User talk:Chris G/Archives/2009/February
 | This page 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. |
Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 5 | 31 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Happy Chris G's Day!
 |
Chris G has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Cheers, |
- Thank You :) --Chris 08:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Protection
This is abuse of page protection. Please do not do it. And fix your talk page's editnotice, it breaks the page layout --Gurch (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's the opt-in page protection, which was responding to actual vandalism, as shown by [1]. That user was getting slammed by vandals, and the bot was responding by short term protection of the page. I think it's a great bot and a great feature. Chris, when you read this, can you add me to the opt-in list? --Terrillja talk 05:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- How so? Blocking individual users is obviously not a feasible option here. Letting them vandalize as long as they want is likewise not an option - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a troll playground. They do not stop until either gwp goes to bed and stops to turn up the related message board thread or the targeted page is protected; the actual question is when to protect and how long. Since they do not stop by themselves, protection is necessary anyway, and there's no advantage in awaiting 10 edits each time, so protection is best done early to save the one or other coordinated vandalism edit. The bot's protection length is short enough to avoid collateral damage, I'm not aware of any user that wanted to leave me a message but wasn't able to do so due to the protection. The bot also makes longer protections unnecessary, because you know that it will re-protect the page in case the attack spree resumes and helps to reduce the time the page is protected to the necessary one, so reducing collateral. All in all the bot handles the situation better than a human would do. --Oxymoron83 07:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Why is blocking individual users (by an administrator, not by a bot) not a feasible option? -- Gurch (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's simply a PITA for an admin to sit there and keep watching for vandalism, while a bot has no trouble just sitting there and watching for a very specific bit of wording. GRAWP has a very specific message that he always includes, so the bot is unlikely to make a mistake. This task is just as the bot template is written, the bot performs tedious tasks that would be a pain for people to do. Since it only reacts to certain well defined and historically known triggers, I don't see where the problem is. --Terrillja talk 17:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm talking about the protection. If the protection is being done in response to this "very specific bit of wording", why isn't the user being blocked instead? If it isn't, what gives the bot the authority to decide whether or not to protect the page? -- Gurch (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- It does both. It blocks if the trigger phrases are met (from what I have seen) and then protects if there is enough vandalism to keep the user away. Keep in mind that in the instance of a grawp or 4chan attack, blocking users is ultimately futile, it's like whack a mole, protection is the only real way to make them go away. --Terrillja talk 17:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm talking about the protection. If the protection is being done in response to this "very specific bit of wording", why isn't the user being blocked instead? If it isn't, what gives the bot the authority to decide whether or not to protect the page? -- Gurch (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's simply a PITA for an admin to sit there and keep watching for vandalism, while a bot has no trouble just sitting there and watching for a very specific bit of wording. GRAWP has a very specific message that he always includes, so the bot is unlikely to make a mistake. This task is just as the bot template is written, the bot performs tedious tasks that would be a pain for people to do. Since it only reacts to certain well defined and historically known triggers, I don't see where the problem is. --Terrillja talk 17:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Why is blocking individual users (by an administrator, not by a bot) not a feasible option? -- Gurch (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
AntiAbuseBot
OMG adminbot! I raised an idea at AN which would prevent any false positive fiasco. In short, that would be having the bot still blocking the way it does now, but templating the talk page with an unblock request. That way, we can be sure someone had a look at the block. What do you think? -- lucasbfr talk 17:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've responded on AN --Chris 10:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- FYI, User:AntiAbuseBot/unblock.js is showing up in Category:Requests for unblock. - auburnpilot talk 15:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Here about the bot, so under the same heading, but different subject. Basically, earlier I reviewed one of the block requests it posted(great idea by the way, and a positive block), and noticed that the page is not added to cat:temp, which means it means it won't get deleted in a month. Any possibility of having the bot add the cat when it adds the unblock notice? Cheers--Jac16888Talk 21:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
User:AntiAbuseBot/unblock.js
What's the story with this? It's showing up in category:request for unblock. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Psst: look up ↑ two sections. —Travistalk 02:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Durrr....and I win the blinders award for the evening. OhNoitsJamie Talk 06:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
#wikipedia-BAG edit-feed bot
Hi Chris, would it be possible for the bot which feeds edits to bot-related pages into the #wikipedia-BAG IRC channel to ignore bot edits, or at least the edits of my bot User:Bot0612? The reason I am asking is that otherwise this task will end up flooding the channel! Richard0612 19:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Droits de l'Homme sinking picture
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/76/Droits_de_lHomme_sinking.jpg seems to be a corrupted JPEG, with the bottom 25% or so appearing blank. David Trochos (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like someone else fixed it. --Chris 04:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
How did you fix that?
I tried to revert the the re-direct edit here, but couldnt. thanks, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Undermountain
= User:Grawp. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I know. That's why I blocked him. --Chris 02:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Poke
86.133.34.204 (talk · contribs · logs · block log). Quick fyi, just unblocked this IP. Its single edit was vandalism but an immediate block was a bit fast--Jac16888Talk 14:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Vil adanrath
I noticed you replaced some pages moved by new user Vil Adanrath (talk); the activity looks like that of a banned user who was (I think) originally called Grawp, but I don't know how to report it; any ideas? Swanny18 (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
CHU archiving
This seems to have been actioned somewhat less than 48hrs after the last timestamp... --Dweller (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- The bot had trouble parsing the timestamp. It should be fixed now. If you see anymore please tell me --Chris 10:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 6 | 8 February 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Vandalism alert
You have been paged because a user has reported a high level of vandalism and you are listed as a contact.
This is an automatically generated message. If problems occur, please contact User:nathanww.
Please note that I have corrected the information on the Commons image. You might want to review it and update the local copy. Jappalang (talk) 06:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Your bot
Hi Chris, do you know what is happening here? The bot added the note to check the block that someone else applied. Cheers Kevin (talk) 02:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Grwp socks
There has been a little discussion about Grawp socks and the deletion of their talkpages. Your bot suggests to place the {{blockeduser}} template which does not include the temporary userpage category. possibly suggesting {{indefblockeduser}} would be better. Agathoclea (talk) 08:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- It does use indefblockeduser. You can change it here :) Also where is this discussion? --Chris 08:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- The discussion was at User talk:Cunard. I just noticed that since the blocking of the account that sparked that discussion the template has been changed. Agathoclea (talk) 09:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey. Would you mind adding User talk:Aitias to User:AntiAbuseBot/autoprotect.js? :) Thank you. — Aitias // discussion 00:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Skynet
- Hey... you aren't Hagger at all, are you? Imposter! -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- No just debugging. One of wikimedia's new squids was being stupid and giving me '417 Expectation Failed' errors. Chris 01:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hee. I reviewed the block you were testing, saw your characteristic Hagger message, and passed it on without a second thought. Then... 'Hey, he unblocked himself? Hagger's learned a pretty neat new trick... huh?' -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- No just debugging. One of wikimedia's new squids was being stupid and giving me '417 Expectation Failed' errors. Chris 01:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009
_speed_trials.jpg){kind=link}
_speed_trials.jpg){kind=link}
_speed_trials.jpg){kind=link}
If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 06:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)