Wikipedia talk:STiki/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

AIV reports on stale final warnings

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)

I notice there has been no reply to this. I think that is because no one knows quite what to make of it. I think STiki was developed under the assumption that there was a pre-existing consensus around the system of a new heading each month and four warnings in that month being required before a request is made to AIV. I think that assumption comes from how Huggle works, but please correct me if I am wrong. This system is obviously flawed in that one can do 4 acts of vandalism at the end of the month and 4 at the start of the next month. You have now raised a different issue, which is that if you do some vandalism at the beginning of the month, it may be considered "stale" and hence irrelevant by the end of the month. I think it would be good to have a wider discussion to work out what the system of warnings should be. I would say that ideally it would depend slightly on the context. Perhaps we could agree on something that looks like this:

• A registered account that is only used for vandalism should be nominated/blocked after only one or two warnings, or zero warnings in the most egregious cases.
• An IP address should in general be allowed four warnings in any period of, say, two weeks. However:
  • If there is a history of several months of vandalism with negligible constructive edits the IP should be nominated/blocked, irrespective of the number of warnings in any specific period within the several months.
  • If there is a history of a large number of constructive edits then the IP would require 4 warnings in a shorter period, say 5 days.
  • If the IP has recently had a block expire, fewer warnings are required. Maybe something like 0 warnings if vandalism resumes the same day and 1 warning if vandalism resumes with a week or after any time if there has been no constructive editing in the interim.

Obviously, the above would be slightly complicated to implement in code across different tools but I think it would be doable.

Does anyone know what ClueBot NG does at the moment? This example you used shows it starting a new section relating to the same month.

Yaris678 (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I am in a bit of a hurry at the moment, but what Yaris said seems correct. Everything increments internal to a single month. The fact that CBNG adds duplicate section names, rather than just appending to the to the existing one is also problematic (as it currently coded). STiki's code computes the current month/year and then looks for a section with that title. In the case there are two of them with the same name (which the API doesn't accommodate well) it only grabs the first. Thus, in this case, it saw the 4im warning in the calendar month and reported to AIV. This can be fixed, and broader improvements can be made. We need to reach some consensus on" "after x time without a warning, restart the warnings, or at least do not escalate the severity." The month-spanning issue is also relevant. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Calmer Waters here. I've had a few reports declined because the diff that I reverted was a few weeks old. If possible, for non-admins, there should be a prompt requesting if the user wants to make a report to AIV. Than, the STiki user should examine all of the edits and determine if they are vandalism, how old the vandalism is, if the user has been warned sufficiently, etc. For admins like CW, there should be the same prompt requesting to block. Electric Catfish 18:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I can see why the warning system would go off of the last numbered warning for the month we are in. I believe Cluebot does the same thing; except, that it will allow a user to reset the count. For example, if the #4 warning has become stale, it's something minor like "agthf", or the IP shows signs that the address is dynamic (such a string of good edits weeks after the last warning was given but a different type of vandalism shows up, one may issue a #1 or #2 warning, which to the best of my knowledge, resets the count of both Huggle and Cluebot in regards to future warnings or reports (unless the next editor uses the prompts to do something else). I would suggest at the very least maybe an opt-out option of automatically reporting to AIV (maybe like the Good faith opt-out to warn). Also does it read the last warning to see if a final warning is in the month before reporting, or does it look for any final warning for the given month (ie. would it report this warning pattern next #2,#3, #4, #2)? Kindly Calmer Waters 04:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The users and IP who keep removing the warning templates on their talk page such as this [4] (edits) is another concern, --DBigXray 12:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Although you do have to admit that it is a slightly odd thing about Wikipedia. Talk pages are, in theory, about communicating with each other, not about keeping a log. I guess that is part of the reason why my idea below includes a count of the number of reverts that a user has had.

The system being as it is, it would be helpful if STiki (or any anti-vandal tool) looked at the history of a user talk page, rather than just the current version.

