Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiLoop DoubleCheck

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Concerns about this software

[edit]

Please see my message on Meta. Graham87 04:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brainstorm to replace the name "Battlefield"

[edit]

Summary: contributors agree that battlefield is not the most fit name for the goal this tool wants, we want to find better name for this tool to reflect :

  • the tool helps Wikipedians monitor and revert vandalism
  • the tool is a collaborative tool
  • the tool is easy to use
  • we also want it to reflect a positive, friendly atmosphere, and it encourage people to use, to do research and to contribute

We hope your proposed name for this project can reflect these points, thank you!.

Previous discussion on WikiLoop Battlefield's alternative names.
Hi! Looks like an interesting tool, and approach to making anti-vandalism engaging and fun! However, I have some concerned about the name of the tool: "Battlefield" feels like a combat scenario -- which is already one of the challenges that many newcomers feel: that they are being attacked by mysterious "voice of god" authority of editors who attack their contributions. Anti-Vandalism is something that historically draws in a lot of younger contributors (high schoolers esp), framing the whole situation as nicer and more positive (not a battlefield) would be highly prefered. Moreover, a number of older contributors to our projects probably have very negative experiences with combat and battles. Sadads (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Sadads: thank you for contacting us. I think you make a very good point. How many people are feeling the same? If there are enough people who are willing to contribute ideas for better naming, we can hold a name brainstorming process to come up with a better name and maybe even also logos and design. What do you think? Xinbenlv(t) please notify me with {{ping}} 21:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Halfak: This was borne out in some of your early research on the Huggle tool, etc? Right. Anyway happy to think about additional ideas :) I think something like "TagTeam" might be a bit more interesting. Sadads (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How about something like Vandalism Check-Up or Revert Checker? --- FULBERT (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should just call it "WikiLoop". If you add in anything else that's more descriptive you are tying yourself to that description.--Jorm (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to WikiLoop,Sadads (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too came to comment primarily about the name. While I wouldn't call it a serious issue, there is a distinct community-norm to place a negative connotation on the word "battlefield". WP:BATTLEFIELD is a redirect to WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a battleground. We also refer to "battleground behavior" when blocking a disruptive-editor, or when warning someone that they need to change their behavior to avoid getting blocked. I experimented with the tool a little while and noticed that the pause button doesn't seem to work? It doesn't take much time for the scroll-list to get excessively long. Alsee (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sadads:, @Alsee:, @Jorm:, and other friends of concern if I missed, Thank you all for all the suggestions and brainstorms.
We are using WikiLoop as the overall WikiProject name for looping knowledge and help back from the knowledge industry to the Wikipedia/Wikimedia/Open Knowledge movements. And under WikiLoop we have "Battlefield"(name-to-be-changed) and a few other sub-projects, such as WikiLoop Explorer or WikiLoop Bot, so we intend to call it give it a sub name to distinguish this anti-vandalism tool from other WikiLoop subprojects/tools. To further trigger the brainstorm, I am thinking of something like WikiLoop Shield or WikiLoop Screener things like that, but hope it sound fun and interesting to perspective contributor. - By the way, WikiLoop TagTeam sounds fun.
Xinbenlv(t) please notify me with {{ping}} 18:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Xinbenlv: I could get behind WikiLoop Tagteam or Scanner -- either of those speaks to the intended function which is about developing the depth of interaction between folks working on evaluating edits on the projects. Sadads (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sadads: I also just want to also include that intended major functions including:
  1. monitoring recent changes.
  2. collaboration (review other reviewers' labeling)
  3. conduct reversion and rollback (if has permission)
  4. make labeling data easy for anti-vandalism scoring system such as ORES and STiki and ClueBot Network to consume.
Xinbenlv(t) please notify me with {{ping}} 21:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
+1; two name proposals added. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that "battlefield" is a very unfortunate name. i think any of the proposals below would be an improvement. It makes me think of something from the Military History project, or else something with which to commit vandalism, not fix it. I don't even like the phrase "vandal fighting" because the attitude it promotes can lead to violations of WP:BITE. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Brainstorm Names

[edit]

Please feel free to add more and sign your name along with it.


