User talk:Chenzw

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

If you find this page on a site that is not Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. The page may be old and the owner of this page may not have a relationship with sites that are not Wikipedia. The original page is located at http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chenzw.

Wikimedia Foundation
This is the User talk page for Chenzw, where you can send messages and comments to Chenzw.
User talk
IM IN UR WIKI RVRTING UR EDITS lolcat.jpg





Tech News: 2015-51[change source]

17:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Socks[change source]

I'm starting to get an idea of where socks go when they disappear in the laundry! --Auntof6 (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

:D Chenzw  Talk  02:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 January 2016[change source]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 19:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-04[change source]

16:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Abuse filter[change source]

Hey Chenzw, hope you're doing well. I'm not sure who manages the abuse filter here (I know there isn't edit filter managers), but this sort of edit should be getting at least warned and tagged, if not disallowed. Riley Huntley (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The abuse filter would be too specific and prone to false negatives in this case. I will let my anti-vandalism bot handle this instead. Previously the sandbox was on the bot's exclusion list. Chenzw  Talk  02:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
On second thought, the abuse filter is possible here. I will try and get a rule written within the next few days. Chenzw  Talk  02:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Personally, I don't think that change was so terrible on the sandbox page. There have been worse changes there, IIRC. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
However, it seems that 166.216.130.0/24 is abusing the sandbox, over a few days already. The next time the IP makes the same type of edits, I am going to block that range. Chenzw  Talk  03:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Bot training[change source]

Would your bot like to eat a couple more diffs?

In this diff, a user changed the number of children that Paul Revere had to 69. Even if the bot is unwilling to revert such changes, we should somehow flag the addition of the number 69 for human review, wherever it occurs.

In this one, patriots were changed to loyalists (wrong), horseback was changed to pigback (also wrong), and other changes were made. All were vandalism. None were noticed by a human at the time. Not sure if these were within the capabilities of the bot, but here they are.

Your thoughts on the matter are welcome! Etamni | ✉   01:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I have added both diffs to the training set as vandalism. I am not sure right now how we could go ahead with the flagging for review implementation, though – perhaps the abuse filter? The second diff is surprisingly within the capabilities of the bot – it was quite close to flagging the diff as vandalism. It is quite amazing how sometimes the bot will be able to recognise the vandalism-specific features. Chenzw  Talk  03:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Your friend is back[change source]

Pleasee see this edit. The bot caught the vandalizm, but I think we have a sock of a blocked user who was previously editing the same page. Etamni | ✉   09:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I wonder why I seem to be making a lot of new friends lately...  ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°  Chenzw  Talk  11:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

school IPs[change source]

Excuse me, Chenzw: The 166.216.130.0/24 range consists of school IPs. For what particular reason do you think they're abusing the sandbox? There have been worse edits and vandalism to the sandbox. Please consider giving them warnings, and then blocking if the "vandalism" ever gets worse. Angela Maureen (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Over a period of 3 days, the range has made the following edits to the sandbox:
  1. https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&diff=5312817&oldid=5312702
  2. https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&diff=5312824&oldid=5312817 (also a legal threat)
  3. https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&diff=5312831&oldid=5312828
  4. https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&diff=5314136&oldid=5313669
  5. https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&diff=5314208&oldid=5314159
  6. https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&diff=5314488&oldid=5314229
  7. https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&diff=5314549&oldid=5314491
For edits 4, 5, 6 in particular, there was no sign that the edits were used for testing of wiki markup/syntax. Taking into consideration past sandbox history from this range, I determined that those edits were an attempt at gaming the system by passing the edits off as "testing movie lines". We remind editors who are using the sandbox that they should not add "inappropriate things like copyrighted material, swearing, or other attacks in the sandbox", and that in spite of how most our warning templates invite editors to the sandbox, the sandbox should not be treated as a page which offers editors immunity to blocks.
I will not overturn the block. If you wish, you can ask Peterdownunder or Macdonald-ross to review the block. They are active on-wiki at the moment. Chenzw  Talk  00:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
So I looked at these examples, and was rather shocked. It is very clear that the school range needed blocking. I had not realized that the sandbox edits needed regular watching, but will now do so more often. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • When someone edits the sandbox, they are able to see text that tells them where to make their edit. Would it make sense to add a reminder to that line about what is appropriate? Etamni | ✉   18:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid it is all too obvious that these editors went there because they thought they could get away with those comments without penalty. They will do whatever we let them do. Advice is only useful to people of good intent. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I enabled abuse filter 64 a while ago to tackle this problem. It is in warn-only mode. Chenzw  Talk  02:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • While I agree that advice is only useful to people of good intent, the "advice" on that page would give us a stronger case when warning or blocking users for behavior there. Etamni | ✉   10:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-05[change source]

21:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk Page Stalker[change source]

Obscured jaguar.jpg The WikiJaguar Award for Excellence
For your recent assistance responding to the request I left on someone else's talk page, I award you the WikiJaguar Award for Excellence in talk page stalking efforts. PokestarFan (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)