User talk:Cyberpower678/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Cyberpower678. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Senior Editor II

IAC Search and Media

Please disable the bot from adding tags to the page IAC Search and Media. It has been merged and the tags keep messing up the redirect. --Rushton2010 (talk) 10:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

All you needed to do was move the {{pp-pc1}} template below the redirect, like this. The redirect now works as intended, and the bot will still see that the page is tagged, and so will ignore it. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Replied

m:User_talk:PiRSquared17#RfC. πr² (t • c) 03:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry. I monitor my discussions.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 03:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Replag and X!'s Edit Counter

Hi Cyber. Thanks again for taking over X!'s tools. I was just looking at the edit counter and it was showing the replag for the toolserver rather than WMF Labs. I thought S1, S2, S3... S7 were all on WMF Labs now, so the counter shouldn't be affected by the toolserver's replag. Is the counter still using the toolserver's databases? Thanks in advance. 64.40.54.1 (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Err, what? I'm confused. What are you asking? Can you provide a link?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Here's a link to your edit count At the top, there's a red box stating "An RfC about the fate of the edit counter is in progress. Your participation is encouraged. Click here to view the RfC.", then the part that says "X!'s Edit Counter". Then under that is a second red box stating "Caution: Replication lag is high, changes newer than 5 hours, 38 minutes, 23 seconds may not be shown.". I have not seen the source for X!'s edit counter, so I am guessing here. I would expect there's some code that queries the toolserver's database (possible S7) to see what the replication lag is—and when it's high will add the red box that states, "Caution: Replication lag is high, changes newer than...". As the edit counter tool is now on WMF Labs, that would seem to not be affected by things on the toolserver, so that warning message would be invalid. But perhaps the code for the edit counter still uses the toolserver databases to calculate the editor's edit count. Thanks for the help. 64.40.54.1 (talk) 01:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Labs is replaged at the moment. Labs Version & Toolserver Version—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Ahhh. I see. My mistake. In the red box, it has the words "Replication lag" linked to https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Replag the source of my confusion Would it be possible to link it to WMF Lab's replag instead? Thanks much. 64.40.54.1 (talk) 01:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes it would be possible. I'll do that tomorrow morning. :-)—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you I appreciate the help. 64.40.54.1 (talk) 01:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cyberpower678. You have new messages at WilliamH's talk page.
Message added 15:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WilliamH (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

RFC X!'s Edit Counter

Hi Cyberpower678, you have opened an RFC regarding the opt-in feature of X!'s edit counter. As this affects all editors, I wrote a small piece about this RFC at the Kurier (de-wp equivalent of the Signpost) where I linked (as an example) to your edit statistics as presented by X!'s edit counter. I hope this is ok for you. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 07:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

No Problem. :-)—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 11:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I have concerns about the RfC on Meta. Is it necessary to rehash this on Meta? Is there any official requirement to do so? As far as I understand, this is an en.Wiki issue. Secondly: ' This discussion has been raised on the English Wikipedia and the outcome is leaning towards removing opt-in requirement ' - I think this is misleading, at the time of your closure, there was a clear consensus, not a 'leaning towards'. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on these issues. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, you will be surprised but there exist hundreds of WMF projects beyond en-wp and they are all served by X!'s edit counter. Hence, I am very grateful that Cyberpower678 posted this RFC at Meta. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 10:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I won't be surprised, because I've been around a very long time ;) That said, it does not have to be a cross-Wiki implementation. The issue, and a weak one, concerns the current location of the hardware in the BRD. I am still concerned about the misleading statement in the RfC prologue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The toolserver is not located in Germany but administrated by Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. X!'s edit counter is a cross-wiki implementation. Up to now nobody suggested a per-wiki configuration of X!'s edit counter. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 10:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

A per wiki implementation is not possible. There are over 700 projects I'd need to do that for. I can make something for enwiki since there is a consensus for removal, but nothing more.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 10:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