I was about to suggest 'Patrol' and I see someone has already proposed it. That and many of the other suggestions above - EditCheck, EasyScan, TicTag etc - would do just fine. It has already been many months since this list was started so I suggest the "actively seeking new names" be terminated swiftly with a decision - asking for more and more won't achieve that. You obviously don't want open war in there, and even "vandal-" is probably undesirable. Patrol is marginally military but actually quite familiar and neutral so I like it, but the others I've just named would also get my !vote. Please somebody, get this closed out. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's probably best to make a decision soon. I think "patrol" is in line with recent changes patrol (but it does sound a bit military-esque). I think I'm leaning most towards names with "scan" or "review" in the title. Staying away from the word "vandal" or any word that sounds defensive/offensive is probably best per the original summary stated at the top of this section (vandal and words that have to do with fighting or defending sound less collaborative and less friendly). Also, I think the names with "tag" in them make it sound like a tool that's used specifically for adding maintenance tags to articles (but that might just be me). - Whisperjanes (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, The voting is currently held at m:WikiProject_WikiLoop/New_name_vote and ends on July 13th 00:00 UTC. Alexcalamaro (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Alexcalamaro:! also @Whisperjanes: and @Chiswick Chap: you might be interested. Thank you for kindly suggesting us to pickup a name quickly. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 20:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Application error

[edit]

I have been getting an application error on this for much of today, and am not sure how to report this or to whom to report it. Doing it here in the hope it will be repaired as I find this a really useful and helpful tool for identifying and reverting vandalism. --- FULBERT (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FULBERT, Same I been getting this error as well. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FULBERT: I think this one works. Try this link [1]___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FULBERT: thank you, what's exact error have you seen? Sorry I am late to this conversation. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 21:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Xinbenlv, That was a while ago, and think it may have been a network issue at the time. Seems to work well now. FULBERT (talk) 11:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FULBERT: cool xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 12:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FAQs of why can't I revert the revisions directly from WikiLoop Battlefield?

[edit]

Why can't I revert the revisions directly from WikiLoop Battlefield?

Currently we have implemented login-to-revert, however the IP addresses we deploy our webapp onto is being blocked globally and by English Wikipedia (possibly by other local wikis too).

Therefore, when you login at battlefield.wikiloop.org and try to direct revert, here are the errors you will get by visiting: 

{
    "error": {
        "code": "blocked",
        "info": "You have been blocked from editing.",
        "blockinfo": {
            "blockid": 9049100,
            "blockedby": "SQL",
            "blockedbyid": 3637572,
            "blockreason": "{{Colocationwebhost}} <!-- Amazon AWS-->",
            "blockedtimestamp": "2019-06-01T03:09:31Z",
            "blockexpiry": "2021-08-01T03:09:31Z"
        },
        "*": "See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php for API usage. Subscribe to the mediawiki-api-announce mailing list at &lt;https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-api-announce&gt; for notice of API deprecations and breaking changes."
    },
    "servedby": "mw1285"
}


Why are the IP addresses blocked?

It's because our web app is deployed on Heroku/Google Cloud or Amazon AWS. Their shared IP addresses pools are blocked because of WP:NOP policy.

Why do you have to deploy onto these public cloud services?

Comparing to deploying an web-app onto an individual private server, deploying on public cloud service allow us to not worry about infrastructure uptime.
There are alternatives such as using a WMF Cloud VPS, which is both a cloud service, but not blocked.

So why have you not deployed on WMF Cloud VPS?

It's still pending approval by WMF Cloud team at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T237297
Update: now you can use http://wmf.doublecheck.wikiloop.org which allows direct revert.

Why don't you use WMF Toolforge?

See https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T237297, and this answer in particular: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T237297#5638207


How can I help WikiLoop Battlefield to allow login-to-revert?

Leave a message to support (or object if you disagree) our request to unblock our static IP addresses at

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global_permissions#Global_IP_block_exempt_for_IP_Range_of_WikiLoop_Battlefield

OAuth error

[edit]

I know this worked before, but now when trying to Login, at the OAuth screen when I click "Allow," I get a blank screen with the message "Internal Server Error." --- FULBERT (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FULBERT:: thank you for reporting, I will check and get back to you soon xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 01:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I’m getting the same error JaneciaTaylor (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DirectRevert feature testing

[edit]

Dear @A-NEUN:, @FULBERT: power users of WikiLoop Battlefield,

Thank you for your contribution on WikiLoop Battlefield, in particular patrolling EN wikipedia. We have started hour alpha testing for an important feature: Direct Revert: now you will be able to revert revisions directly on WikiLoop Battlefield, instead of needing to go to a URL and conduct revert.

