Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kappa (talk | contribs) at 17:18, 22 September 2006 (Finger Lakes Christian School - review requested). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

NO SPAMMING

Cyde's talk page        Leave a new message

Archives
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 A B C D E F G
H I J K L M N O
P Q R S T U V W
X Y Z 10 11 12

Artist Categories

I thought Artist albums / songs Categories were always valid, even if there is only one entry. Has that changed? (pls respond on my talk page. Fantailfan 12:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

What's the point of a category with only one entry? Especially when we're talking about bands that have already broken up, and thus the possibility of having anything more to populate the category with is nil? Regardless, the bot isn't even deleting any categories right now, he's simply emptying out red-linked categories that either have already been deleted or were never created. --Cyde Weys 16:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Your bot

Your bot keeps destroying my user page. I highly suggest you rewrite that bot before you deploy it any further. Whatever "unwanted" code it was supposed to take out also took some much needed code with it. Mreh. --CJ Marsicano

Can you please link me to the edit in question? --Cyde Weys 04:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Cjmarsicano&oldid=76716181. I had to go through the entire page afterward and fix things manually to get things back to their pre-bot condition. --CJ Marsicano 04:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The bot's going through and finishing out emptying red-linked categories that were previously deleted. It's mainly working on encyclopedic categories, but I guess there's a few user categories in the mix that it's getting tripped up on. Unfortunately, my only suggestion is to keep your userpage categories in nice trim shape, because all pyWikipediaBots (which is the majority of all bots) have this same behavior when parsing out categories. --Cyde Weys 04:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the bot is not only removing deleted categories. It is also removing categories that have never existed (which is fine, though it would be helpful if it didn't then claim that the category had ever existed), and -- more problematically -- it is removing mistyped categories, where the user who added the category made a mistake in capitalisation. In these cases, it removes a category that is supposed to be there, and adds an edit summary making the false and alarming claim that a category has been deleted when in fact it still exists.

Perhaps you could adjust the code so that it checks for alternative capitalisations and fixes broken category links, instead of deleting them with a misleading edit summary? — Haeleth Talk 09:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm seeing Cydebot deletion of Category:French bloggers and Category:American real estate magnates, but I don't see that these had CFD discussions ever. The former seems like an obvious nationality subcat, and the latter I'm almost certain that I found in fine shape, not redlinked, when I used it not that many days ago. What's up? --Dhartung | Talk 09:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Neither of these two categories you mentioned ever even existed, thus of course they never had CFD discussions. Also, I might suggest that you are too process-bound. Many categories are deleted, renamed, etc., without the use of CFD. CFD is just one available tool (in addition to WP:BOLD), and if you look at CFD, it even has a built in exemption for speedies that bypass the CFD process. --Cyde Weys 14:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I was just surprised, is all. At least the one I had thought actually existed. Life goes on ... --Dhartung | Talk 09:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If you have any further questions please direct them to Betacommand (of the bot approvals group). This is actually his task I'm doing (he came up with the list of dead categories). I'm simply running the bot to do it, because I'm more familiar with the en masse category metabot (seeing as how I wrote it and all). --Cyde Weys 15:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

ps - its unblocked, though I figure you have W t:B watched at this point so you saw my note. AFAIK I got the autoblocks too, lemme know if I missed any. Syrthiss 18:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I got the autoblock on AVB (AVB and Cydebot run on the same server, so, unfortunately, blocking Cydebot while it is running also turns off vandalism protection). --Cyde Weys 18:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so that means you're set for now? I can parse that "I got the autoblock on AVB" either as "I'm still autoblocked" or "I was autoblocked on AVB, but I released it myself". ;) Syrthiss 18:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I was autoblocked on AVB, but I released it myself. Sorry for the vaguity. --Cyde Weys 18:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I did a minor edit on a link on the radio station list on Emmis Communications and I didn't log in, but your bot considered it vandalism. Please reply back on my username, Grejlen. Thanks.