Yaris678 (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Tracking talk page history has latency considerations; why I have avoided it in the past. Same thing with the user-centric revert history queries that some are discussing. Simply counting visible templates on a user-page (and timestamping them), though, is straightforward. IMO, the removal of a warning template from a talk page (especially one of a non-autoconfirmed user) should be a firm rule/flag in the edit filter. There shouldn't be an expectation that one has to look at the talk page history for every user they are about to warn. This is unreasonable for manual reverts and is especially unreasonable considering the use of edit assistants. I mean, if I wanted to get away with vandalizing Wikipedia.... WP:BEANS. West.andrew.g (talk) 07:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Using popup messages to STiki users to deal with this

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) Thanks for the heads up Yaris. I do appreciate it. I can understand how complicated it could be to make a program such as this. Was just bringing up an observation from the blocking admin perspective. You might be surprised at the amount of reports we have to decline as not actionable or require a lot more research than the noticeboard is intended for (ie. content disputes). Not that we won't block for those too, but some are better handled by those who deal with the topic regularly (especially when dealing with possible blocks for established users, which aren't so matter of fact). I would admit it is something as a whole the declining admins or editors should probably follow up more with the reporting editors. I do like how it does prompt a DTTR notice when dealing with users over 50 edits. Calmer Waters 20:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of various ideas, which led to the one below

I think doing a popup message similar to the one for WP:DTTR is a good idea. If we have a clever system we can slightly short circuit the problems with calendar months too. Could we make it so that if STiki thinks it needs to do a level 3 or higher warning (which will be a small minority of cases since there is a lot of sigle-edit IPs) it calculates the data for and presents a message that looks like this? This editor has been warned a number of times before, how would you like to proceed? Information Time period (days) 1   7   14   30   90 Number of edits 1 3 3 4 12 Number of warnings 1 2 2 1 8 Highest level of warning   2 2 2 2 4 Number of reverts 1 2 3 3 8 Number of blocks 0 0 0 0 1 Options No warning Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 (final) AIV Any thoughts on this? Yaris678 (talk) 09:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC) Actually, thinking about it, the popup should also appear if the user has had more than, say, three reverts in the last 14 days. That would deal with the possibility of a user blanking the talk page, but it would also deal with cases where someone has been reverted multiple times but not actually warned. Certain standard reverts are kept track of anyway by STiki so it should be doable to use that information in this way. (Obviously if this is the cause, the message at the top of the popup should probably say "This editor has been reverted a number of times before, how would you like to proceed?" I think it would also help to stick in wikilinks to the user contributions and user talk page to let the STiki user investigate further. i.e. something like... This editor has been warned/reverted a number of times before, how would you like to proceed? Time period (days) 1   7   14   30   90 Number of edits 1 3 3 4 12 Number of warnings 1 2 2 1 8 Highest level of warning   2 2 2 2 4 Number of reverts 1 2 3 3 8 Number of blocks 0 0 0 0 1 Further info User contributions   User talk Options No warning Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 (final) AIV Yaris678 (talk) 07:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC) 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) Changing the incrementing rules as you say and doing a simple report-to-AIV-/-don't-report-to-AIV popup make sense and I guess it makes sense to prioritise those changes. However, I would like to make three points that indicate that doing a table like this is something that we may want to look at, at some point. The fact of lots of querying doesn't matter too much if we only generate any extra querying when we do the popup. The popup will be a relatively infrequent occurrence. You could report the number of reverts in the simple way that you do it already. You would have to provide a caveat, but I think that is better than nothing. A more sophisticated approach could be developed later but we don't have to wait until then to get something out. While there is definitely scope for improving the formatting of the table (I think transposing it would be a good start), I wouldn't worry about information overload. Once people get used to a certain type of big table it starts to feel natural to them. A good example of this is football league tables. Masses of teams, all sorts of stats, but show it to any football fan and they'll understand the state of the league straight away. Yaris678 (talk) 08:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Since I mentioned transposing the table, I thought I'd have a go and see what it looked like. I think it's a big improvement. This editor has been warned a number of times before, how would you like to proceed? Information  days    edits   warns   height  reverts  blocks 1  2  1   2   2   0   7  4  2   2   3   0   14  8  4   3   6   0   30  11  4   3   7   0   90  13  6   4   9   1   See also User contributions   User talk Options No warning Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 (final) AIV Yaris678 (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC) "Height" represents highest warning template level, correct? How would it detect this if the user was warned without a template - ie manually? I think for cases like that it should (perhaps) refer you to their talk... Theopolisme TALK 21:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Hmmm... it would obviously be very hard to assign a level to non-template warning. This system would only work where templates are used.... but that is the vast majority of cases. I guess it could be argued that there is a potential that people would rely too much on the table though and that we should force people to do the manual interpretation, to prevent errors that would come from relying too much on the table. I would have some sympathy with such an argument because we are talking about a small minority or cases that get to the point where the message pops up, so maybe it's not too much hassle for the user to do the manual interpretation. Yaris678 (talk) 08:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