So Cyber has indirectly answered part of my question - as this was a clear en.Wiki consensus, it can be enacted for the en.Wiki - what other Wikis do is up to them; so why is this RfC being rehashed as a cross-Wiki proposal at Meta? My second concern has not been addressed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Because it is important to see if the opt-in views are the same globally or just restricted locally before I make any changes to this tools which could stir up more drama in the end.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 11:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

For the result to be of any value, you would need to parse all the respondents into their home Wikis. The RfC for en.Wiki is complete. You still haven't addressed the second part of my question. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

huh? I'm not creating settings for individual wikis. I'm disabling or keeping enabled the opt-in requirement globally. Hence this global discussion. I am considering putting an enwiki specific setup in there since there is consensus.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 13:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you telling us that you have sole discretionary powers to enact or not to enact on a community consensus? And there is still no response to the second part of the question. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I could technically make the edit counter display "quack" if I felt like it. Every tool maintainer has the sole discretionary power to enact consensus about a tool if they own the tool. But that's not how I want to maintain the tools. TParis and I work together to keep the tools running for the global community. The tools operation should be determined by the community. Therefore, this global RfC was launched to determine if the opt-in requirement should be removed completely from the tool, which is a global change, or be kept on the same global level. Because this wikipedia has a different consensus for the status of opt-in, it would likely be that a specific setup for en.wikipedia will be put in which will remove the opt-in requirement. This change will be discussed with TParis first before it becomes a reality. I am saying that I cannot implement different setups for all 700+ projects as that would be an impossibility. As for your question, I'm not sure what answer you're looking for. I'm trying my best to answer clearly.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online

Hope you guys don't mind me adding a comment here. "Is there any official requirement to do so?" To answer your second question, Kudpung, I don't know of any current requirement that requires that. But that may change in the near future. Please see m:Privacy policy/Call for input (2013) and the comments at m:Talk:Privacy policy/Call for input (2013)#Generation of editor profiles which is specifically asking for a change to the privacy policy for this edit counter and all similar ones. Kind regards. 64.40.54.1 (talk) 02:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I see the question now. No. There is no official requirement to do so. It is merely gaining input to see if the community would like to retain the opt-in or not. For all I care, I could've just left the opt-in as is and not started any discussion. But I'm always interested in knowing what the community thinks of the tools, I maintain for the most part. :-) Sorry for now following sooner, Kudpung.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 02:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

@Cyber, for my part, I sincerly appreciate that you are asking for input from the community before deciding what to do. I think it shows good judement on your part and I thank you for that. Best. 64.40.54.1 (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I try my very best. :-)—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 02:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work on these ToolServer issues. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the notification here. Much appreciated. :) --LauraHale (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

X!'s Edit Counter bug report

Hi! I hope you allow someone without a Google account to file a bug report for your edit counter. I have 2 issues:

Namespace 0 is not necessarily named article. In Wikidata it is the item namespace.
The colors used in the pie chart are not the same as in the list of edited namespaces. In the pie chart it is especially confusing that the adjacent first and last pieces have the same colors as they have at my counts at Meta and Wikidata. Byrial (talk) 03:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:X! Legoktm (talk) 04:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Because the toolserver version is only accessible by TParis, and he got sucked up by RL, I cannot fix those bugs that are there. As I have come to find, the toolserver version is very broken, as the error messages are all being suppressed there. If you have a look at the counter on Labs regarding wikidata, you'll see that the error regarding colors have been fixed. You'll also see in meta that I have disabled error suppression, and every user can see that the tool needs fixing. :p The problem is originating from unknown namespaces. They're quick fixes. But right now I am a little busy in RL as well at the moment.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 12:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem is now fixed on the labs version.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing this at the maintained version at Labs. Byrial (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Delicious stroopwafels for you

Thanks for stepping back from closing the RfC. For what it's worth, I'm confident you would have made a fair assessment, but I believe your decision was in the best interests of the project and the community. Rivertorch (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 17:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

TemplateData is here

Hey Cyberpower678

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Split opt-ins

Can you please comment on this section? Would you be willing to split these as separate options? πr² (t • c) 18:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Not really. There's hardly any participation in that section.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 18:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Editnotices/Page/Jerry Buss

