Examine individual changes
This page allows you to examine the variables generated by the Abuse Filter for an individual change.
Variables generated for this change
| Variable | Value |
|---|---|
Name of the user account (user_name) | 'Cocopuff2018' |
Groups (including implicit) the user is in (user_groups) | [
0 => 'autopatrol',
1 => '*',
2 => 'user',
3 => 'autoconfirmed'
] |
Whether or not a user is editing through the mobile interface (user_mobile) | false |
Page ID (page_id) | 7350 |
Page namespace (page_namespace) | 3 |
Page title (without namespace) (page_title) | 'X' |
Full page title (page_prefixedtitle) | 'User talk:X' |
Action (action) | 'edit' |
Edit summary/reason (summary) | '/* hki */ ' |
Old content model (old_content_model) | 'wikitext' |
New content model (new_content_model) | 'wikitext' |
Old page wikitext, before the edit (old_wikitext) | '== F-TW (discussion cannot take place on For-Test Wiki) ==
Myht seems to have been unreliable lately. I'm not too sure what's going on, nor if Matt is aware, but myht.org has gone down with 500s for 2 days in a row. Perhaps if we have another system administrator who can reasonably spend on it, it may be worth considering switching hosting method and domain for FTW. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 01:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
:I agree. Site outages have became quite frequent. I have emailed Matttest about these issues and volunteered to become a system administrator, but have not heard back yet. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 01:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
== About protection ==
It is not right to take away the user's right to object with an amendment. Please be careful to [[w:WP:ASSUME|assume good faith]]. --[[User:LisafBia|LisafBia]] ([[User talk:LisafBia|talk]]) 13:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
:What do you mean? The user abused their talk page while blocked (added the word foo), so I protected it from editing so they won't abuse it. Whats the problem? [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 13:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
:: This was still not an inappropriate change. As I said, assume good faith. [[User:LisafBia|LisafBia]] ([[User talk:LisafBia|talk]]) 13:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
:::I did assume good faith. Twice. I told the user to be careful when I granted administrator rights the second time, and they still abused them. They then abused their talk page, (adding the word Foo over it, [https://testwiki.wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Username&oldid=27168 here]), so I temp protected it for 2 weeks to stop abuse and allow for appeals in two weeks. This is an appropriate action, and is justified. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 14:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
::: Thanks for your good care and quick blocking of this user I can really appreciate that;-) I agree with LisafBia that the user should have the possibility to appeal. In case of abuse, access can be blocked, but protection is not necessary. :-) [[User:Drummingman|Drummingman]] ([[User talk:Drummingman|talk]]) 14:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
::::There '''was''' abuse ([https://testwiki.wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Username&oldid=27168 here]), that's why I protected for 2 weeks, and after that they can appeal. Is this okay? [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 14:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
::::: I know it. Thanks again for your concern. Should the user continue to disrupt instead of consulting about the block, then any admin and crat may revoke access by blocking it. Kind regards, [[User:Drummingman|Drummingman]] ([[User talk:Drummingman|talk]]) 14:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::: Why would we give this user special treatment? Convention is to revoke TPA or protect talk page upon disruptive behavior, which has occurred here. I genuinely don't understand why we wouldn't protect it for a few weeks to let the user think about their actions and to prevent abuse. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 14:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
:If a user is blocked, their talk page is for '''appeals''' only, and there is no need to wait for more disruption to revoke TPA or protect the talk page. This action was reasonable and preventative, not punitive. I agree with X. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 14:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
::I believe the actions were also good and certainly not punitive, and revoking access at that time was also helpful and good. We are now almost a day away, let's see if the user continues to abuse? If yes? Then you can revoke access. I would like to give the user a chance to explain and appeal this blocking. I really understand your concerns, With collegial regards [[User:Drummingman|Drummingman]] ([[User talk:Drummingman|talk]]) 15:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
:::Okay, let's see. Thank you, [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 15:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
::::Sounds good to me. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 15:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
== hki ==