When the popup should popup

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)

First of all, I should like to say thank you to Yaris for the time and effort you have spent on this. Secondly, this last proposal is excellent, and I for one would be delighted to be able to make use of it. We certainly need some assistance and this seems to avoid the previously mentioned complications. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Also want to thank you Yaris. Even just a popup or prompt before reporting the user to AIV would be very helpful. I would surmise that the reports are appropriate more often then not from a review of recent reports blocked to those declined from this tool; however, it would allow a chance to look a little more in depth before making an actual report. I think this diligence in determining that "yes this editor needs immediately blocked" is something that should be behind any request to remove access. These reports are not only a reflection on the editors being reported, but also on the ones making the report. I have seen a few editors fail a RfA based in part on the reliability of their reports to this noticeboard. Just something to keep in mind. :) Kindly Calmer Waters 03:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree this can be added, I guess an option to enable-disable this extra feature must also be included--DBigXray 00:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree on all points above with the possible exception of the "revert counting" message. If the purpose of this is to detect talk page blanking then there are more elegant ways. I will implement this dialogue as an opt-out option and improve automated warning logic as discussed much further above. Added as T#018 and I will ponder over this "revert counting" bit in my head for a while. A new version will not be pushed before Sept. 8 given academic deadlines and conference travel. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 09:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Minor GUI modification requests

Proposal 1 # rename "Comment:" as "Edit Summary:"

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.

• Agree as proposer --DBigXray 00:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• Agree No objection. West.andrew.g (talk) 09:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Added as T#017. Next version push will be on Sept. 8, at earliest. West.andrew.g (talk) 09:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal 2 # Interchange the location of Parameters "Revision ID:"and "Comment:"

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.

• Agree as proposer --DBigXray 00:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• Not sure I'd like to hear what others have to say about this one. (1) I'm mentally trained to look in the current location so this may take adjusting for experienced users. (2) It could be argued that it is easier to notice the comment "at the very bottom", rather than the suggested move which puts it more "in the middle of the GUI" -- though I do see your argument. (3) Very minor and non-deal-breaking. But... it could look funny to have an frequently empty space at the top of the metadata panel (i.e., no comment present). (4) Does anyone use the "revision ID" for anything?! If so, why is it even there? We provide diff links and etc. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 09:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Also Revision ID can be altogether removed, as it has no practical use during RC patrol activity such as using STiki. --DBigXray 09:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I think top of the box is the natural place for the edit summary. Agree that it makes sense to remove the RID number. Yaris678 (talk) 15:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

STiki PSA: Revert opportunities!

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)

DBigXray likes this. Thanks for the heads-up After a long time had the "Original STiki Experience" --DBigXray 19:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE:Party is over guys. Fraggle81 is Back. He was away for the last three days so I guess the Vandals were having a free ride. --DBigXray 20:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Not back in true form, yet ;-). Last 24 hours showed ~900 classifications with a 45% revert rate. Still much higher than the 5000/10% we were operating at a little over a week ago. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 05:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Request

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)

TAP had a merger in past as well Wikipedia_talk:STiki/Archive_7#Merge. The above request is for adding not only the past edits but also any future edits by TAP public to TAP. So this will be a slightly different case than the last time. Please wait for Andrew--DBigXray 21:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. I assume one would want the "pass/ignore" markings to be shared between the accounts, as well? I'm thinking this is code probably best placed in the server-side stored procedures. Let me sleep on it. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 09:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done This has been completed. Transferred 51 classifications from the "public" account to the primary one. Any activity under the public account (i.e., future classifications and "ignores") will be mapped to the primary one. Also set up infrastructure to simplify this process should anyone else request in the future. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Permissions

• Request: Yes, I already requested myself on the rollback permissions page, please check, because I look forward to using STiki, Thank you.--GoShow (...............) 18:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Accepted With 858 Article namespace edits This user deserves the permission. His reverts are correct. Permission to use STiki will be granted shortly. Till then GoShow please make yourself fully familiar with WP:NOTVANDAL and WP:VANDAL. --DBigXray 18:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Hope you enjoy the tool. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why this user has made Misleading_Edit_summary saying that he has used STiki, while in reality they were manually made.--DBigXray 20:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