SUS Template

Please undelete the SUS Template. T1 does not apply in this case (else you would have to delete the GUS template, which I am sure you will not do), and I think it's deceptive to claim that it is a failed proposal when you and Tony are the only ones that decided that. In reality, there is nothing wrong with supporting a continuation of that discussion, even if it's not a particular "hot item" at this point. At a minimum, you should have a) Gusified it, b) provided us with the code, and c) dealt with all the red links it created. I REALLY wish you would be more civil in your approach to this, because all you end up doing is ticking people off instead of promoting discussion and community. --NThurston 14:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, certainly it's not just me and Tony. How deceptive. --Cyde Weys 14:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you please undelete/paste the code somewhere like on mine or the other one's user talk page thanks if and only if you do it --WikiSlasher 14:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Xoloz already got around to it. --Cyde Weys 14:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I noticed - but just one quick question: Do you think it's OK for userboxes to be used in user space? --WikiSlasher 14:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Some things are unacceptable anywhere on Misplaced Pages. --Cyde Weys 14:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm very sorry

Per your comments on my RfA, I didn't realize that you were holding such a grudge. Just so you know, I was asked by several members (Most of whom thought I was a sysop) to create that arbitration case, and I'm sure you realize that it was also a precautionary measure.

If you still have such feelings that you decide to debate them at my RfA instead of letting me know personally (on my talk page), then that is your perogative. However, I want you to know that I do not hold a grudge againt you or the foul commnets you have left me in the past.

I had hoped that this was over and done...I suppose I was wrong. I am very sorry if I "impugned your integrity", that was not my intention at all...I was simply trying to find out the truth.

I hold no quarrel against you. If you hold one against me, then that is your choice.~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 16:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I only held a "grudge" because you had not (until just now) apologized. I'm not the kind of person to go out demanding an apology over something; I will accept it if it is offered, however. Consider the "grudge" over. --Cyde Weys 17:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok

I can undertsand your reasoning for deleting my userpage but could you be as kind as to restore everything else? ILovePlankton 02:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Cydebot

I'm not sure if this request is reasonable (perhaps it's me who's doing the wrong thing), but is there any way to make the bot distinguish between deleted categories and categories which have not yet been created? Sometimes I put a page into a category which I'm reasonably sure will be created some time in the future (because there are other similar categories for example), which results in a red-linked category. -Esn 02:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Robotic deletions

Eh? Does this edit summary indicate that this is sysop work being done by a bot? If so, can you link to where the approval to do this is, please.
CygnetSalad 03:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It's standard CFD work. Once you move all of the pages into the category's new name the old one is deleted. --Cyde Weys 12:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I've restored this thread. If you'd like to propose that that portion of the policy be changed to indicate that people cannot use alternate accounts in this manner, feel free to do so. Barring that, it's a fairly straightforward question: Do you have a bot running that is doing these deletions? Your response above doesn't appear to answer that question. - CygnetSaIad 00:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there any reason for him to not be deleting unused categories is what I'd like to ask - if he's using a program that assists him in deleting such categories, by all means he should per IAR. I think what Cyde wants to know is whether this is a question concerning a mistake he may have made or what he may interpret as trolling to see if he did something wrong, which is why he questioned the legitimacy of the question. I'm not saying you're trolling, but I honestly don't see the point of asking such a question myself, unless something was deleted that shouldn't have been - it is similar to how people may use AWB, for example, to aid oneself in dealing with tedious processes - I see nothing wrong with simply clearing out left overs from CFD debates. Cowman109 01:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It's becoming rather obvious that the sole purpose of this "alternate account" is merely to annoy me, and that is unacceptable per the sockpuppet policy. --Cyde Weys 01:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

How is that "obvious?"

• I've spelled out the purpose of this account clearly on its talk page. The fact that the first few edits by this account relate to you no more means that its sole purpose than your first edits meant that the purpose of your account was to edit evolution.
• It's really an easy question, one that you seem to be going to some length to avoid answering: Do you have a bot doing deletions?

CygnetSaIad 01:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you think I am stupid? Do you honestly expect me to put up with someone who is using an alternate account to be obnoxious because he's too afraid to let his real account be associated with his obnoxious behavior? Identify yourself and stop trolling, and then you'll get an answer. --Cyde Weys 01:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, as gently as possible, what exactly is "obnoxious" about anything I've done? You've got a history of personalising debate, and respond with startling acrimony to the simplest of questions. I had hoped that a neutral question seperate from any history might elicit a straightforward response from you. This was apparently a mistake, but to resond with "stop trolling" is inappropiate.