Template:Editnotices/Page/Jerry Buss has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Meh. Don't really care.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 17:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Admin stats - no deleted edits

Hi, re this edit - where have my deleted edits gone? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I switched operations to labs. They don't have the archive table just yet.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 21:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Will the deleted edits eventually be included then? Giant Snowman 14:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It all depends on what WMF legal says. A staff member has stated that it is a reasonable case for uses like adminstats and the edit counter.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 15:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't see why they wouldn't. Giant Snowman 15:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Legal has approved. Deleted should come back within the next few months at most.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 12:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Xenophrenic

Seems to be in "amok mode" at the TPM article. I would commend you to examine his behaviour quite closely, and to make such findings as you think proper. Collect (talk) 11:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

He is most likely going to be topic banned at ArbCom (current vote is 2-0 for that remedy), and has definitely accelerated the behavior that's bringing about the topic ban. See this diff[1] where I reverted a huge edit that didn't have consensus according to Moderated Discussion rules, and he reverted me saying no consensus was claimed. Another one of the Moderated Discussion rules is that we don't make major edits without establishing consensus first, and there's also WP:BRD. That was the opening shot in a revert war, but I'm not taking the bait. I recommend an immediate topic ban until ArbCom posts its final decision. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Grunt. Poorly timed for real life. I'll have a quick look, but I'm still trying to get settled in as moderator and get that huge discussion about grass-roots closed. Also today I am getting ready to travel to Germany, where there I'll have a lot of time to be on Wikipedia.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 11:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, cyberpower. It appears you were fed some inaccurate information that resulted in you making the following problematic statement on the discussion page:

"It has been brought to my attention that major anti-consensus were being made and reverted, twice."

I made no edits against consensus; the only edits I made was to non-consensus text already in the article. (See this discussion, where your predecessor clarified that consensus only if he declared it, or if "all" agreed to it.) Also, I only reverted once. (See EW report for details.) I have absolutely no problem with your request that I not edit the main article without clear consensus, as long as you mean that to apply to the other participating editors as well -- in which case I would ask you to remove or reword that "Topic Ban, sortof" wording to make that clear. Some editors are already trumpeting your choice of words in other venues, and I see that as a bit of a problem. Anything you can do to help with that would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Section heading changed. Please point to where people are question my choice of words.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the header change. They aren't questioning your choice of words, but repeating them or misstating them as an attack on me, like in this edit here. See where that editor says you stated you would block me if you could, and that you topic banned me? I'm sad to say these kind of shenanigans go on frequently in this environment you've volunteered to moderate. Thank you, by the way, for volunteering -- hopefully we can generate more progress than discouragement. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

SilkTork has allowed me to file violations to ArbCom as moderator to be enforced and logged. I have not once mentioned blocking. It was a merely a request. I do not like to issue any kinds of bans or blocks without wolving the conflict verbally. I might put in a request for semi-protection if the grass-roots thing clears up, which is looking to head that way now, hopefully.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 21:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Bypassing Xenophrenic's known OWNership issues -- Good Luck! †TE†Talk 01:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Section of interest

Would you be so kind as to take a look at this section I have just opened at WT:RfA? Based on your earlier post in the prior section, I think my idea may be of interest to you. Regards, AutomaticStrikeout ? 18:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

As much as that idea appeals to me, somehow I have doubts of it ever becoming reality.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 21:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement

This was an inappropriate request. That admin is involved. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. Noted for future references. :-)—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 05:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Book reports

I just noticed you took over Noombot's book report function. Let me know if you have any questions about what book reports are / how books work / anything related to it. I more or less designed them, Noomos did the coding. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm planning to rewrite it to use Peachy when I get all of my other technical work done. I'm probably going to need your help then. I'll give you a headsup if there's something I don't understand.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 05:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