* I don't have a problem with the attribution -- if he found the edits using STiki and then used the links to conduct some type of deeper investigation (i.e., changes not resulting in a complete identity revert). Not sure if that is what happened here, though. I'll dig a little deeper. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

* Nevermind, I see. The timestamps don't agree. I hadn't approved him yet, and he doesn't seem to have rollback yet, either. West.andrew.g (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

* There is a *possible* benign explanation, but one I will not publish here until we see what he says. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I spotted them on a STiki javascript, but no worries, I said I caught on them I couldn't use the the buttons anyway--GoShow (...............) 04:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

What is a STiki javascript? Whatever it is, I didn't implement it and would be interested to see it. West.andrew.g (talk) 05:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

To summarize what GoShow wrote here... He downloaded the tool. And by opening and re-closing it, he was able to see the single "preview" edit popped before you login (which he couldn't do). He then followed the links to manually revert the edit. Brute-force and rather arduous, but creative nonetheless. Sorry, GoShow for starting to head down the road of bad faith for a moment.

@GoShow: "Java STiki" is the *only* STiki. You can now login using the same tool and use the classification buttons. Do not abuse it!

@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.

Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 05:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

No it is you sir who needs to be thankful anyway, pardon me for being too hyper about the java drama hotflashes, but thank you anyway.--GoShow (...............) 05:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

@Andrew, I made the same conclusion by the above clarifications. Was just making sure everything was alll right, as I felt this a bit wierd to be honest,

@GoShow, I have posted a welcome message on your talk you can check out the links, cheers--DBigXray 05:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikibreak

Guys, I wont be editing much in the near future, hope others will keep a tab on the milestones and this talk page. cheers--DBigXray 09:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hope everything is okay and you return refreshed! I will try to keep a watch on those pages, though I'll mention that due to WikiSym I'll also be on a bit of a travel wikibreak from 8/22 until the beginning of September. I expect connectivity to be far better than my last travels, though, so it potentially won't have much of an impact. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

IRC suggestion For new users requesting STiki

@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)

Pardon the lack of my IRC experience, can you give us a link to connect to IRC for Stiki ? --DBigXray 06:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Try this online client: [5], you'll want to enter "#arm-stiki-scores" as the channel (sans quotes). Scores on [0,1], and watch out for the really low scores in scientific notation. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 07:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The scores are cool, but copy pasting the diffs is not a very user friendly way, can it have links to the diffs such as this http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=#cvn-wp-en ? --DBigXray 07:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure about that idea DBigXray. Rather than making it super-easy to avoid the STiki interface, how about we encourage people to get the experience to understand the diffs and the policies and then apply for rollback permission. Yaris678 (talk) 07:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong in encouraging people to understand about diffs, but the matter of the fact is copypasting diffs makes the process un-necessarily lengthy, and we will be adding unnecessary technical overhead and this might lead to a loss of enthusiasm among the new volunteers for antivalism activity as they would think its far too complicated. On the other hand #cvn-wp-en gives comment along with direct links, Evidently more human --DBigXray 08:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? Why would we want to make it easier for people to avoid the proper STiki interface? I can just about imagine that some people might find the IRC channel interesting but it is never going to top the interface for all sorts of reasons. Yaris678 (talk) 08:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)(edit conflict)

Concur, Yaris! I have been trying to discover just where this whole strand – started elsewhere – is leading, and why it is here in the first place. My suggestion is that it should be struck from this article's page forever. Regards, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• @Gareth It is not wise to give your Judgement straightaway without any clue of what is happening. I will suggest you to read and understand WP:IRC first. You will get an idea of what we are discussing here.--DBigXray 10:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

