User talk:NaomiAmethyst: Difference between revisions

Hello Cobi,

I sent you an email through WP a couple of days ago, hope you received it.

Regards, Odedee (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your email. -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 04:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here cluebot removed a previous warning while adding another one. Could you please look into this?--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 02:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cobi! Here are the statistics on the ClueBots as you requested.

ClueBot is currently enabled. ClueBot currently has 222902 contributions.

ClueBot has attempted to revert 1958 unique article/user combinations in the last 24 hours. ClueBot knows of 2970 different articles that have been vandalized in the last 48 hours.

Brown Dog affair is the most vandalized page with a total of 23 vandalisms in the last 48 hours. Today's featured article is: Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision.

ClueBot logs all information to #wikipedia-BAG/ClueBot.

ClueBot II is currently enabled. ClueBot II currently has 3051 contributions.

ClueBot II has removed 35 redlinks from WP:SCV in the last 24 hours.

ClueBot III is currently enabled. ClueBot III currently has 1863 contributions.

26 users/pages use ClueBot III's archiving.

ClueBot IV is currently enabled. ClueBot IV currently has 405 contributions.

ClueBot Commons (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advertise your "RFA" or whatever it is thing on your bots edit summary please, I don't think advertising is allowed on wikipedia, but what is an "RFA" anyway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueanode (talk • contribs) 15:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It does appear to be canvassing, which is at least frowned upon. Quote "editors should keep the number of notifications small" and "Do not use a bot". Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blueanode, an RFA is a Wikipedia process by which someone gains (or doesn't gain) access to additional tools. I didn't think that a tiny note in ClueBot's edit summary would cause any disruption and I even ran it by two other administrators before doing this. If you still feel that it should be removed, however, I will remove it :) -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 18:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's canvassing - please remove it. I support your RfA, but advertising it like that isn't good form. Good luck. Cheers, Nihiltres^{t.l} 18:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's gone :) -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 18:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what is an rfa? Blueanode (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for adminship. It is a Wikipedia process by which a user gains access to additional tools in order to help clean up and protect Wikipedia. -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 21:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sounds intresting, Can anyone use it? Blueanode (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone may nominate anyone else or themselves. To actually become an administrator, there is a 7-day period where people voice their opinions, and then a bureaucrat (someone with the power to give other users power) comes along and decides whether the consensus lies to promote or not. -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 22:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I had my RFA I specifically told my brother, another editor who doesn't edit all that much, not to participate in the RFA to avoid the possibility of appearing as a meatpuppet. He did !vote support mere minutes before the RFA closed and the vote was 68/1/0, so the outcome was already set. Since you didn't actually tell Crispy to !vote he's technically not a sockpuppet, but the closing 'crat needs to take into consideration that he only has two edits. My real reason for opposing your RFA is your lack of mainspace and Wikipedia namespace contributions. Not for the !meatpuppet nor the edit summary, I can overlook those without a second glance, no problem. Useight (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cobi, I'm sure by now you hate me and my comments on your RFA, but I just wanted to let you know that it's not a personal grudge. I think your bot is great, one of the best out there. I just don't think now is the time for you to become an admin. I will not hesitate to support when you have a few more months and a hundred more edits to the mainspace and the Wikipedia namespace. If your current RFA passes, I will follow community consensus and be behind your adminship completely. I just don't think you're ready quite yet, but I just wanted to let you know that I'm not out to get you. Useight (talk) 03:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm truly sorry that you're disappointed in how I feel about your readiness. I know I'm biased in determining readiness because I failed an RFA with 1794 edits to mainspace and 481 to Wikipedia namespace. You have 307 and 195, respectively. I just feel that if my work wasn't enough, then yours isn't either. I have a strong belief that we are editing Wikipedia for the mainspace and I won't support an editor with fewer than 1000 edits there. That's how many I had when I first applied (and failed). It just seems to me that without your bot, your RFA would have been closed, possibly per WP:SNOW and I am just keeping your work separate from your bot's work. Being an admin isn't about writing code, so I had to exclude that kind of work when I first looked over your RFA, and really, besides ClueBot-related and vandalism-reverts, it doesn't really leave a lot. Just look at the other candiates for RFA right now, most have thousands of more edits than you. Call it "editcountitis" or "prove yourself worthy" or whatever, but for now, I'm sorry. Useight (talk) 04:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to argue that adminship isn't about maintaining the encyclopedia instead of about writing it. I'm just saying that Wikipedia is about writing/improving articles. Until you have sufficient experience with "broom" of working on adding to the encyclopedia, I won't support giving you the "mop" of maintaining that encyclopedia. And, since you bring up Twinkle, Popups, etc, I think I should mention that I have never used any tools, every single one of my 6000+ edits has been completely manual. I also will not support any editor who leans heavily on Twinkle. Tools are great, they're helpful, make things easier, Cluebot included. But I want to see an editor do some work on their own to demonstrate their skill and knowledge. Point blank: if you want my support at RFA, do your own work and do more of it. I know I don't sound very nice, but I'm a traditionalist or whatever and I want to see a candidate, themselves, do a lot of work. You'll make a good admin, of this I am sure, but I can't support until you've done more work, on your own. Like I've said before if you're current RFA passes, I'll be behind you all the way. If I seem mean or unreasonable, I'm sorry, but I'm pretty much pouring out my heart and soul in regards to what I believe an editor has to do before gaining adminship. I hope we can still be friends, and can agree to disagree agreeably. Useight (talk) 04:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I response to your questions I believed that your answer to question 13 was a bit weak. However I see a lot of good things in you that will make you an excellent administrator in the future. Keep this up and you'll be great. Thank you. Marlith ^T/C 00:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cobi! Here are the statistics on the ClueBots as you requested.