TPm stuff

Were you serious about this request? I'm curious as to what the reasoning is behind that. And does that mean there will be compliance with the "stipulations" of the voting editors, like ThinkEnemies? Just trying to get an idea on how "consensus" will be handled here. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Consensus was in favor of reverting to the proposed revision. As for TE's thing, I didn't quite get it. Quite franckly he still supported. So yes.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 12:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I apologize, I probably should have worded my question more clearly. I was hoping to understand what you saw as the reasoning behind that "consensus" decision to roll back a protected article to that particular version. But nevermind; I think I already see the answer to my question. If several editors had !voted to add the words "Donkey Balls!" to the agenda section, that would have been actioned under the same circumstances because "consensus" was in favor of it, regardless of reasoning or lack thereof. I have a better understanding of the process now. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

For me, consensus is strength of arguments. However, in certain cases, it's not sufficient, especially if people don't provide reasoning behind it, or it's hard to give one. In that case, I use my best judgement to try to get a decent outcome. Sometimes it will be in your favor, and other times it won't. I try to do my best to satisfy everyone, but realistically, that'll never be possible.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

In the pending ArbCom proceeding, Xenophrenic is facing a topic ban from all articles related to the Tea Party movement. The vote is currently 2-0. This topic ban is expected to take effect within days.[2]

He's facing this topic ban because of the overwhelming evidence against him regarding his tendentious editing.[3] This includes new evidence of recent editwarring which led to the current full protection of the article by SilkTork. He violated the 1RR article probation with that editwar and, if SilkTork hadn't locked down the article, Xeno would have been facing an immediate block and topic ban for the editwar.

Since he dodged that bullet, he's continued his tendentious behavior on the Moderated Discussion page, unabated. This post on the Moderated Discussion page [4] can only be seen as an act of deliberate provocation and mockery.

This context is important in reviewing the current activities with the article and the moderated discussion. I notice that you acted as moderator to direct Arthur Rubin to revert to the agreed upon version for the "Agenda" section. This was a smart move and establishes that you do have the authority as our moderator to take action. In light of all these behavioral problems, I am asking you to again direct Arthur Rubin to take action, this time to impose a topic ban on Xenophrenic until the conclusion of the ArbCom proceeding. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Yikes. It looks like a bunch are up for a topic ban. :O To be honest, I see no reason, yet, to topic ban Xenophrenic yet. I'm a very patient person and I like to give people chances before throwing out the bans on people. As for asking Arthur to do something, it was inappropriate of me to ask him as he was involved. I'll ask someone else.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 06:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

X's edit counter

Hi Cyberpower, I have a query about the opt-in for the edit counter. I noticed you opened an RfC on this on 4 June, but closed it early on 22 June and directed people instead to the RfC at Meta. [5] The latter decided to retain the opt-in. However, you then wrote that the English Wikipedia had decided to remove it, even though the local RfC was cut short and (apparently) superceded by the one on Meta.

If there's a proposal to remove the opt-in here, could I ask you to hold a 30-day RfC about this at a central location, and advertise it widely in case people believe their comments on Meta were sufficient? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Will you do the honors of launching that RfC?—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 04:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Created the RfC here. Where would you recommend it be advertised?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 08:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

RfX Report

Hi Cyberpower. :) I've finished Module:RFX report, as requested at WP:Lua requests, and it should more-or-less duplicate the functionality of User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report and remove the need for bot updates. Could you have a look at it and see if you think it is ready? If you're ok with it, I'm hoping you could stop Cyberbot I's RfX-updating task and redirect User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report to Template:RFX report. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Why was I never informed of this request?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have thought to tell you sooner. No particular reason, just absent-mindedness. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, if you think anything about the module needs tweaking, I'm sure we can work something out. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)I can't read the language. And I can't give the thumbs up for something I can't read.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok then, would you be willing to trust me that the code is good? It has failsafes if the pattern matching doesn't find any of the required data, and I've already checked it with a variety of recent RfAs. Actually, I'll tell you what - I'll make another module so that you can see how it handles arbitrary RfAs, not just ones that are open at the moment. I was thinking about splitting out that part of the code anyway. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I want to see it in action first, and whale to the person who requested it without telling me. I'd like to give it a few months of review. I want to see it handle an RfB too.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I have now created Module:RFX table, which you are welcome to play around with. It does look like it could do with a few tweaks still, though - I didn't expect it to fail to get Beeblebrox's RfB end time, for example. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