... Already had read and understood, thank you. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so Yaris was not aware of the context. Please see the preceeding thread to gain an insight on what led to this discussion. This discussion is for new users requesting permission to use STiki, but have no prior experience of anti-vandal reverts. of course we are not asking people to avoid STiki interface. --DBigXray 08:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I had already read the discussion above about someone looking at edits that appear before you log in to STiki. I can see using the IRC channel might be a more efficient way to get the same effect. But we have restrictions on who can log into the interface for a reason so I don't see why we would want to make the IRC channel into an "interface lite". Yaris678 (talk) 09:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Goodness... FWIW, the IRC channel, by design, was never intended for human consumption. WikiTrust and CBNG are spewing a feed of similar form but these are primarily so the the tools can communicate. (At some point, I think someone used this IRC so STiki's edit selection could be fed into Huggle? Or at least there was discussion of this). It's not a big deal to add a diff-link and I might do that. Regardless, this is not something that should be advertised for new users. Even for the least experienced of editors all we require is the most basic of CVU training to get an account approved. That is way more constructive than watching edits fly by at the rate of several per second. Also consider that for someone trying to edit like this, you'd be learning very little about the STiki experience, and more about the Huggle one: duplicate work as everyone rushes to find obvious vandalism instances. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 13:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that.

The modified Huggle that uses the STiki IRC channel is at Wikipedia talk:STiki/Archive 4#Huggle.

Yaris678 (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Getting the derailed train back on track

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--DBigXray 21:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I now understand why this could be useful. However, I can see that there may be problems doing it that way. Many users (myself included) don't have IRC client software which may lead us into all sorts of technical cul-de-sacs trying to explain how to view the channel. There is also the chance that people might get the false impression that this is what the STiki experience is like. I think directing people to Special:RecentChanges and the relevant policies is the way to go. Yaris678 (talk) 10:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, even I do not have an IRC client software, but anyone can use IRC through this website, #cvn-wp-en. Please give it a try you do not need to have an IRC account beforehand, just give a Nick and you may proceed. I dont feel there link to #cvn-wp-en is technically more complicated than Special:RecentChanges and former is much more effective. But this is just my opinion, we should proceed with a consensus.--DBigXray 11:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

What are we even seeking consensus for, again? Diff links have already been added in source (and will start appearing whenever STiki's server-side component gets a restart). Moreover, many people probably do have a desktop IRC client and do not even realize it. This functionality is included in most IM programs (Pidgin, Empathy, et al. ... maybe you haven't heard of these? Maybe I am biased by Linux. Is everyone just using GChat and Skype these days? ). Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Consensus for what advice to give to a new user with 400 edits and no vandalism reverts. Should we ask him...

1. to join WP:CVUA ?
2. or read policy pages and revert using Special:RecentChanges ?
3. or read policy pages and revert using #cvn-wp-en (has comments/tags)
4. or read policy pages and revert using #arm-stiki-scores (has score value)
5. or do a combination of some or all of above. But giving all options as advice will be far too complicated for new users.

Thanks for adding the diff links, waiting for it to be visible.--DBigXray 23:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

And yes, "visible" now. However, good luck clicking a link scrolling by at 30mph. Another reason for the below... West.andrew.g (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Basically all of these start with the exact same criteria, "read the policy pages." The CVUA just introduces the extra step of someone testing you once you've done that. And I think this is a good thing because people will tend to skim, otherwise. You spoke of the fact someone might not want the "burden" of joining CVUA. Why not create our own 10-20 diff/question "quiz" regrading vandalism (we can make it a sub-page). Ask them to view these diffs, classify them, and provide short justification sentence why they chose that outcome. We grade them and grant access based on this result (or provide a touch more coaching, or send them to full-blown CVUA). Someone could have STiki interface access in ~15 minutes in this fashion. This would seem to achieve our "goal", which in my opinion, is to turn as many people into productive STiki interface users as possible (why get them hooked on recent changes patrol, or #cvn-wp-en, or some other tool?). Thoughts? West.andrew.g (talk) 20:48, 17 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)

I used to be bullied for being Welsh, and away at prep school in England

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)

 Done--DBigXray 09:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations, indeed! Top 5 among those still participating regularly, keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (talk) 20:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Glad to help.

I find Stiki expands my use and enjoyment of the encyclopaedia in general – as I invariably open the link to the article whilst making the edit assessment, and then, as well as the page's "history", quite often, the editor's list of recent contributions.

Thank you, Andrew. Sincerely, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. One of the side benefits of STiki is that you get to see all sorts of articles you might not otherwise look at. It's a bit like pressing the "Random article" link in the side bar... only you get to fight vandalism at the same time! Yaris678 (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Great, isn't it ... I recall, Yaris, how you wrote on this page a while ago how you would like all STiki users to add a personalised detail or two to the edit summary that is posted with the AGF revert. Doing that, and what I have described above, gives me much more satisfaction than trying to race through as many offerings as possible. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

fallback to port 80?