To ask for your early feedback, I have whitelisted you two as the beta testers, would you like to test the feature on http://battlefield2.wikiloop.org (instance deployed on Cloud VPS), and give us some feedback, at https://github.com/google/wikiloop-battlefield/issues/159

Thank you

xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 23:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Xinbenlv: In the DirectRevert version, when I press the revert now button, a red line appears at the top of the screen, and nothing happens on the page I am trying to revert. A-NEUN ⦾TALK⦾ 07:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@A-NEUN: thank you for your feedback, FYI, the battlefield2.wikiloop.org now shows the DirectRevert result of error and success. It shall have better experience now. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 02:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Join Whitelist for the DirectRevert Feature

[edit]

Hi all, if you are interested in trying our our direct revert feature, signup below, we are currently on beta. The feature is turned on in a different instance http://battlefield2.wikiloop.org (currently only users with rollback rights and whitelisted users are allowed to use direct revert).

Here are a list of whitelist users

L3X1 you have rollback, so appear to be automatically whitelisted. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 09:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have been using Battlefield2 and really like it for the most blatant vandalism; saving a few steps is really helpful. However, one thing I have found that I am not really sure about and think could use another button -- sometimes I want to revert but I want to provide a different explanation, something I was able to do in the regular Battlefield though cannot seem to be able to do at all with the Battlefield2 version as I cannot seem to get to the revert itself. Any possibility of getting another button to be able to manually get to the revert edit comment screen? Some edits I want to revert are clear vandalism, but others need to be reverted using "revert (AGF)" as they are not intentionally vandalism. --- FULBERT (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has been working well Xinbenlv though stopped working this morning. Now when I click revert, it is still bringing me directly to the original revert page with the diffs and not directly reverting. What happened? --- FULBERT (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FURBERT: Ok, I rolled out a new version, I will fix it soon xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 15:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Xinbenlv and glad I saw this. Let us know when ready to try again. --- FULBERT (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FULBERT: I have fixed (and upgraded) the battlefield2.wikiloop.org direct revert feature, give it a try? (e.g. one of the new review feed can be found at battlefield2.wikiloop.org/feed/lastbad) xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 05:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Xinbenlv, Thanks. The direct revert on the regular battlefield2 is now working again, and I see there are a number of new levels of potential issues that can be filtered on (great!), though they do not seem to allow reverts yet. I do like the way it is developing as a next step, though that lastbad I just tried does not allow the revert (and actually went back in time several weeks at least). Thanks. FULBERT (talk) 10:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think battlefield2 went down again; the regular one seems to be working. BTW, not sure if this is where you want these sorts of systems issues mentioned. Thank you. FULBERT (talk) 19:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FULBERT: Thank you for letting me know. I fixed that, and setup a monitor. Next time I shall be automatically notified when it's down. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 20:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts from an experienced vandal fighter

[edit]

So, I had the opportunity to take this tool for a little bit of a spin. I've used it sporadically a couple times earlier in 2019. First off, I am very happy with the concept of a web-based anti-vandalism tool that works straight from the browser. The closest we've ever had to that was Vada and Igloo, both of which are now unmaintained and have largely faded into obscurity. Huggle and STiki work well, but they require a download, which can be a bit of a hassle. Huggle has historically been criticized for not being cross-platform, and STiki requires Java which appears to be on its way out (if Google is killing off Flash, it's only a matter of time before they decide to kill off Java). On top of that, with more and more people using mobile devices, it's become apparent that anti-vandalism tools have not been keeping up with the modern pace of technology. Huggle and STiki have not seen any significant changes for a long time, and neither of them work on mobile devices like tablets and phones. With this I'm hopeful that we can finally have a decent anti-vandalism tool that works fine on mobile.

