether one wanted to send a different warning. An example would be if someone incorrectly placed a final warning on something like a content dispute, or an immediate final for something small like a test edit. Currently, I'm not sure exactly what kind of warning (#1, #2, #3, #final, or AIV report) until the request has been sent. Am I missing something in the interface that would help with this, rather than opening up the user talk page link and user contributions before each warning? Thanks in advance. Calmer Waters 16:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Discussion originally posted at
User talk:Calmer Waters#STiki warning messages
|
---|
Hi Calmer Waters, You have a reply at Wikipedia talk:STiki#IV reports on stale final warnings. It seems to have turned into an interesting discussion about how the system of warnings should work. So as not to interupt that, I will respond to the other bit of your message here. You said "Currently, I'm not sure exactly what kind of warning (#1, #2, #3, #final, or AIV report) until the request has been sent. Am I missing something in the interface that would help with this, rather than opening up the user talk page link and user contributions before each warning?". The answer is that you are not missing anything. The only way to tell what level warning STiki will give is to look at the user talk page and look for the highest warning listed under the current month. As Andrew alluded to, if there is more than one section named after the current month, the first such section will be interrogated by STiki. Obviously if no warning have been given in the current calendar month, a level 1 warning is given. Yaris678 ( talk) 17:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
|
Discussion of various ideas, which led to the one
below
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I think Yaris' suggestion is a good one, in theory. In practice, building a table like this is a whole lot of querying! Especially if we have to look to see if the user deleted templates off of their talk page. Counting reverts can also be error-prone. A first step, I think, is reworking the automated logic to something we like. For example, we should increment the warning if the last occurred < 2 weeks ago, regardless if it spans a month. Warnings should be restarted if the last warnings was > 2 weeks ago (and an IP account). We should look at the *last* warning instead of the *highest* warning. We should consider what other tools do and try to make this agreeable with our approach. I think it is fine to pop a prompt to users if an AIV report is about to happen (and let them confirm). The table just might be information overload (no offense). Instead of processing all those statistics, I'd much rather just see the talk page (and feel this is probably easier for most editors to interpret).
West.andrew.g (
talk) 07:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
This editor has been warned a number of times before, how would you like to proceed? Information
See also Options No warning Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 (final) AIV
|
OK. Let's forget about the table for now. Arguably it's more trouble than its worth, and we can always look at the idea again later if there is an obvious need. The main thing we want can be achieved without the table.
The first priority is for a popup if STiki thinks that AIV is in order. Arguably a level 3 or 4 warning should also have a popup because they are quite sternly worded and you don’t want to send them if you don't mean them. Finally, I think it is worth popping up a message if STiki's limited revert detection system thinks that a user has been reverted a lot recently. If the user has not got a high-level warning it may be that the user is blanking the page. If it is just that the reverts have all been without a warning it may still be worth going to a level 2. The thing about this is that it leaves all this interpretation up to the user so STiki doesn’t have to investigate the history of user talk pages and it doesn't run the risk of misleading people by reporting an inaccurate number of reverts.
So if we are going to do that, we want something like the following popup message:
<specific message>
How would you like to proceed?
See also
User contributions User talk User talk history
Options
No warning Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 (final) AIV
Where <specific message> is one of the following:
message | condition |
This user has already received a final warning. | STiki has determined that AIV is appropriate. |
This user has already received multiple warnings. A final warning may be appropriate. | STiki has determined that a final warning is appropriate. |
This user has already received multiple warnings. | STiki has determined a level 3 warning is appropriate. |
This user has been reverted multiple times in the last two weeks. | None of the above is the case but STiki has detected two reverts in the last two weeks. |
Yaris678 ( talk) 18:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
In its present and past versions STiki GUI shows the WP:Edit Summary as a parameter name Comment: rather than using the commonly used name Edit Summary:. I have noticed that this leads to confusion about Comment even among the established editors who are new to STiki, and they end up falsely concluding that "Stiki Does not show the edit summary in its diffs". Comment is generally referred to the comments placed on the talk page discussions.
as the Revision ID is the least useful parameter to decide about the Diff and the Edit summary is the 2nd most important parameter on deciding about the diff, (Most important parameter is the Diff itself, of course.) Putting the Edit summary on Top of the Edit properties box will reduce the chances of new users failing to notice it. And it will also be helpful to the regular users, as after looking at the diff on top one needs to wade through all the Parameters of Edit properties box and come to the bottom to look at the Edit summary.
Greeting STiki users! Looking at the STiki usage reports that flow through my inbox 4x daily, I've noticed some our vigilant users may have taken a break and/or slowed their use. No complaints about this; "real life" happens. However, rather than seeing 5000+ classifications daily that number is now <1000.
The consequence? Very high hit-rates! Hit rates had fallen to < 10% under intense use (no doubt a little discouraging to segments of the user-base). However, they have been at 70%+ for the past few days. This could be a great chance to slay some "low hanging fruit" and get some reverts. Some of this may also be attributable to "summer vacation" ending for most U.S. school students (and anywhere else they have an equivalent). Remember to use the "Recent usage stats." functionality in the "Queue" menu to get an idea of how hard the queues are getting depleted. Thanks, West.andrew.g ( talk) 05:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Would it be possible to merge any reverts done from this account to user:Thine Antique Pen? Thanks! Thine Antique Pen (public) 21:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Guys, I wont be editing much in the near future, hope others will keep a tab on the milestones and this talk page. cheers-- DBig Xray 09:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
@Everyone: A more efficient way for a non-permissioned user to get some STiki insight would be to use IRC channel where STiki spews out its scores. See a high score? Copy-paste the RID and then use the browser interface to inspect and revert. West.andrew.g ( talk) 05:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I never said IRC needs to be advertised to users, when they are here for STiki. Andrew had started this discussion on IRC, and I felt its a good idea to take it forward. At the moment if a new user with 400 edits comes to request for stiki, we do a quick check of his contributions for reverts, If there are sufficient reverts, to show an understanding, we allow him to use STiki. If there aren't sufficient anti-vandal reverts then the editor is asked to read policy pages and make a few anti-vandal reverts from
Special:RecentChanges which will be checked and then permission granted so that we can be sure the new editor will not do reckless reverts. Now Andrew in his message on top gave a suggestion to use STiki feeds. I feel this would be better because
Special:RecentChanges shows all the edits good or bad, but the STiki IRC feed or
#cvn-wp-en gives you filtered diffs, which will be efficient for the new users who are asked to make a few reverts to show their judgement and get permission.