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)

Notice that this is in the bug/feature table as T#004. Assuming you (or whomever) can't configure the firewall, proxy tunnelling would be one possible solution. A true solution for this is not difficult. Someone just needs to wrap all the native SQL calls to server-side stored procedures with PHP scripts, constructing an API to pass parameters and retrieve results. At the current moment, I have a few other (and too many) things on my plate. I will be frank in saying *I* won't be getting around to this any time soon; though I would be happy to assist anyone interested. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 07:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Spoken like a true computer scientist. • Jesse V.^(talk) 16:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

CVUA student access request

Hi, may I request access for my CVUA student Zaldax (talk · contribs) please? Thanks in advance, Mdann52 (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Sorry for the delay, travelling through CDG en route to WikiSym!. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 10:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Automatic AIV reporting

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)

Responding on the WP:ANI thread of this. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Erg, forget that, it has already been archived and my addendum doesn't really warrant reviving it. It's not as if STiki makes "magical" AIV posts with *no* notification; as mention of AIV will be made in the "last revert" panel when it happens. As our previous thread (now in Archive #8) discusses this should be made a more concious and pro-actively initiated action. No debate. Out of curiosity, how does Huggle handle this? Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 07:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Huggle gives both the option to either submit a report to AIV regardless of warning count on the editor's talk page, as Huggle places the continuing edits of the editors you've personally reverted recently at the top of the queue (ie. rapid edit vandals that need to be immediately blocked); and if the user already haves one of the uw4 templates on the user's talk page (such as subst:uw-vandalism4im or subst:uw-delete4) it will prompt or ask the user that the editor has already been issued a final warning, and would you like to report it to AIV instead. You can either report it, place another warning, or not place a warning and skip to the next edit. The immediately report is one of a number of buttons located at the top of the screen. It will not report an editor without the editor specifically clicking that they want a report sent. Calmer Waters 02:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Question

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)

Hi, I've realised that the page was misleading before. Where is said "advanced users" what it meant was "software developers". So I have changed it now.

Is that what you meant? Or did you mean that you would like to look at the code but you don't know where to start? That is a situation I find myself in.

Yaris678 (talk) 12:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I meant are there more options on STiki like section blanking, adding spam links etc? Torreslfchero (talk) 12:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

More concisely here: "no". The formerly "advanced version" is/was the exact same as the "normal" one. The "advanced" download just provided the source code for the "normal" version so individuals can: (1) See how it functions (i.e., audit to ensure I am not stealing your password), (2) re-use or extend the code in their own projects. For the casual user there is nothing of interest here and Yaris' relabelling was appropriate. West.andrew.g (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the answer to your question is that there are a number of different queues that you can access. These are accessed using "New queue" at the top of the window. Section blanking is a type of vandalism and so will most likely be caught by the "STiki (metadata)" queue or the default "Cluebot NG" queue. Spam links are different, they have a special queue just for them! Select the anti-spam queue. This even changes the buttons so you now have one marked "spam" instead of "vandalism". When it warns a user, it gives the spam warning, rather than the vandalism warning. Yaris678 (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Torreslfchero (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Yaris678 (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Say more about choosing queues?

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)

For my part, I think it would confuse, rather than help newcomers. Best to let things progress as they did for me: after using STiki for several days, I started clicking on the menu just to find out what happens. It all seemed self-explanatory. As a non-technical/new to Wikipedia person, I believe information should be carefully rationed so as not to bewilder.

Sincerely -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind built in functionality so that after say, 200 reviewed diffs, STiki presented a one-time dialogue box introducing the different queues and asking if an editor would like to try a new one. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Like I like Ocaasi's idea... that would make sense. Theopolisme _:) 03:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Certainly feasible. Consensus on the classification count? Any specific bits for the message other than the obvious? Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I think anything between 50 and 200 edits would be a reasonable point to explain this feature. Arguably, Andrew could create a whole "Did you know" feature that explained some of the finer points as the user is going along. Maybe a different fact every 100 edits? Here are some suggestions:

Did you know...

...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.

OK

Did you know...

...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.

OK

Did you know...

...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.