Yes I know you are an experienced vandal fighter and it was super impressive to see your STiki stats.
and yes we have optimize the tool with multiple iterations ever since. We want it to be easy to use by the patrollers like you. We took the experience from multiple tools including Huggle and STiki, and redesign them to make them easy to use as much as possible.
It actually supports mobile (launch a phone browser and visit http://battlefield.wikiloop.org, you can use it just as you use it from your computer). Yet there are many things needed to be optimized before it will maximize patrollers efficiency, and we are working towards it. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 01:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that this tool is largely being directed towards STiki users, and in fact borrows many of STiki's aspects, what with the "showing only one edit at a time" and the options to revert, pass, or mark as innocent.

There isn't a lot of documentation on the on-wiki project page from first glance; does it work like STiki in that it continuously monitors the wiki for new edits (even if no one is using the tool), stores them in a database, and then reserves the edit for a user to prevent work from being duplicated? If it isn't, that is an idea worth considering, since STiki is an application that would probably be perfect for a web app.


Yes and no, I sent out invitations to top STiki users by hand today by looking at at the STiki leaderboard top recently 30 day users). But we hope to expand our user-base beyond the current patrollers. The idea is that it doens't need to have that high of a bar to start help patrolling Wikipedia. We can have tiered users so it lower the entry barrier, yet still avoid abuse and increase trust (e.g. we could ask multiple people to review/label the same revision, if needed). Therefore, there are some similarity but also many big differences in the design philosophy. I will summarize a similarities and differences later one and publish it. before that you could follow the development, design and discussion on our github for the tool development. Code is completely open sourced too. https://github.com/google/wikiloop-battlefield xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 01:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I have not tested this tool on mobile. Is it on the developers' agenda to add mobile support? This would be a great idea for a PWA on mobile devices. Combined with STiki's principles, it would mean that whenever I have free time waiting for the bus or when I have a five-minute coffee break, I could just take my phone out, quickly launch the app, and then review a few edits during that time, taking all the time I need without the hurried pace of Huggle. Review one edit, get another to review, and just keep doing that until I need to go. It would certainly encourage vandal fighters to do more vandal fighting even when they are not at home or don't have the time to take their laptops out.

Yes, could you try it on your phone browser? I know it's UX not very optimal yet, but this could be one of the only few that you can use in your fragment time to do reviews on the go. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 01:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The tool itself is fairly basic—since it follows in the footsteps of STiki, I would encourage you guys to stick with this approach. One thing I would suggest is to allow edits to be reverted right from the interface (I know you guys are working on that), for warnings to be left automatically, and to report users to AIV automatically when the reverted user is at level 4. field as Github Issue 223

That sounds a good idea. We can put into our future feature idea. We want to build user trust model but since we make different assumption on who can use our tool (regular user as opposed to ROLLBACK/Admin), we need to be careful about how to accumulate a trust signal against an user, but I like the direction you suggests, and certainly it's of great value that we have a beta tester like you who are experienced vandal fighter. Thank you!

Both Huggle and STiki do this. While I'm at it, I would also suggest adding a check somewhere to check the timestamps of the warnings left on the talk page if the user is an IP; if the last warning was issued over 24 hours ago, the next warning left by the tool should be reset to level 1, since IP addresses may change users. ClueBot NG observes this already; Huggle should observe it, but in practice it doesn't (and it's an issue that hasn't been resolved since Huggle 3 debuted in 2014).

This is good idea too.
Update 2020-05-07, this suggestion implied a suggestion of assessing user's suspicious with a level, are their official level description somewhere? field as Github Issue 223 @K6ka: xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 03:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, it would be useful if users could specify a revert summary and warning type the same way Huggle does. For example, if a user adds unsourced content, it would be useful to have the tool revert the edit with an edit summary of "Reverting unsourced content", and for a {{Uw-unsourced1}} to be added to the user's talk page, all in one click. So, in a sense, the simplicity of STiki combined with the convenience of Huggle.