TPm stuff

Hi, Cyberpower. I'm not sure if you are following the ArbCom case on the Tea Party movement situation, so I thought I'd stop by and give you a heads-up. The latest proposal by the Arbiters is here, with discussion developing on the associated Talk page. I bring it to your attention because if the proposal is acted upon, it will directly affect your role as discussion moderator. Also FYI, while the discussion has slowed on the Moderated Discussion Page, some of the same content dispute has been picked up on this noticeboard. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I am very well aware of it. I have no input on that motion. As moderator, if this comes to pass, I will have to report you and any other list for arbitration enforcement, if you violate that page ban. Thanks for the heads up though, and the other noticeboard too. :-)—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 18:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Signature

Hi, could you tell me why subst:ing User:Gilderien/Signature is displaying the whole page, rather than just the output? Thanks --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 11:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Should work now. Try it again.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 11:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. May I ask what you did?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 11:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Just look at the diff. I added safesubst: which substitutes the template or parsing syntax when the entire page gets substituted.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 11:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have removed all the alternative links to my contributions, and I'm not sure how to restore them.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 09:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixed.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 10:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

PC1 tagging

Hi again Cyberpower. I was just answering an WP:RFPP request at the Number article, and I edit conflicted with Cyberbot II when adding {{pp-pc1}} to the page. This caused some unnecessary edits - see the page history. I mentioned this to you back in May - did you ever get round to rewriting the script? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Not really. I have improved the speed of detection. It tags immediately, which should reduce conflicts. Tagging the page with PC1 is unnecessary. As soon as you protect it, the bot tags it, meaning by the time you click edit, it's already tagged.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 16:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't click edit - I was using Twinkle, which tags the page at the same time as protecting it. Having the bot tag the page so fast means that it always edit conflicts with Twinkle, and also confuses people trying to revert vandalism. I showed you a bunch of examples in the thread from May, but here's another at the Carlos Slim article to show you that it's an ongoing problem. Even if Cyberbot II tags the page zero seconds after it detects a pending-change-enabled page with no tag on it, it's still going to get in the way of the humans interacting with it. It would fit in much better with human editors' workflow if the bot left 20 minutes after detection before it tags the page. Do you see the problem? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes I do. I was certain that speedy tagging would solve all the problems. Guess it didn't. I'll start working on a solution.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 07:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for looking into this. I appreciate it. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

cyberbot error

Cyberbot I appears to have stopped updating the RfX box. AutomaticStrikeout ? 18:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

There's no RfX.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

There was one just about an hour ago. AutomaticStrikeout ? 20:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, the page has to exist before it can place it in there. :p—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm referring to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Incnis Mrsi, which was closed a couple of hours ago. However, the Cyberbot RfX box says "No RfXs since 09:28, 31 July 2013". AutomaticStrikeout ? 21:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, the dreaded "get it right or I'll ignore you" bug. [6] The namespace needs to be spelled out fully as in Wikipedia: or else it'll ignore it. I've been wanting to fix that, but I kept forgetting. :p—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 06:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is straightened out now anyway. AutomaticStrikeout ? 16:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata

[7] Please don't update that page that often, it really only needs to be updated once a week. Legoktm (talk) 01:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I've been away from he internet for some time. I'll see if I can do it tonight. Either tonight or in 2 days.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 08:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Adminstats

Hi, Cyberpower, how come {{Adminstats}} is not working on User:Drmies? I assume it has something to do with resigning his adminship and then regaining the bit, but he's been an admin again since August 5. I thought about removing the template and then adding it back in, but I don't like to mess with his user page. He didn't even ask me to come to you about this (probably doesn't care), but the "error" message bothers me.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll have to look into it. It could be a caching problem.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I tried that trick already, Bbb--thanks for helping out. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm currently debugging a gazillion things right now. Cratstats keeps crashing, my new script almost made a mess on Wikipedia by mass tagging everything incorrectly, and now adminstats is broken. I'm also trying to solve a problem with PC bot right now.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 16:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