ClueBot is currently enabled. ClueBot currently has 226122 contributions.

ClueBot has attempted to revert 1887 unique article/user combinations in the last 24 hours. ClueBot knows of 3504 different articles that have been vandalized in the last 48 hours.

Brown Dog affair is the most vandalized page with a total of 18 vandalisms in the last 48 hours. Today's featured article is: Yasser Arafat.

ClueBot logs all information to #wikipedia-BAG/ClueBot.

ClueBot II is currently enabled. ClueBot II currently has 3081 contributions.

ClueBot II has removed 31 redlinks from WP:SCV in the last 24 hours.

ClueBot III is currently enabled. ClueBot III currently has 1891 contributions.

26 users/pages use ClueBot III's archiving.

ClueBot IV is currently enabled. ClueBot IV currently has 415 contributions.

ClueBot Commons (talk) 05:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cobi! Here are the statistics on the ClueBots as you requested.

ClueBot is currently enabled. ClueBot currently has 229418 contributions.

ClueBot has attempted to revert 1866 unique article/user combinations in the last 24 hours. ClueBot knows of 955 different articles that have been vandalized in the last 48 hours.

America's Next Top Model is the most vandalized page with a total of 6 vandalisms in the last 48 hours. Today's featured article is: Lethbridge.

ClueBot logs all information to #wikipedia-BAG/ClueBot.

ClueBot II is currently enabled. ClueBot II currently has 3106 contributions.

ClueBot II has removed 23 redlinks from WP:SCV in the last 24 hours.

ClueBot III is currently enabled. ClueBot III currently has 1932 contributions.

26 users/pages use ClueBot III's archiving.

ClueBot IV is currently enabled. ClueBot IV currently has 415 contributions.