Yes, we plan to add this soon.
Updated 2020-05-07 field as Github Issue 223 xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 03:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know this tool is still under development and is far from being a finished project; however, I like the idea and am happy to see someone making the initiative to develop it, because there is definitely a need and a demand for this tool. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 01:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC):[reply]

Thank you for the kinds words, and thank you for tolerate the current status. I know you are a power user and your suggestion carries a lot of insights, thank you! xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 01:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Materialscientist

[edit]

Started using, some transient thoughts:

  • WikiLoop Battlefield has wonderful access options - no need for Java, I can use it from a phone
  • The processing of diffs is much too slow. Stiki design is much better at that. I mean, after you press "Looks good", "Not sure", "Should revert", etc., WikiLoop Battlefield should just do the action and proceed to the next diff, instead of asking you to press "Next", "Revert now", etc. There is no time for that during rush hours, especially on a mobile device. Yes, sometimes it is good to have an option to see the article history and revise the revert comment, but this should be just an option, not the main algorithm.
filed as Github Issue 229
  • It seems that WikiLoop Battlefield uses the "undo" action rather than "revert" - this is slow and misleading.
filed as Github Issue 230
  • Also, there is no option to warn the offending editor.
filed as Github Issue 223
  • If an IP or registered user made several sequential edits, WikiLoop Battlefield only shows the last one. This is highly misleading. WikiLoop Battlefield should should show a combined diff of all sequential edits, as Stiki does, and undo them all, not just one last edit. Materialscientist (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
filed as Github Issue 225
@Materialscientist: Thank you! xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 20:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Materialscientist:, Update 2020-05-07 we are officially filing a few feature request per your suggestion. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 03:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts from mobile use

[edit]

Used this today via mobile, a task I usually use SWviewer for. Some thoughts on its use on phones:

  • Possibly too much information given - on my phone, the actual diff starts about half way down the page. I'm not sure how useful the ORES scores etc are to the end user, so would be nice to be able to toggle these off.
Update 2020-05-07, according to your suggestion, we hid the ORES score in the new interface. Checkout http://battlefield.wikiloop.org/feed/mix xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 17:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems quite slow, with quite a few button presses to do tasks. E.g. having to press should revert, then revert, then next. I would prefer an option to revert with one click, and maybe reduce accidental reverts the way Huggle does it IIRC, by having a time before actions are done (on by default), in order to be able to undo reverts made in error.
  • Would be very useful to be able to issue warnings, and maybe have both a vandalism revert and a good faith revert option, where edit summaries can be left etc.
field as Github Issue 229 xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 17:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, it seems like another useful tool.

Thanks,

~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, don't know how this would be done, but would be nice for reverts done by the tool to be included in XTool's Automated Edits - i.e. [2]. At the moment I assume they're put with Generic rollback, but would be nice to see separation by tool, in the same way that STiki, Huggle and SWV do. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, we already does so, when using direct revert, as you can find in the tags of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1998_Daytona_500&oldid=955141679 xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 17:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OxonAlex, The tool is currently in 'early-stage'. Your ideas are important. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 06:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@OxonAlex: thank you, I collect your feedback and update the feature list, stay tuned. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 17:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Orphan Wiki

[edit]

Hi, and thanks for contacting me to notify me about the development of this tool, and for requesting my feedback.

Some initial thoughts are below:

  • It's useful to have a link to the article relevant to the diff, but ideally this should populate in a different tab or window when selected. In using the same window, you're taken away from the tool. When clicking back, a different article is subsequently displayed. Being able to access the article is a crucial part of using anti-vandal tools responsibly, because sometimes you need to carry out an inspection which goes further from what you can see on just the diff.
filed as Github Issue 233 xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 18:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could possibly be more efficient to have "Not Sure" and "Looks good" automatically move users forward onto the next diff, rather than having to click Next.
filed as Github Issue 229 xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 18:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • At present, I am finding the tool can be uncompetitive with HG and TW and also standard rollback. This is for various reasons, including the lengthy process of reverting; "Should be reverted" > "revert now" > undo. The use of "undo" rather than "rollback" is another factor affecting the efficiency of the tool, meaning users of other anti-vandalism tools will get there first.
@Orphan Wiki:, could you elaborate "rollback" is faster than "undo", and what it mean by meaning users of other anti-vandalism tools will get there first.? xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 18:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Xinbenlv: well, I think they mean that the time between pressing the rollback button to it finishing is faster than undo and finishing due to the programmings in the system.The creeper2007Talk! Be well, stay safe 17:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reverting/undo-ing, I always believe it right to notify the users whose edits have been undone with a warning or notification. At present, this has to be done via TW. Can anything be built into this tool to enable warnings/notifications to be distributed? This may not be possible due to being directed away from the tool to complete the undo.
filed as Github Issue 223 xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 18:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appearance-wise, this is a clean and minimalist looking tool, very user friendly. This not only makes it pleasant to use, but minimizes the risk of making mistakes. This will be important when newer/less experienced vandal fighters take to using the tool.
Yes, that's our design goal, including only give direct revert power to users with rollback permission and whitelisted users like other tools do. But we allow regular or less experience users to also use it to review revisions, provide their assessment and when they absolutely want they can use regular on-Wiki undo just as if they are viewing the history list of an article and decide to undo one revision. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 18:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should be a pop-up or something if someone begins to use the tool without logging in. This will be especially useful for new users. I made my first edits anonymously without realising I needed to log-in.
This is now implemented, thank you for your suggestion.


