Misplaced Pages

User talk:Cyde

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Giano II (talk | contribs) at 13:43, 22 December 2006 (→Revert warring). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:43, 22 December 2006 by Giano II (talk | contribs) (→Revert warring)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


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

AntiVandalBot

I reverted an edit from a user named Blueski (diff) who redirected the article on Dick Cheney to the article on Vagina, but AntiVandalBot reverted my edits again. Just wanted to let you know so you can improve the bot. Thanks for an impressive tool to fight vandalism :-) Snailwalker | talk 19:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 19

category:Muslim women

A deletion of yours is being discussed, and I've raised a question of "how" as opposed to "why". I'd appreciate it if you could respond there.
brenneman 02:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the "how" is relevant in the merits of DRV. As to the why, I have no opinion; I didn't close the CFD, I merely ran the bot on the decision that came from another guy who did close it. --Cyde Weys 04:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion summaries

Some people seem to be concerned about your deletion summaries which say "Robot: whatever". Could you clarify what that means? -Amarkov edits 02:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Brenneman. It's pretty much as it appears ... I have a bot that's been handling WP:CFD/W for many months now. Cydebot has over 100,000 category-related edits. Nothing new to see here, move along now. --Cyde Weys 03:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This has very little to do with Cydebot, although I don't see anything here about CfD I'm not too fussed by that. I'm asking a pretty strightforward question: Are you running a bot (as opposed to something semi-automated like AutoWikiBrowser) that is doing these deletions? The "testing the throttle" edit summary makes it appear that you are not manually approving these deletions, but are inputting a file and hitting the "fire and forget" button. If this is in fact the case, can you link any discussions where approval has been given for this?
brenneman 04:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
If you check out the pyWikipediaBot CVS tree, you'll see a new bot, delete.py, that was added in the past week. I wrote it. I don't see the huge fuss over testing it out a little bit in my userspace to make sure it works before uploading it to the CVS tree for hundreds of people to download. Brenneman, you aren't really active in this area, and your attempts to divine what's going on are woefully backfiring. Please go back to writing articles or somesuch. --Cyde Weys 04:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
But you used it to delete things in categoryspace. That is not testing, and it is bad if you have no approval. -Amarkov edits 04:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Check my logs. I've been handling CFD for months in this same fashion. It's nothing new. And it has implicit approval of the Bot Approvals Group. --Cyde Weys 04:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to complain about it past this, because you're obviously not using it for anything controversial. But I really do think it's a bad idea. -Amarkov edits 04:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
How is it a bad idea? The bot is already moving all of the pages in category A to category B. Why shouldn't it then go ahead and delete category A after the category page text has been moved to B and category A is empty? It's a purely mechanical process. If the bot didn't do it, I would just have to go in manually and do the exact same thing. Except I would make the occasional mistake, whereas the bot never clicks on a wrong link. --Cyde Weys 04:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Bot policy - "Sysops should block bots, without hesitation, if they are unapproved." Either go through the approval group to get something more than tacit approval like everyone else or I'll block your account next time you delete a category.
brenneman 04:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Aargh, don't start a wheel war. -Amarkov edits 04:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is true that we can block them without notice, but we prefer not to if a better solution, such as talking in this forum, can be found. It is also reasonable to post a response on Misplaced Pages talk:Bots/Requests for approval to request clarification on whether or not a bot is approved. Did you know that some bots are grandfathered in and do not require approval? -- RM 19:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