You don't really mean adminstats is broken; it works on my page. Sorry for all the work. If you like, I'll pay you twice the hourly rate I get for being an admin here to fix it all. Oh, and while you're at it, can you please eliminate all drama and troublesome editors from the project? We can call it editor detention.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Give my bot admin powers and ill program it to mass block everyone that is editing wrong. ;-)—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 16:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I like the concept of "ill programming"; it has a kind of Beastie Boys flavor to it. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Pun intended, the contraction "I'll" and "ill". ;-)—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 18:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Found the problem. The script hung up on August 5th and never terminated, blocking it from starting over. Deleted the process and it should restart tonight.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 17:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The script must be exhausted running all this time. We'll see if it works. After all, the proof is in the chocolate pudding. Thanks, and now go vote properly, no ifs, ands, or bots.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
:D—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Spam/blacklist link tagging malfunctioning?

Cyberbot II has been adding {{spamlinks}} to a variety of pages, for example at Extraterrestrial life. I'm having a hard time seeing the justification for many of these additions, not least the one at Extraterrestrial life. A cursory look at the two blacklists does not really show any regex that should match the links in question. The function appears to be disabled at the moment, so I'm just posting this message. Rwessel (talk) 05:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Cyberbot II uses the exact same regex scanning engine as MediaWiki. There is no malfunction in the regex scanner that I can see.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 05:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Poor regexes can cause it to go off. It looks like house(?:263\.com|so\.cn) may be causing it. In any event, whitehouse.gov is clearly not a spam link, so I have added it to the exceptions list.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 05:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Whatever the cause, the false positive rate appears to be very high. At least seven of the 53-or-so spamlink tags added by Cyberbot II in the 22 minutes after Aug-12 00:16 have been reverted as not being spam, in addition, a cursory inspection shows at least a couple of links being deleted after being incorrectly tagged (see Breast reconstruction, for example, which had a link that led to an American Society of Plastic Surgeons webpage). I understand that this is basically a suggestion to validate the links, but of the 19 pages that have any edits since the tagging, *8* were good links. And of the 34 pages that haven't had any edits since the bot's, and several of those look like good links as well (Elie Wiesel, for example). I'm not sure how this policy gets set, but I think the false positive rate here is far, far too high, especially when tagged with such a stern warning. Rwessel (talk) 03:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The tags are determined by the community. If it shouldn't be tagged, it shouldn't be blacklisted to begin with. I have no control of the false positives, but I can add links to the exceptions list to be ignored in the future.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 05:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

For the plastic surgery website, \bplasticsurgery\.org\b is what is causing it to be marked as spam. For Elie Wiesel, \bweb\.archive\.org is triggering the bot.

Missing URL list

Cyberbot II has tagged Private equity but has not provided a list of bad URLs. The line "Below are a list of the URLs found that are on the blacklist:" is followed by nothing at all. Maybe I am misunderstanding – I have not had dealings with this bot before – but it is difficult to do anything about the bad URLs if they are not listed, especially in a long article like this. Wildfowl (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

There seems to have been a bug. I'll look into this. In the meantime, I have reverted the tag.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 05:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe I have found the bug and have fixed it.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Great! I'm not sure I can help you with testing that, though – I'm not sure how to. Wildfowl (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, if it doesn't tag them with empty tags again, then we'll know it works. ;-)—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 17:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Auric

Hey, there's something technically wrong with this RfA. The RfA box has been reporting a duplicate vote. The count changed a while ago, but neither the RfA nor the box is updating to reflect the count. I tried to figure out what's wrong but failed. Can you take a look? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Well the time stamp of the box just by looking at it is saying that the bot went offline. This probably has something to do with labs.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 05:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Odd Behaviour in Adminstats

On the 7th July I had 115381 Edits+Deleted (probably correct)[8], on the 8th I had 91374 [9] - strangely the same number as the Edits box... A small bug has got loose maybe? Looking at some others in Category:Wikipedia administrator statistics it appears I am not alone. ;-) Ronhjones ^(Talk)