These are some initial thoughts. Please let me know if I'm being stupid with any of them; obviously I am new the tool and may not have done everything correctly.

You are correct. And many thanks to your suggestion! xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 18:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have watchlisted this project page and talk page and will keep checking in to lend a hand and see how things are getting on. It's also great to see some familiar faces jumping in and testing the tool as well :) Orphan Wiki 23:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That's great!

Querying API for Revision Diff data for further Data Analysis and Machine Learning from CSV dumps

[edit]

Currently Battlefield has a CSV dump that contains RevID, LastTimestamp and Judgements. GREAT! But the CSV has no content of Diffs. So, How can we query to get the &rvprop=content&rvprop=contentmodel to get the Diff info for further semantic analysis? I am trying via the Sandbox API here: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:ApiSandbox#action=query&format=json&prop=revisions&titles=API%7CMain%20Page&formatversion=2&rvprop=timestamp%7Cuser%7Ccomment%7Ccontent%7Ccontentmodel&rvslots=main&rvstartid=959491238&rvendid=1590694690 Thadguidry (talk) 02:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not reachable/Outage

[edit]

For the last 15 minutes has not been reachable. CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JavaScript

[edit]

Is this tool has any script that can be pasted in commons.js to use it? Thank you. Empire AS Talk! 07:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet, we hope to create one! But since I am personally not an expert creating common.js, so if any Wikipedians who can help that would great. If not, we hope to do it a few weeks later. Filed as a GitHub issue to track and please stay tuned. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 19:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 July 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. The tools rename was already accepted via consensus and keeping this old page is both redundant, I see no reason why this move shouldn't take place especially with no real consensus against it. (if I fail to move, will request admin help) (non-admin closure) Ed talk! 02:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia:WikiLoop Battlefield → Wikipedia:WikiLoop DoubleCheck – Name change xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 19:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

cc'ing admin @Xaosflux: who protected it. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 19:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to the move or whatever the name the project wants to use. However a couple of tech notes: (1) the old name should be kept as a redirect as it is associated with revision tags, and what to do about its tags going forward should also be figured out. Best to move-protect the new name as well if it will be linked from a revision tag) to make sure this doesn't bite you in the future as well. — xaosflux Talk 19:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: I see. Can you do the move for us? I think it's not controversial as the new name is picked by the community through a vote. I just realize the RM was the discussion process to gain consensus but I think we already have the consensus. Could you or any admin help us complete the moving? Thanks! xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 23:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Xinbenlv: what is the plan for the Special:Tags? This likely requires a software tweak to change them - is that scheduled or already occurred? — xaosflux Talk 23:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Xaosflux, please review and move if possible. I think xinbenlv just wants the tag appearance changed to match the rename if that's correct? Ed talk! 02:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We plan to change the tags to WikiLoop DoubleCheck as well, do you know how to change the tags? Thank you! xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 03:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No one objects and because the name is voted by the community, I think we could conclude the RM and if you think so, could you help move the page? Thank you! xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 04:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: why am I not able to move the pages? EllenCT (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@EllenCT: this page title is currently integrated with Special:Tags (c.f. my notes above) - I'm fine with the page being moved to whatever the community wants, however the issue of what to do with the old tags, and what tags will be used in the future (and who will change the code to use them) needs to be all coordinated and done at once to avoid problems. — xaosflux Talk 00:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux:, thank you! I will handle the migration to tags. I have a few questions
1. since we have extended support to other languages, can we apply to create a global tag just like huggle to tag all revisions across different wikis? I mean, how to apply for such global tag?
2. After the software migrate to use the new tag, how to tag previous revisions with the new tag?
Thank you! xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 23:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncontroversial. The name was picked by the community, so what this request is really asking is whether the page name should follow the name of the tool, which is an obvious yes beyond any doubt. From the above, there seem to be technical challenges, but those can be addressed without bureaucratically pretending there is some consensus that still needs to be established. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since I was pinged, but the above was marked don't edit I'll reply here. @Xinbenlv: I don't know what you are talking about some global huggle tag, a very quick look at other projects shows no such tag (e.g. w:es:Special:Tags. We can make a new tag, just need to know what it should be called, what the description/link should be. Then the software will need to be updated to call the new tag. You probably shouldn't worry about changing the old tags, just leave a redirect from the old linked page to the new page and we can deactivate the old tag from use. This stuff just needs to be planned and timed accordingly. As I noted above, I really don't care what this is called - just that a mess of the tags system isn't made (which there is also an entire collection of likely too many OAuth tags registered to the old name that also should be cleaned up - see Special:Tags and search for "loop" on the page). — xaosflux Talk 03:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Here is an example for Huggle in fr:Spécial:Balises line huggle Huggle Modification effectuée au moyen de Huggle. With respect to Oauth tags needs to be cleaned up. I will also work on that. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 05:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That tag was manually created on frwiki (see log entry). — xaosflux Talk 11:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note @Ed6767: I moved the page, kept the page protections. The entire tag things brought up before still need to be worked on, someone needs to identify and perform or request all of the related work for that. — xaosflux Talk 11:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DoubleCheck doesn't do what it says it will