How is it harmful to save hundreds of man hours of routine CFD work while acting in a manner which strictly obeys our relevant processes for the deletion of categories? --Cyde Weys 05:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/TawkerbotTorA. It's not your decision to make without explicitly discussing it with the approvals group and explicitly discussing it with the community. If it was running assisted AWB-style then there'd be no sweat, if you'd gotten approval there'd be no sweat, if you'd made the arguments to support it beforehand there might be no sweat. The question is just about having some respect for other people's opinions, having some patience, and doing things the "normal" way. There's a balance between being bold and understanding that one can't just do whatever we want.
brenneman 05:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't the Tawkerbot block proxy addresses without a human looking at them first? In this case, a human has already made the judgment and the rest of the work is just mechanics; how is this different from a human doing it manually? --Cyde Weys 06:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
It's basically had de facto approval from the BAG, I can't comment on the other issue -- Tawker 06:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm fairly certain that "basic" and "de facto" are not going to fly on the village pump when it comes to a bot doing deletions all on its lonesome. I'd also suggest that it was tried changing the Bot policy to say "Once you get approval for one thing, as long as no one objects you can do whatever you want including admin actions" there would be outcry.
    brenneman 06:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
My confusion was your comment on "admin actions". CydeBot is not performing admin actions. It isn't deleting anything, but instead removing categories from articles for those categories that have been voted to delete. -- RM 20:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Let us not lose sight of the fact that this bot does useful but tedious work that otherwise would have to be done by humans. (check the backlogs, we need more bots) I'd prefer to see us not standing on process and exactly who said what when and therefore losing something that would otherwise not get done as effectively. Sure, Cyde could do better at asking first and getting consensus first, but let's not throw out a good thing because of that. And Cyde.. would you PLEASE consider getting more consensus first in future? ++Lar: t/c 16:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Um... doing useful but tedious work didn't help TawkerbotTorA get adminship. That's kinda important. -Amarkov edits 16:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it should have. Maybe the Bot Approvals Group should make explicit what is currently implicit, and we would then have the subsequent discussion be focused on policy, not this instance. This instance is that of a bot that has to do things that require the bit, but which does not, itself, have the need for judgement, the action is purely mechanical. Strikes me that standing on "well it doesn't formally have the bit" is a bit process wonkish. The bot does good work. ++Lar: t/c 17:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I am a member of the Bot Approvals Group and I understand what Cyde is doing he has our support on WP:CFD/W he has been given approval for this. there are no objections this bot has been operating for over five months doing this task. I run a bot that does the EXACT same thing when ever I see WP:CFD/W backed up. I also asked cyde to write the delete.py for such actions I have often come across large list of files that either per AfD/CfD/XfD have many pages together I find it a pain to manually delete each page, that doesn't mean that I dont first check the pages. Betacommand 17:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Betacommand: Fix this by having the BAG formally recognize Cyde. No out of wiki, no 'I personally pledge this', etc. The group needs to formally announce it in official capacity to take the pressure off of Cyde. This should not be Cyde's problem, this should be the BAG's problem. If that action generates controversy, the BAG should be tasked with resolving it. Consensus does not trump Doing The Right Thing, so if that's the concern behind this, then it's time for the acceptance group to step up to the plate. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Wonderful, a little controversy and I won't have the time to deal with it, since I'm going on vacation until the new year...maybe I'll find some more time. In any case, my initial reaction to this is that the deletions are fine. I'll look over it more clearly later, but as a BAG member, we are not so hard-nosed as the bot policy would make it out to be. We take things on a case-by-case basis. It should be noted that the BAG group does not officially have any jurisdiction over whether or not a bot can perform sysop actions like deletion. As a result there is and won't be any official policy on that, because it is generally a community decision. All we care about is the task itself and we never override the community consensus. As a result, a bot that has been operating for months has the implicit approval of BAG because it has been running so long without problems from the community at large. -- RM 19:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Um... why do you assume the community at large is aware of it? I sure wasn't. -Amarkov edits 19:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Give me some time to look into this and do more research. I misunderstood the nature of the problem. -- RM 19:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps some sort of approval request can be sent to us for the bot. Though I really don't see much issue here. We have a long running, stable, bot that performs a simple task correctly. It would be nice to know a little about the triggering of a set of deletions, the method, and error-proofing, though this isn't that complicated of a script judging by what it does. Voice-of-All 19:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Alright, now four members of BAG have all spoken in support of this bot, so it's time to end this nonsense. BetacommandBot also performs this task and has explicit approval. The fact that CydeBot does the same thing with an approved bot is enough. BAG members always tend to AGF when dealing with bots. It is not atypical for a bot to run unapproved and later to get "official" approval as a formality. It also occurs when a bot is needed for a time-sensitive task and there is no time to run it through the approvals process. In cases such as this, the approvals process is skipped (See here for an example). If a bot is running unapproved common sense has to be used. How long has it run? Does it have implicit BAG and/or community approval? In this case, CydeBot obviously has approval for its task by implication and is run by a trusted operator. It should also be noted that once a bot has been approved and we trust the bot operator, we'll give considerable latitude when adding additional tasks. It really has never been discussed, but if an established bot operator wanted to do an approved task of another bot operator, there would likely be no controversy, since the task has implicit approval and the operator is already trusted. The BAG members routinely rely on AGF and being bold. -- RM 19:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and there is no reason at all to run this bot through a formal approvals process. That would just waste time and serve no real purpose. Now if it were shown that the task that this bot was performing was damaging, that'd be one thing. But there are better forums of discussion for that issue and blocking the bot is sure to just cause problems. If there are specific issues with the task itself, state them here (or better yet on the bot approvals talk page) for discussion. -- RM 20:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Pile on support...also a WP:BAG member, and a known process junkie, this is OK, and I've talked to Cyde about it before. The process is working, and we don't seem to be having any unwarrented deletions going on, if we are..then block first ask questions later would be my stance. My only RFE on this bot would be have the deletion summary include a wikilink to the CFD disucssion. — xaosflux 21:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Just make sure that Cyde doesn't get burned for using it. -Amarkov edits 21:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Pump