OK

Given the discussion below, I would also say that we could say something about the fact that STiki can report users to AIV... altough the way that works is going to change soon so maybe we should wait until the new system comes in and think if any additional info is needed.

Yaris678 (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Beautiful template work up above Yaris. I have no issue with implementing this (as an default-enabled option) if folks want to write out and iterate over the wording of 10+ such facts. I'm tempted to say "let's create a subpage", but no-one will watch and its probably preferable to create a nice enumerated list here. I do imagine that a lot users get to several hundred editors without drilling too deep into WP:STiki or its documentation (hotkeys must be a DYK! I can't imagine using STiki without them). Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 08:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Small point, but surely it is 24 hours, isn't it? Cheers!

Sincerely -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Correct, on this minor point. West.andrew.g (talk) 08:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I have corrected the error spotted by Gareth and another one I saw.

On the question of creating a subpage, a share Andrew's belief that there are pros and cons. Do people have any ideas for additional DYKs? If so then it may be worth creating a subpage and then linking to it from here whenever a big question comes up.

I am also toying with a more general solution to the subpage problem. I think part of the solution is to have an index of subpages at the top of this talk page, that would be fairly easy to do and would help whether or not we do the other part... which is to create a bot that tweaks the index, for example putting a star next to any items that have been edited in the last 5 days.

Yaris678 (talk) 10:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

CVUA Student Access Request

I would like to request access for my student Fox2k11 (talk · contribs) Dan653 (talk) 01:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

User only has 113 edits to mainspace. using Stiki requires 1,000 mainspace edits or rollback rights. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Um.... at Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy/Archive_2#New_Requirements_for_using_STiki, the following comment was left...

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)

When numerical requirements are not met, approval decisions fall to (a) myself, and (b) others who I have delegated this right to (via DB-write access). I tend to be quite generous in this regard, but I'm not particularly inspired by this discussion. It seems "Dan" has asked "Fox" to read WP:VANDAL; he/she responds that this has been completed. Fox has no (or very very few) vandalism reverts in his history but has done some work at AFC. Don't CVUA users generally distribute "lessons" to students? If one of these were complete, I would not hesitate to approve. As a sign of good-faith, I am going to cautiously approve this request (and watch Fox's talk page). I don't want to see a trend develop where certain CVUA instructors become an easy conduit by which to obtain STiki access (though I am making no accusation of that here). Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- Approved -- West.andrew.g (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) DBigXray & Mdann, this is not an RfA-style voting page. There is no such thing as 'will' be specially accepted on the request of CVUA instructors. Although this request does not require admin approval (yet) I really think this request comes far too soon on the basis that Fox has nowhere near sufficient experience on Wikipedia let alone counter-vandalism to be asking to use any tools except those that are freely available such as Twinkle. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry andrew I got eagle eyes on fox2k11, all is well. Dan653 (talk) 01:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thread on Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions

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)

I posted a brief response at WT:PERM. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 08:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries

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)

Thank you for bringing this to our attention Kudpung.

To give you a bit of context, if the revert is marked as minor then the STiki user has pressed the "vandalism" button. The edit summary is editable by the user. I think the edit summary mentions vandalism by default but some people prefer not to as it is a little provocative. I usually go for a simple "Reverted edit(s) by (...) using STiki". I think the less fuss made the better, as per WP:DENY. If you think that isn't giving enough info then consider the standard message that appears when you click on rollback, which is mostly for vandalism.

If someone clicks on "good-faith revert" the edit summary mentions good faith by default and the revert is not minor. Can you provide diffs for the edits that you think were made in good faith but reverted using the vandalism button? It may be a simple matter of judgement. I know that if someone has added an untrue "fact" that is very unlikely to be due to a missunderstanding, I will treat it as vandalism.

