User talk:SQL

SQLBot 6

Hi SQL. I'm not sure if you're around at the same timezones as I am, but I regularly arrive to an AIV backlog around this time, particularly on certain days, when there are actually very few admins around and even rampant vandals can go unattended for a few hours. To say that enough admins have eyeballed the reports is optimistic. I'd like to see the standard 6 hours extended to 8. I note you and others have previously expressed a preference for this figure, so without a strong consensus against it, perhaps you could have a tweak. At least, register my concern about 6 being too short. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mz7, TomyBallioni, Edgar181, HJ Mitchell, Tazerdadog, and Luk: - As above, my personal preference is 8 hours, and I think Zzuuzz makes a good point. What's your opinions? SQL^{Query me!} 07:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Second try at spelling stuff right. SQL^{Query me!} 07:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't have any strong opinions either way. I think I originally suggested 8 hours might be too long because it is rare for a report to go 8 hours without any admin eyes, but it seems Zzuuzz is right that at certain times of the day, there are less admins who watch AIV available. Mz7 (talk) 07:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

As an aside - do reports in that timezone really not even see even one single set of admin eyeballs in 6 hours? If so, we are in some sort of desperate need for change. Or are the more-borderline reports being ignored in this timezone because they're borderline on a good day - and eventually the bot will deal with them? SQL^{Query me!} 07:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I've asked for stats on this before, without success. Anecdotally, I have noticed for many years that there is an issue while the US is asleep, and especially at weekends. I wouldn't say that no admins are around, as some obviously are, but I have always thought there was an insufficient number, and in this case not enough to meet the 'enough eyeballs' criteria. Rampant vandals will be blocked before 6 hours, but others which can (or perhaps should) be blocked but aren't urgent will often wait. It's very noticeable to me - I sometimes enjoy the peace and quiet catching up on admin tasks on a weekend morning, other times I seem to be the only person battling rampant vandals. I have an alternative suggestion, which is to set up an intelligent cron job which can deal with US weekends. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Looking over the the last 10 that were removed by the bot - there was indeed one that went un-blocked which I probably would have blocked at the time. Some more eyes on those 10 reports going back to 4/1 might be a good idea. SQL^{Query me!} 08:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

No strong opinion on the appropriate timeframe. Both 6 and 8 hours are reasonable. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

In my experience, any report that has been left for more than a few hours is not a blockable offense. Personally I think waiting even 6 hours to clear them is long. I'm in the US and typically editing during busier hours though. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• I was actually thinking we should lower it to 4 hours. I consider overzealous blocking and reporting of high school kids and the like to be worse for the encyclopedia than the vandalism itself. If something has sat here for that long with no action and is not ongoing, we shouldn’t be blocking. If it is ongoing, I’m confident it will be back here within minutes. If we actually mean what we say about blocks being preventative, and AIV only being for clear vandalism, someone who hasn’t edited in 8 hours (or longer) on a dynamic IP shouldn’t be blocked, even if they would have been eligible when initially reported. Accounts are more complex, but I’d much rather take the chance and not block a stale minor vandal and potentially gain a contributor down the line, than block someone for doing dumb stuff that they stopped doing 8+ hours ago and that poses no real threat to the encyclopedia. Maybe I’m too optimistic here, but I see no real downside to waiting to block until someone is actually active and a lot of downside. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
• Ideally, and I know we don't live in an ideal world, but ideally, the bot would have a sliding scale of retention times, perhaps between 2 to 8 hours, and would change based on how active we (admins) are at blocking accounts reported on AIV already, and how active we are at blocking in general. I don't know whether a compromise approach to this might be to decide on appropriate retention times based on analysis of activity levels for various times, and have the bot change accordingly. Nick (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I like that idea (poor SQL) but I think something based on recent admin edits/activity would be better than on AIV blocks. Pretend you have a board filled with 10 bad reports. None of them are blocked because none of them are good, so the bot lets them stay 8 hours. You end up with them staying there and then you get one of the panic threads at AN because no one has blocked the "vandals".
    I dunno. I'm definitely on the less-likely to see vandalism and block side of the spectrum (I was even when I used STiki and wasn't an admin), so I can get the concerns others might have who view things differently than me. I'm afraid though, having watched SQLBot in process, an 8 hour timeframe would largely make the bot useless, and we'd be back to the semi-weekly "the sky is falling" threads at AN/ANI, which it has actually done a pretty decent job of stopping from occurring. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Nick and TonyBallioni: - I like this idea. I'll have SQLBot start updating this query here on every run, and we can start to look at what those values should be. SQL^{Query me!} 15:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforceability of logged voluntary editing restrictions

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforceability of logged voluntary editing restrictions. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bbb23 (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Filter

Hi SQL. I should point to the EF history.[1] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Welp, Deleted! SQL^{Query me!} 17:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to maintain. I should point out that it works, but revdel'd edits don't appear in the log (only the number of hits increases). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)