Ok, that's hurdle number one. Sort of. I've posted a note at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Approval_for_deletion_by_bot to get wider community input. I have to say, as "uncontroversial" as this work is, I'll be very suprised if there isn't an uproar. --brenneman 00:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you're over-reacting; I don't think there's going to be an uproar. It's already been working just fine for five months and it is saving human time in a boring, mechanical process and making fewer mistakes than people would. How could that possibly be controversial? Why should people have to manually do these deletions when they can be handled 100% perfectly by an automated process? That's why we invented robots in the first place — because we're lazy! --Cyde Weys 04:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Just a brief note - you said you have implicit approval from the BAG. It would probably help if you obtained explicit approval from the BAG, to avert further controversy. >Radiant< 12:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Are far as I'm concerned, there is no controversy. This is a clear case where member(s) of the community do not agree with the decision/opinion of BAG, which is not a problem in and of itself, but it does not demand that BAG does anything. As I mentioned before, there are bots that have never gone through the approvals process. Most (or all) of the tasks of the rambot have never gone through an approvals process because the bot predates the process. The 5 overriding principles of running a bot are on Misplaced Pages:bots, and it is those principles that are important, not the BAG. Now as a matter of course, all bots should receive proper BAG approval, but if they don't, then what is most important is that they follow the rules "harmless, useful, approved, server hog, and abides by general policy". Approved in this context does not necessarily mean explicit BAG approval, although explicit approval definitely clears things up. Approval is also the least important of the rules. The approvals process basically exists to verify that the other rules are followed. Of course if someone were intentionally flaunting the rules and "being bold" without a good reason, then by all means we could block that bot. For anyone who pays attention to bot approvals, a number of bots get speedy approval with little or no discussion at all even if only a single BAG member performs the approval, yet there is no large controversy or a unified statement of BAG opinion. Approval in cases like these is implicit. Were these rules as hard and inflexible as is implied, then GurchBot_2 would be blocked indefinitely, as rediculous as that obviously is. A bot is in the end just an extension of a normal user and needs to be treated with the same kind of freedom. Any user can edit anything without seeking approval. If they want to use certain tools like a bot, we still want to maintain that freedom as much as possible. -- RM 13:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Er, I think you mean not a server hog. But other than that, very well stated. The Right Thing is more important than dotting i's, but if we can conveniently dot i's we should. In my view anyway. ++Lar: t/c 13:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

JasperReports

On an unrelated note, please don't just jump in and restore something when there is ongoing discussion at deletion review. Or anywhere else for that matter. You thought it was a mistake, I did not, but when there's discourse going on it's bad form to impose your opinion in the form of adminstrative action. I have placed the "tempundelete" template and protect the page until the close of the deletion review.
brenneman 02:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion, so I undeleted it. If you want to delete it now, you should take it to WP:AFD. It's as simple as that. I know you've said the exact same thing when you were on the other end of it. --Cyde Weys 03:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
To my recollection I've never in fact done that. The current deletion review is lacking a consensus to overturn the deletion, so I'll not be planning to make an AfD nomination anytime soon. - brenneman 04:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Do a Google search on JasperReports. It's foolish to stick by your guns when you're clearly wrong. JasperReports is a highly notable software package. --Cyde Weys 04:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Then why don't you edit the article that's in user space, for goodness' sake. Last I looked about nonety minutes ago, it was still the 100% speedy-able "Hey it's a company" that it was when I deleted it. We get bucket-loads of {{hangon}} with "I swear it's notable!" every day, and if real sources don't appear we scrub them from the face of the Wiki. I'm hardly "sticking by my guns" I'm just doing the normal thing: If it's notable, show it, quit just saying it. - brenneman 04:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Kind of hard to "show it" when the article is locked down and displaying useless meta-text, now isn't it? Do the right thing for the encyclopedia and open the page back up for editing. I've already shown on WP:DRV that it's clearly notable. --Cyde Weys 04:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The deletion review has a link to the page in user space where I've been trying for days to get the guy who brought the review to add notable sources. I'm like a stuttering parrot here, if the article is re-written with some sources it's over, finished, done, insert other synonym for "I have no objection to real articles." I don't understand why this is such a struggle. - brenneman 05:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Revert warring

Heya, would you mind stopping the revert war for a second and actually come talk with us? We're on irc even :-) Kim Bruning 19:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Talking about IRC. Cyde, could you explain your role in arranging the block of User:Irpen? Thanks, Ghirla 09:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that's quite the stretch. I leave warnings on a third party's user talk page and Irpen shows up to revert them, and then it's somehow my fault when he gets blocked? I had no idea Irpen was that predictable. You seem to insinuate that he really is that predictable by blaming me, and if he does always blindly remove warnings from his friends' talk pages, then frankly, he does deserve to be blocked. --Cyde Weys 13:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Kindly refrain from littering my talk page with your infantile and hostile warnings in the future, or you will find yourself de-sysoped and banned. Irpen and Bishon were quite correct to revert your antics and your revert warring with them did you little credit. Giano 13:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)