User talk:Shirik/Archives/2012/May
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Shirik. 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. |
Abuse Filter on the Article Feedback Tool
Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.
For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Too busy WoWing? :P. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've had 4 major tournaments in the past 3 weeks :P Anyway, I have serious problems with the ways the filters are handled now. Put in perspective, that probably means consensus of the Wiki has shifted against my favor and I'm now in the minority. But I'll take a look anyway when I find some time. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Gotcha :). What's the issue, if I may ask? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Use of of the filters used to be a lot more restricted. We always tested filters for a week at least in log mode before putting them live, except in the rare case of emergencies. If a false positive happened on a live filter, it was not an "oops" it was a "what the fuck did we screw up" and we turned it off. False positives were extremely unacceptable, because it turns away new users when it's too difficult to get an edit in. We also payed very close attention to how much time the filters were taking. Filters running more than 2ms were reviewed very heavily and optimized. Now, it seems like we're always breaking the condition limit and taking way too long on the filters. Here, here's the current statistics: "Of the last 3,381 actions, 54 (1.60%) have reached the condition limit of 1,000". That should be at 0. How about a filter statistic? "Of the last 3,469 actions, this filter has matched 0 (0.00%). On average, its run time is 5.19 ms, and it consumes 53 conditions of the condition limit." That adds 5.19ms to edits on average. On a filter that is really serving no purpose because it's not matching anything. And then, my favorite part, almost all of our filters are now non-public because we've started putting information that would meet our redaction criteria in them. This is not how a wiki should be. But for some reason reverting vandalism isn't enough anymore, so this is what we do. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- That's fair enough :(. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Use of of the filters used to be a lot more restricted. We always tested filters for a week at least in log mode before putting them live, except in the rare case of emergencies. If a false positive happened on a live filter, it was not an "oops" it was a "what the fuck did we screw up" and we turned it off. False positives were extremely unacceptable, because it turns away new users when it's too difficult to get an edit in. We also payed very close attention to how much time the filters were taking. Filters running more than 2ms were reviewed very heavily and optimized. Now, it seems like we're always breaking the condition limit and taking way too long on the filters. Here, here's the current statistics: "Of the last 3,381 actions, 54 (1.60%) have reached the condition limit of 1,000". That should be at 0. How about a filter statistic? "Of the last 3,469 actions, this filter has matched 0 (0.00%). On average, its run time is 5.19 ms, and it consumes 53 conditions of the condition limit." That adds 5.19ms to edits on average. On a filter that is really serving no purpose because it's not matching anything. And then, my favorite part, almost all of our filters are now non-public because we've started putting information that would meet our redaction criteria in them. This is not how a wiki should be. But for some reason reverting vandalism isn't enough anymore, so this is what we do. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Gotcha :). What's the issue, if I may ask? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've had 4 major tournaments in the past 3 weeks :P Anyway, I have serious problems with the ways the filters are handled now. Put in perspective, that probably means consensus of the Wiki has shifted against my favor and I'm now in the minority. But I'll take a look anyway when I find some time. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Help needed: Jayne Mansfield
A mid-importance article supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers that was reviewed by Version 1.0 Editorial Team and selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions. The article has come a long way from a fan boy mish mash to a fair enough GA. Now is the time to take it to the next level. Currently it's going through another peer review. Serious help is needed to clean up the copy. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE. Aditya(talk • contribs) 06:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I've changed your duplicate unblock decline at User talk:ZASTbusinessmanagementllp into a plain comment. I hope you don't mind, but it made it look like the user had made two identical unblock requests, which could unfairly influence any future decisions. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Requesting review of Folding@home
Hi there Shirik,
I saw that you've listed your name over at WP:PRV. I've been enthusiastically editing pretty extensively on Folding@home, and achieved GA status early last month. It's an article about a powerful distributed computing project which simulates protein folding for disease research, so I thought you might be interested. I'd like to improve the article as much as I can, and perhaps even reach FA status, so if you have a moment, I'd sure appreciate any advice or suggestions you may have. I've opened a peer review. Thank you for your time, Jesse V. (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
GOCE May mid-drive newsletter
Guild of Copy Editors May 2012 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter
 Participation: Out of 49 people signed up for this drive so far, 26 have copy-edited at least one article. It's a smaller group than last drive, but we're making good progress. If you've signed up but haven't yet copy-edited any articles, please consider doing so. Every bit helps! If you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us! Progress report: We're on track to meet our targets for the drive, largely due to the efforts of Lfstevens and the others on the leaderboard. Thanks to all. We have reduced our target group of articles—January, February, and March 2011—by over half, and it looks like we will achieve that goal. Good progress is being made on the overall backlog as well, with over 500 articles copy-edited during the drive so far. The total backlog currently sits at around 3200 articles. Hall of Fame: GOCE coordinator Diannaa was awarded a spot in the GOCE Hall of Fame this month! She has copy-edited over 1567 articles during these drives, and surpassed the 1,000,000-word mark on May 5. On to the second million! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa and Stfg >>> Sign up now <<<
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC) |