[edit]

Providing feedback per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-08-02/In_focus.

When I click on the button that says "Revert now", nothing happens. Dan Bloch (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Danbloch: thank you! Will check immediately! xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 06:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Danbloch:, "Revert now" should take it to a URL on Wikipedia that allows you to revert the revision, provided the revision is undo-able (when it's the last revision), and in some case when the last multiple revisions are from the same user, clicking on "Revert now" will take you to the history page allowing more experienced Wikipedia editors to use things like Twinkle or other tools they like to rollback multiple revisions. If you believe the "doing nothing" happens on revisions that should take you to the URL, it's a bug and we will work on fix it, but we will need the revision Id if you could provide . xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 06:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Xinbenlv: Sure. It happened on
and I think one more. Is that what you mean by revision ID, or is it something in DoubleCheck? I'm pretty sure I can reproduce this at will. Thanks, Dan Bloch (talk) 06:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
will look into them tomorrow xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 06:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Danbloch: sorry forgot to respond. I filed it as issue#322, it's due to issue#57, we are working on a short term fix and them the ultimate solution will be combined diff issue#225. Again, thank you for your reporting, stay tuned. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 00:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

[edit]

Hi wise Wikipedians on WikiLoop DoubleCheck, there is an active RfC on m:WikiLoop/DoubleCheck/RfC:Levels_for_WikiLoop_DoubleCheck_Reviewers#Overview that we think you might be interested. Please join the discussion there. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 02:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no warning feature?

[edit]

It seems like a pretty significant feature to be missing from a counter-vandalism tool. Sure, I could open up the user’s page and use Twinkle, but that’s time consuming and that adds up and leads to inefficiency, especially when using DoubleCheck on a mobile device.

Imagine if there was a dedicated iOS/Android app for this, with a warning system as in-depth as Huggle’s. Counter-vandalism would be a breeze and could be done quickly and efficiently. The app isn’t a necessity IMO, but a warning system definitely needs to be added. LJF2019 talk 14:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paging @Xinbenlv: as this seems to have been brought up on the Github issues tab last year. Is there an ETA on the feature being implemented? LJF2019 talk 00:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I find instructions or a guide to WikiLoop DoubleCheck?

[edit]

Please see my question posted on Meta: Where can I find instructions or a guide to WikiLoop DoubleCheck? Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 07:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Application error

[edit]

when i visit website, it shows "Application error". however, dev version website is working. Brāhmī • tagboard  • (always start discussion using {{u|ashtamatrikas}}) 17:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now the dev version is in Maintenance Omtylo (talk) 08:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged the program as non-functional and removed it from WP:CUV/T. I can't access any links to the tool, as they all either time out or give me the Application error. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 14:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiLoop_DoubleCheck&oldid=1197437787"