hello, how are you? --[[User:Cocopuff2018|Cocopuff2018]] ([[User talk:Cocopuff2018|talk]]) 02:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)' |
New page wikitext, after the edit (new_wikitext) | '== F-TW (discussion cannot take place on For-Test Wiki) ==
Myht seems to have been unreliable lately. I'm not too sure what's going on, nor if Matt is aware, but myht.org has gone down with 500s for 2 days in a row. Perhaps if we have another system administrator who can reasonably spend on it, it may be worth considering switching hosting method and domain for FTW. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 01:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
:I agree. Site outages have became quite frequent. I have emailed Matttest about these issues and volunteered to become a system administrator, but have not heard back yet. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 01:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
== About protection ==
It is not right to take away the user's right to object with an amendment. Please be careful to [[w:WP:ASSUME|assume good faith]]. --[[User:LisafBia|LisafBia]] ([[User talk:LisafBia|talk]]) 13:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
:What do you mean? The user abused their talk page while blocked (added the word foo), so I protected it from editing so they won't abuse it. Whats the problem? [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 13:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
:: This was still not an inappropriate change. As I said, assume good faith. [[User:LisafBia|LisafBia]] ([[User talk:LisafBia|talk]]) 13:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
:::I did assume good faith. Twice. I told the user to be careful when I granted administrator rights the second time, and they still abused them. They then abused their talk page, (adding the word Foo over it, [https://testwiki.wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Username&oldid=27168 here]), so I temp protected it for 2 weeks to stop abuse and allow for appeals in two weeks. This is an appropriate action, and is justified. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 14:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
::: Thanks for your good care and quick blocking of this user I can really appreciate that;-) I agree with LisafBia that the user should have the possibility to appeal. In case of abuse, access can be blocked, but protection is not necessary. :-) [[User:Drummingman|Drummingman]] ([[User talk:Drummingman|talk]]) 14:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
::::There '''was''' abuse ([https://testwiki.wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Username&oldid=27168 here]), that's why I protected for 2 weeks, and after that they can appeal. Is this okay? [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 14:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
::::: I know it. Thanks again for your concern. Should the user continue to disrupt instead of consulting about the block, then any admin and crat may revoke access by blocking it. Kind regards, [[User:Drummingman|Drummingman]] ([[User talk:Drummingman|talk]]) 14:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::: Why would we give this user special treatment? Convention is to revoke TPA or protect talk page upon disruptive behavior, which has occurred here. I genuinely don't understand why we wouldn't protect it for a few weeks to let the user think about their actions and to prevent abuse. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 14:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
:If a user is blocked, their talk page is for '''appeals''' only, and there is no need to wait for more disruption to revoke TPA or protect the talk page. This action was reasonable and preventative, not punitive. I agree with X. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 14:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
::I believe the actions were also good and certainly not punitive, and revoking access at that time was also helpful and good. We are now almost a day away, let's see if the user continues to abuse? If yes? Then you can revoke access. I would like to give the user a chance to explain and appeal this blocking. I really understand your concerns, With collegial regards [[User:Drummingman|Drummingman]] ([[User talk:Drummingman|talk]]) 15:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
:::Okay, let's see. Thank you, [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 15:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
::::Sounds good to me. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 15:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
== hi ==
hello, how are you? --[[User:Cocopuff2018|Cocopuff2018]] ([[User talk:Cocopuff2018|talk]]) 02:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)' |
Unified diff of changes made by edit (edit_diff) | '@@ -19,5 +19,5 @@
::::Sounds good to me. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 15:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
-== hki ==
+== hi ==
hello, how are you? --[[User:Cocopuff2018|Cocopuff2018]] ([[User talk:Cocopuff2018|talk]]) 02:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
' |
Old page size (old_size) | 4208 |
Lines added in edit (added_lines) | [
0 => '== hi =='
] |
Unix timestamp of change (timestamp) | '1685239645' |