I'll take it as read then, that you are applying sysop rights through an usupervised bot. That's really not a good idea. Can I suggest instead that you use something similar to AWB to aid you in repetative tasks?

CygnetSaIad 01:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I would respond perfectly normally if you didn't feel the need for deception. And what are you now, some sort of evangelical AWBist? Lemme guess, you're feeling jealous at how much more efficiently I can do category work with pyWikipediaBot? --Cyde Weys 01:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• (From a Bot Approvals Group member):It would be inapproriate to actually flag this admin account as a bot, and the low speed processing of deleted categories through the use of a framework for the processing of WP:CFD is OK here, in so long as all of the categories being dleeted have been manually verified against the deletion discussion prior to feeding them to the framework. In a realted note, Cyde if you can support it I'd LOVE to see your CFD bot processing include a wikilinked reference to the deeltion log page you have verified on each deletion/article edit during an "empty" process if possible. — xaosflux 02:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The edit summaries when it's removing the categories to be deleted already do include a link to the relevant subpage. I'm not sure what else you are asking for? --Cyde Weys 02:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

  I'll leave aside the issue of why it's so hard to get an answer to a simple question from Cyde, save the lecture about how responsible use of adminstrative powers includes polite replies to examination, and simply say: Thank you Xaosflux for your response.

  With respect to the issue at hand, do we not delete things with bots for lots of good reasons? Reflecting on the sometimes contentious nature of (for example) the Curps-bot blocking for page moves and user names, shouldn't something like this which is not a heart-stoppingly vital thing to do have more community input? In my first post here I asked for links to discussions on sysop-rights-bots, I'd now repeat that request.

  I think that XF is refering to things like 19:37, 21 September 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Category:Suburbs" (Robot: Category was disbanded) perhaps?

  CygnetSaIad 02:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm seriously wondering why you felt it was necessary to use a sockpuppet. The thing is, when you are using a sockpuppet with no history of prior contributions, a lot of people aren't going to take you seriously. You think you can start some sort of a wide-ranging discussion on bots when you haven't even proven that you aren't a sockpuppet of some banned troll? Hah! We'll get serious when you get serious and stop using throw-away accounts to try and evade responsibility and accountability. It's like sending a secretary to go meet with another nation's head of state. It just isn't done. When you feel honest enough to come to the table as who you really are, then we can talk. --Cyde Weys 02:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, I used this account for exactly the reason stated all of fifteen centimeteres up there the first time you asked: Because you're volatile, abrasive, and personalise issues. As evidenced by your last post, where you say I'm trying to "evade responsibility and accountability" when I tagged my user page as an alterante account, responding politely to questions about its nature.

• I'd also suggest that you review the "assumptions of good faith" thing, as your suggestion that I am a "sockpuppet of some banned troll" flies pretty strongly in the face of it.
• I know that this has been said to you countless times, and you're unlikely to listen any more now than ever before, but have a look at the behavior of Xaosflux here. He's being nice. You could take a leaf out of his book.
• Again, with respect to the matter at hand (which I must admit I feel like you're still avoiding) it's hardly a "wide-ranging" discussion. This doesn't mention you, for example.

CygnetSaIad 02:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"Because you're volatile, abrasive, and personalise issues." Cease your trolling and personal attacks at once or your sockpuppet account will be blocked. This kind of abuse is not an acceptable use under the alternate accounts policy. --Cyde Weys 02:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

To everyone else reading this: this is why alternate accounts are a bad idea. They allow someone to think they're getting away with trolling and abuse because it doesn't impugn the "good name" of their main account. --Cyde Weys 02:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting. I set up an alternate account at your suggestion, solely for making AWB edits. Have you changed your mind then? --Guinnog 02:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What? What does having a separate bot account have anything to do with using a second account for harrassment? Nevermind that when you use a secondary bot account you identify which person owns it, whereas this person is using his alternate account anonymously. I don't see anything at all in common between these two situations. --Cyde Weys 02:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I see the distinction you are making. Thanks for explaining. --Guinnog 03:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I should have been more clear. I meant that anonymous alternate accounts were a bad idea, which I thought was implied given the context of what we're dealing with here. I don't have nearly the same kind of problem with identified alternate accounts, and actively encourage the use of alternate bot accounts. --Cyde Weys 03:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Cyde - Please look back at this discussion.