I switched operations to labs which doesn't yet support deleted edits. I wanted to move from the toolserver as soon as I could. This problem will go away once labs allows access to deleted edits which I predict to happen by the end of August.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 05:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Cyberbot II not handling edit conflicts correctly

A user removed a significant amount of content, including the {{pp-pc1}} template, from the page Qnet, and was reverted by ClueBot NG. Immediately after that, Cyberbot II added a second {{pp-pc1}} to the page (diff). Apparently, it didn't detect that there was an edit conflict. Can this be looked at? Thanks, Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Rotlink BRFA withdrawn

Hey! I'm a little confused about Rotlink's removal of the BRFA from the main page list. He didn't seem intent on canceling the task and him communication seemed forward enough that he would've mentioned this in one way or another. After all, it was only created 2 days ago. I think he simply meant the bot wasn't open, but in trial or post-trial. Not the first time users fiddle with the main list page. Anyway, I'm not sure and I would've asked the botop first. Of course, they can revert easily. Cheers. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The removal was made several hours ago. I interpreted that as a withdrawal. They are free to revert if I am interpreting it incorrectly.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Article revision statistics date format

Is this tool hosted by you? Article revision statistics http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/articleinfo/ ?? If yes do you know the correct format to add date restrictions?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.66.38 (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Any recognizable date format can be used. A timestamp generated in signatures for example.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 16:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I tried different formats like 01-01-2012, 01/01/2012, 1 January 2012 and no results.. I got an error though " Fatal error: Maximum execution time of 30 seconds exceeded in /data/project/xtools/public_html/articleinfo/base.php on line 129" .. if no dates are given it works fine.. Do you have any ideas?

Not at the moment. The program seems to be unstable. I'll have to diagnose and repair it.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 08:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Accidental blanking

I think you might want to make this comment again.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 16:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Oops. Looks like it was corrected for me.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 18:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkpages

First, thanks for tagging pages that have black-listed links, obviously necessary and useful! Second, you seem to be tagging talkpages; is that intentional? Given that we are not generally supposed to edit other users' posts on talkpages not our own, what are we supposed to do about these? (this question asked out of plain ignorance, no desire to criticise) Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I came here to make the same point. But I'll just more directly ask that the bot stop tagging talk pages -- there's no value in that. Looie496 (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

In the same vein, not only was Talk:BDSM tagged, but the link it tagged is actually invalid now. (Main site is there, but it gives an error when requesting that particular page.) – RobinHood70 ^talk 01:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I have added the Talk namespace to the exceptions list.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 10:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Tracing the blacklist

Is there any easy way to determine what rule on the blacklist a URL triggers? For example, this looks legitimate on its face, but obviously someone somewhere has a problem with something whose regex also matches this one. Without knowing whether it's "washington.com" or "nbcwashington" or "petition" or whatever, it's hard to know where to list the whitelist exception and who to discuss the origin of the rule that caught it. DMacks (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. However, I know a user who can track the regex matching this link.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 01:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It's the word "petition" that's doing it. There's a discussion about removing it. – RobinHood70 ^talk 06:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Not that bug again. The petition regex caused it to flag a whitehouse.gov site as spam. :/—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 10:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

bad tag on Rachael Carson

The bot recently tagged Rachel Carson--I think that this is the result of a glitch. Here's the edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Carson&oldid=570192594 The ref that alerted the bot was a web.archive.org link to an archive page from www.medaloffreedom.com, which is now in the hands of some pissant linkfarm. The archived version is at http://web.archive.org/web/20071018025824/www.medaloffreedom.com/Chronological.htm . I found medaloffreedomcom on the blacklist, but, obviously, not archive.com. Since archive.com is used to supply links to old sources that are no longer available, often for similar reasons, the whole domain should be whitelisted or excepted. For now, I'm just reverting the error and hope that this will be addressed before the the bot doesuch more of this.--Hjal (talk) 06:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

There's \bweb\.archive\.org.{0,50}obsessedwithwrestling\.com which could be setting it off. I'll take a look. The bot only tags if there's a positive match to a regex scan. Regexes are generated by MediaWiki's own engine.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 10:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)