Of course one can say that why take all this trouble, just simply redirect anyone who comes here to
WP:CVUA and let them handle newbies, but then one should not assume that every new user would like to get adopted.
WP:Adoption is a voluntary process, and I have seen few new editors who did not responded and lost interest in adoption for whatever reason. Also to me it seems awkward, that a user comes here asking for STiki permission and we tell him to get coaching/adopted. The new user came here with good intentions to help in fighting vandalism but found out that he will need to go through all this bureaucracy, and then if he changes his mind and goes away then all this fails its purpose. They did not need to go through adoptions when all they need to do is read a couple of pages and make few reverts to show their understanding. I hope I have clarified myself now, would be glad to address any other concern--
DBig
Xray 21:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
In terms of the options DBigXray gives, I think that if someone has a low number of edits we should say:
We recommend that new users interested in using STiki should sign up for the counter vandalism unit academy.
If someone has between 400 and 1,000 edits, we should say
We recommend that new users interested in using STiki should sign up for the counter vandalism unit academy. However, if you reckon you know enough about Vandalism already, try seeing if you can spot and undo some in Special:RecentChanges
The quiz idea wouldn't be that easy because if we used the normal wiki interface it would be very easy to copy someone's answers.
We could do a quiz that uses a modified STiki interface. That would take some development though.
Yaris678 ( talk) 12:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Has nobody noticed that I passed the 10,000 threshold two days ago ... poor me. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones ( talk) 07:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Some users are unable to use STiki because port 3306 is blocked. Would it be possible to make STiki default to port 80 in this case? This would be very useful. Thanks! -- Ixfd64 ( talk) 23:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, may I request access for my CVUA student Zaldax ( talk · contribs) please? Thanks in advance, Mdann52 ( talk) 15:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
See the "Possibly compromised account?" section of the current version] of WP:ANI and the "68.185.89.83" section of the current version of User talk:Gareth Griffith-Jones. It's possible to set up this tool so that it reports people to WP:AIV without you editing the page, and this can lead to confusion. West.andrew.g is already looking into the issue, but this is probably something that all users should know about. Nyttend ( talk) 00:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I downloaded the advanced version of STiki but couldn't figure out which one is the right STiki software (since there are more files and folders). Btw, are there more options like section blanking in this than in the current version 2.1? Torreslfchero ( talk) 06:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
All,
On the WP:STiki page, do we want to say more about choosing queues? At the moment it lists the available queues in a table in the lead but it doesn't even say how to choose one? Perhaps we should add a subsection to WP:STiki#Using STiki. This could obviously mention aspects such as queue exhaustion and the new feature that indicates which might be the best queue to go for.
Yaris678 ( talk) 15:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
...that the comments box in the bottom-left corner lets you tweak your response?
You can choose whether or not to issue a warning and change the edit summary made in the revert. It has two tabs - one for the message when reverting vandalism and one for the message when reverting good-faith edits.
...that you can select from a number of different queues using the "Rev. Queue" menu?
"Cluebot-NG", "STiki (metadata)" and "WikiTrust" detect vandalism in different ways. "Link Spam" detects the addition of links that may have been added to promote a website, rather than improve the encyclopedia.
...that a warning is not issued to an IP address if the vandalism is more than 24 hours old?
This feature is intended to prevent confusing messages being sent to the users of shared IP address.
I would like to request access for my student Fox2k11 ( talk · contribs) Dan653 ( talk) 01:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I would also like to add that Criteria 3 will be specially accepted if the instructors of CVUA request it for their CVUA trainees. --DBigXray"
Please reconsider - thanks - Mdann52 ( talk) 09:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Just a message to those who keep an eye on this page and not WT:PERM that User:Kudpung has started a section about STiki on WT:PERM which you may wish to comment on, or just watch. Regards, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 14:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Originally posted at User talk:West.andrew.g#Edit summaries
Hi Andrew. Having now reviewed several hundred revert made by those who use it, I find that their edit summaries are often simply: (Reverted edit(s) by (...) Using STiki) without further detail. It would be good to know if the edits were 'identified as vandalism' as Twinkle does. I've discovered for example, that many reverts were for unsourced, but good faith content. I don't use Stiki so I don't know if the edit summary options are so limited. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 01:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Reverted edit(s) by [[Special:Contributions/#u#|#u#]] identified as test/vandalism using [[WP:STiki|STiki]]Seems pretty clear to me. Any customization a user wants to perform for WP:DENY or other reasons is at their discretion. I don't really know what this audit of STiki users intends to prove, but to each their own. West.andrew.g ( talk) 15:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I wanted to use STiki to revert edits faster and quicker, and that I wanted to hunt quickly for vandalism so simply I can revert the edits. I will also look out for users blanking pages. Hto9950 ( talk) 12:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Note: User has only 53 mainspace edits (17 vandalism reverts) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 12:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)