Yaris678 (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I don't use Stiki, that's why I'm not aware of it options. I spent several hours yesterday going through several hundred Stiki edits (and I'm not going to do it again to list the diffs), but not because I'm worried about Stiki as a tool, it was more to review the performance in general of the editors who use it - and that's one of the reasons why I think a more detailed ES would be better. There's also the fact that when I see an IP that has been reverted for clear vandalism, I check the IP's other edits and if there is a clear pattern of recent vandalism across several articles that may not have registered in the mind of individual patrollers. I then warn the IP or even block if appropriate, and it also often leads to the discovery of socks. So that's why it helps to know reasonably accurately why the revert was made. I 'm aware of WP:DENY of course, but casual vandals who come on board just once and do a string of silly edits in a couple of hours, probably don't even know what an ES or a page history is, but they need to be stopped dead in their tracks before they do more damage. I'm not a vandalism patroller, but with several thousand school articles on my watchlist, I come across enough vandalism - and ones which the patrollers have missed - to recognise the style and trends, and I'm very wary of classing a simple piece of wrong or unsourced info as vandalism. I'm also particularly concerned with catching BLP vandalim which sometimes isn't so easy to identify immediately without reviewing the article's content - and that's why, even with the use of 3rd party tools, accuracy and more research are more important than pure speed. I hope this helps. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

@ Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) The latter part of this strand now in the STiki/Archive No: 8 (- most recent archive) might have some relevanceto your conversation here.

Kind regards, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (GG-J's Talk) 09:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

As one who uses STiki, I find it quite beneficial when I revert vandalism - and I have indeed updated my default ES message to refer to "test edits or vandalism" so as to take on that less provocative approach to the editor in question. As is noted on the STiki page, some people don't focus on GF edits using the tool (myself included, as I like to leave a more detailed ES on the reason for my reversion). If STiki could give me that option, I'd use it more to make the GF reverts as well, and if it can't - that's okay too. Otherwise, I click over to the article history directly from the link in STiki and make the revert using Twinkle or manually, depending on the circumstance. As to checking the IP's other edits, that's clearly facilitated through a link in STiki, with one click you can see the editor's contribs and review them the same way you do manually. Unfortunately, that (as is the case in the manual approach) relies upon the fortitude of the vandal fighter, and not the tool itself. STiki is a fantastic tool, one of the many (including my own judgement about when to use each of the tools) that I carry in my "toolbox" as I battle vandalism. Hope that helps. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 11:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

@ Vertium, What are you suggesting that would make the tool better for GF reverts? Some type of dialogue to leave a custom note on the editor's talk page?

@ Everyone. The default edit summary currently reads:

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 don't think it arose as any type of "audit" of STiki users, but I did see @Kudpung's note to someone at WP:PERM when the requested Rollback rights. Kudpung had reviewed that individual's reversions, apparently all of which had been made via STiki. I'm presuming that the individual got STiki usage due to participating in CVUA. As to your question directed at me, most of the edits I revert for good faith are those that are not adequately cited/referenced. I would be happy to update the warning given to the users for this, but when I click on the Good Faith side of the comments area, the "Warn Offending User" box is greyed out and I'm unable to select it, hence my switch to primarily manual/Twinkle reverts for GF edits. I may be doing something wrong, but I can't seem to find a way to get that working. As I mentioned above, it's no big deal, just letting you know since you asked. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 16:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

This is expected functionality. The "Good faith" comment area does not allow the "warn offending user" box to be checked because in the "vandalism" case that option is reserved for handing out the templated warnings. I think you'd agree this is something we do *not* want to do; but instead possibly allow for softer and more customized notification. One thing that could be done when the AGF button is pressed is a dialogue would be popped that would allow for a custom message to be appended to the editor's talk page (this would of course be optional)? Or is there some type of alternative template you are looking to use for this? Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You are, of course, correct and I didn't explain myself properly (not enough coffee this morning) - and when I say "warn", I do mean an explanation, more than a warning. I'm not aware of any template that serves that purpose, but if a future release could indeed allow for an optional note, that would be helpful - but only if others see enough value in it. Thanks for reading between my lines. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 16:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Added to the feature requests table as T#019. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Appeal to use STiki

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)

Hi Hto9950 and thank you for your interest. As Kudpung points out, you do not have a ton of experience with good-faith editing or anti-vandalism in particular. Indeed, STiki is a powerful tool (and a dangerous one in the wrong hands) so we have certain qualification requirements for users. I encourage you to visit the Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy which specializes in training those interested in this kind of work. Once you have made sufficient progress there, gotten a little experience, and demonstrated an understanding of what constitutes vandalism we will reconsider your request. You may also want to investigate Twinkle, which is not quite as powerful as STiki but simplifies some anti-vandal tasks. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I would oppose granting additional tools to this user for now: I've specifically asked them to avoid this kind of work as a condition of unblocking them. Acroterion (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)