I asked a very simple question. You deleted it. I restored it, and asked it again with some explanation. You didn't answer, but for to impugn my motives. I explained my (clearly wrong-headed) hope that a "neutral" account would get you to respond with greater alacrity than I'd seen from you before. You responded incivily with "Do you think I am stupid?" while still not answering the questions.

You did personalise the issue with talk of a "banned troll", you were abrasive. Again, I implore you to compare your escalating series of responses (with threats of blocking, now!) to the calm and civil manner in which XF replied.

You've also failed utterly to engage in substantative any discussion of your use of adminstrator privledges through a bot.

CygnetSaIad 03:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahah, it just clicked in my mind. I figured out who you are now. Seeya. --Cyde Weys 03:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

User:ILovePlankton

Hey, could you possibly explain to me why you just moved ILovePlankton's userpage to User:Cyde/Bad and then to User:Cyde/dev/null, and then back to User talk:ILovePlankton? I've checked the diffs and could not find any personal info. alphaChimp 02:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a very sensitive issue not to be discussed on-wiki. Please talk to me on IRC. Other than that, I would just say that you really, really don't want to be involved in this mess. --Cyde Weys 02:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

sorry I can't use IRC for technical reasons. Can you convey the message to me on this page? alphaChimp 02:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No I can't, but you can email me and I will explain. --Cyde Weys 02:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Finger Lakes Christian School

Please don't superimpose your personal opinion on an AFD, and delete without a consensus. This is a clear abuse of power. Your reasoning demonstrated that you ignored the discussion. It's true wikipedia is not a democracy. A democracy can be a tyranny of the majority, which is bad. Tyranny of a minority, however, is generally, not much better. Misplaced Pages doesn't replace deomocracy with dictatorship. It replaces it with consensus building, which you ignored. Misplaced Pages is an enormous community. If you have a good reason for wanting something (such as deletion), you can always convince of enough people, to garner a rough consensus. Of course, when your arguements are week and flimsy, it's hard to obtain a consensus. I find it truly said to sad, decisions of what is deleted, is based solely on who has a technical power. Giving a janitor keys to the garbage room, doesn't mean they have permission to throw in the garbage anything they don't like, regardless of what the community wishes. --Rob 02:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Admins are expected to exercise judgement in closing debates. That's exactly what I did. --Cyde Weys 02:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Replacing a message left by AntiVandalBot

Hello, Cyde. I have, on a few rare occasions, seen the bot warn an IP address with a warning level lower than that which I would want to use. In such an instance, would it bother you if I were to replace the bot's message on the talk page with one of my own (with my signature of course). One example of a situation would be User talk:216.114.175.195. As far as I can see, this IP has only made vandalism edits and I had previously used a level 2 warning. The bot warned with level 1, but I would like to replace it with a level 3 warning. Thanks in advance for your consideration. --After Midnight 03:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Warning levels mean nothing. This isn't some little game we're playing here, with the "Ohh, he's vandalizing, but he hasn't collected all of the warning tags yet, so we can't block him yet." If he's vandalizing, have him blocked. Please understand how "I had previously used a level 2 warning. The bot warned with level 1, but I would like to replace it with a level 3 warning." sounds overly legalistic. It's just a vandal and process is not nearly so rigid. --Cyde Weys 03:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I blocked him, so thanks for bringing him to my attention, and don't worry about those warning levels in the future. Most admins don't even bother with all that crap. If it's clearly a vandal (and not just someone making test edits), block 'em. Period. --Cyde Weys 03:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your perspective. I have gotten so used to other admins telling me that they couldn't block in these types of situations that I thought that I needed to be more thorough working though the levels. It hadn't occurred to me that I just hadn't asked the right admin. I think that there are too many admins who will not block an IP that does nothing but vandalize, but does it only once a week or so, with an explanation that the vandalism has stopped or the last warning was not recent enough. Thanks for your support. --After Midnight 03:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

CFD Processing

(starting new section to avoid drama above)
In a realted note, Cyde if you can support it I'd LOVE to see your CFD bot processing include a wikilinked reference to the deeltion log page you have verified on each deletion/article edit during an "empty" process if possible. — xaosflux 02:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The edit summaries when it's removing the categories to be deleted already do include a link to the relevant subpage. I'm not sure what else you are asking for? --Cyde Weys 02:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't very clear, and this is not a complaint, just a feature request =)

Your current deletion seem to be using a deletion summary of "Robot: Category was disbanded"

e.g. 2006-09-22T00:59:22 Cyde (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Category:Internet video series" (Robot: Category was disbanded)

What I was referring to would be if "(Robot: Category was disbanded)" was instead something like "(Robot: Category was disbanded per Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 13)

Kind of along the way Cydebot usually flags the article when removing it. Again though, this is a feature request, and should not be taken as a bot approvals type request. Thanks! — xaosflux 04:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a pyWikipediaBot thing. I'll look into changing it. --Cyde Weys 04:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, happy editing. — xaosflux 04:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Getwiki

There were keep and seven delete votes on the deletion page. This means NO CONSENSUS . You are being hhigh handed in decinding on your own that powering wikiinfo does not establish notability. Your decision isn't fair , if it seems I am attacking you then sobeit. The deletion vote has been closed unfairly and the evidence is there. It doesn't even warrant deletion review. Unitedroad 06:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not a vote. For Gods' sakes, if I get whined at each time I close an AFD, maybe that's why I don't do it so often. --Cyde Weys 14:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Civility

It's just a mild advice to reread the policy. Your "I am an admin, you are nothing" manner of discourse is not very appropriate in the present situation. Please consider contributing a couple of new articles to the project over the following week-end; mainspace editing is a pleasant experience and the only reason why we are still here. --Ghirla 14:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Now you're just being passive-aggressive again. Knock it off. Your established pattern seems to be making an attack or saying something incivil, baiting people into responding in kind, and then leaving them some bogus civility warning. It's utterly transparent and it's certainly not going to work on me. I've seen much, much worse. And your condescending statement about doing something useful would be offensive if it wasn't so hysterically false; I don't even need to defend what I do for Misplaced Pages against you, because everyone knows just how much I do do. --Cyde Weys 14:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you please explain what is "passive-agressive"? My dictionary does not have such a word. Also, please demonstrate that I have a "pattern" of leaving "bogus civility warnings" before throwing casual accusations of the sort. Your assurance that "everyone knows just how much you do do" is surely modest, but I'm entitled to disagree with your manners of expressing this superiority. --Ghirla 14:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo, if I may humbly interject, it was relatively obvious to everybody what your intentions were when you made your original post and they have become quite clear upon your response. You are flimsily using your brand of rhetoric to start some silly fight with Cyde, and he obviously sees right through it. I propose just deleting this whole section, as your intentions are not genuine hoopydink 14:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

My "intentions are not genuine"? It was "relatively obvious to everybody what your intentions were"? And what about WP:AGF? The policy says to me: "Well-meaning people make mistakes, and you should correct them when they do. You should not act like their mistake was deliberate. Correct, but don't scold". Since you instantly determined that my intentions are not genuine, may I ask - which of my comments should I delete? Thanks, Ghirla

Now, you even strengthened your assertion by calling my statement "hysterically false". Do you think that this edit may help clear the air? Let me assure you that I'm not subject to hysteria. I just don't approve admins who seem to think that WP will collapse unless they go berserk and sink their teeth into some of the most prolific editors around on a random basis. Admins should encourage such editors, not intimidate them. To create a good climate for those who edit - that's the sole meaning of adminship for me. If I rejected several offers to run for adminship and never considered writing a bot (I believe all bots active in Misplaced Pages quite annoying), I'm not entitled to be subjected to the condescending manner of discourse, normally reserved for vandals and IRC. Happy edits, Ghirla 14:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ghirla, I'm really not interested in playing your little games. I know you are so fond of telling people to go be more productive by writing some articles, so let me turn it around on you. Stop this and go write some articles. I'll be continuing my work with pyWikipediaBot. That way we both get encyclopedic work done rather than flailing blindly at each other. Sound good? --Cyde Weys 15:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, you just caught me in an edit conflict. I already decided that I can't be right in arguing with an admin, because I'm not one, and offered my good-natured apologies there. I really think that I should keep away from talkspace and return to mainspace editing. Conflicts between article-writers and bot-writers are no good. We should not forget that our common aim is to improve Misplaced Pages. --Ghirla 15:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Finger Lakes Christian School

I have requested a review of your closure of that discussion. Kappa 17:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)