ClueBot Commons (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, in your opinion, administrators should be content writers? I don't think any of the administrator tools are useful in writing new content, but in the cleanup and maintenance of Wikipedia. An administrator is like a janitor (thus sometimes the term "mop" is substituted for the word "tools"), they clean up and maintain. If you were interviewing a potential janitor for a publishing company, would one of the prerequisites be that they be a prolific writer? And, before you say something to the effect that I haven't done a lot of anti-vandalism/cleanup work, consider this: How many people use tools like twinkle, amelvand, popups, vandalfighter, and the like to fight vandalism on their main account? Well I use ClueBot to fight vandalism, I just use it on a separate account. ClueBot is simply a tool, not a sentient being. Thanks for taking the time to read this.  :) -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 03:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for offering me the chance to explain further. Unfortunately, in my experience, I have noticed a pattern in the sort of administrators who repeatedly make very poor decisions: this pattern is that they very often have no experience or interest in editing the encyclopedia itself. I don't attribute this to malice or to stupidity, they're merely the mistakes that anyone without relevant experience would make in these situations. I'm familiar with the janitor analogy, but perhaps I think of it more like being the janitor of a space station; you need to have some training as an astronaut before you'll do a good job, even if you've built the best vacuum cleaner ever (and ClueBot is definitely among the best). I am so deeply appreciative for the work you've done with ClueBot, and I sincerely hope my oppose doesn't suggest otherwise. --JayHenry (talk) 05:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think I would make poor decisions in the anti-vandalism field? If not, would it make a difference if you knew I wouldn't branch out into the other fields without being sure of myself and understanding all related policies? (And in your analogy, not only did I make the vacuum cleaner, but I also operate it ;) ) -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 05:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just read your paper about ClueBot and am very intrigued. Is ClueBot your entry in the Siemens Competition? And actually, a promise that you would expand into other fields with the utmost caution does make a difference to me. A lot of the concern arises from the unfortunate fact that some admins do use the tools to set themselves up as governors (or gods) instead of janitors. I believe you when you say that's not your motivation at all. Upon further consideration, and in appreciation of the calmness in which we've interacted, I will withdraw my oppose. I will say, however, that I think there's intrinsic value to working on articles. Something that, perhaps intangibly, helps Wikipedians understand each other better. Helps keep us grounded. Helps us grow. I'd encourage, if you ever find yourself bored, bonked or burned out, to find some article, maybe something that intrigued you once in school or in the newspaper, and improve it. And if you need a helping hand with it, consider me a friend. --JayHenry (talk) 06:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide me diffs of where you asked the two administrators about the edit-summary link issue? I would like to know what you/they said because it might moderate my opinion of this particular lapse in judgment. Thanks, IronGargoyle (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was done on IRC. You can see Kmccoy's statement here for further explanation. -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 17:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you mind that I did some prelim research for you here. I actually was conversing with an editor about four days ago who had submitted a report, and agreed that his edit was valid, although I did understand why the bot reverted him (Mak1457), and I offered him some advice as to how to avoid that in the future. Since I hadn't noticed any comment by you on the subpage, I did a little digging, and it turns out the editor did not transclude the page onto your reports page, so it is unlikely that you were aware of it. So, I fixed that, and while I was there, I figured I'd see how many of the false reports were actually valid ClueBot reverts, (nearly all) and so I did some commenting on many of them. I'm not sure if you want others to comment or to provide diffs to help or not, so if not, feel free to tell me to quit, lol. I won't take it personally. :o) Ariel♥Gold 19:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting is perfectly fine :) And removing the invalid ones makes my job easier :) -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 19:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at the end of each comment, (and in edit summary) I say if my opinion is the revert is valid or not, but I'll let you remove them, just to be sure, since there may be issues I've overlooked. I only saw one that wasn't something I understood, and that was the re-ordering of a list from chronological to alphabetical, and I'm not sure why ClueBot reverted it, the total change was less than 20 characters. The rest, even though the edits may have been valid, ClueBot was doing his job, so I commented on why. Nice to know it does help somewhat! Ariel♥Gold 19:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should explain why I feel that many bot coders don't take enough responsibility for their bots. I recently started a discussion on WT:B#Bot testing, and I was really disappointed that nobody (except possibly Carnildo) took my concern seriously there. What do you think about that discussion? — Sebastian 20:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the BAG is active enough to put each bot through extensive testing, even though it is a good idea. Sometimes it takes several days just to get a BAG member to look at a tiny 100-line bot. The trial period is designed to let the BAG and the community see how it works and find any issues in it. ClueBot went through extensive testing where it would simply report edits that it thought were vandalism to me, then on User:ClueBot/PossibleVandalism per a request on its BRFA. Then it went through two trial periods (50 edits, and 2 weeks, respectively) before being approved. Any errors I find or mistakes I see I correct and revert ClueBot's edit if it hasn't already been reverted. -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 21:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who said "extensive"? It's good that you're done some testing, and it may indeed be enough. But that wasn't what my post was about. I feel we need something in our policy about it. My frustration was that people like user:Betacommand were just in denial. — Sebastian 22:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, yes, bots should be tested, and I believe that that is what the original purpose of the trial period in the BRFA process. And, yes, though I can't seem to find it now, I remember reading something about a bot's edits being ultimately the edits of the operator, and I believe this should be in the bot policy if it isn't. Operators are responsible for their bots' actions. -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 23:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I initially changed to strong oppose in response to your replies to many of the opposers in the RFA as if you were trying to convince them to change their mind, however after another consideration, I see that you didn't do it as often as I thought and were usually prompted by a question. It's actually a good example of you discussing with other editors. I hadn't noticed that each one was prompted by a question and am truly sorry for the mistake. I'll tell you what. I'm a super strong supporter of mainspace editing and have never supported a candidate with fewer than 1000 (that I can remember), but I will change to support, strike my negative comments on your RFA, and even let other editors know of your improvement so they'll maybe switch to support as well if you can do the following: 1) You have 320 mainspace edits as of right now, turn that into 500; 2) You have 1766 total edits as of this moment, turn that into 2000. Even if they're mostly vandal reverts. I know you only have 4 days before the RFA ends, but that's only 59 edits per day (45 of which to the mainspace). Do-able? Definitely. Difficult? Could be. Find some article you're interested in and improve them. You like football? There's tons of NFL-related articles. NBA? Harry Potter? Nintendo? Whatever it is you like, spend some time, get the mainspace count up, I'll support. Sorry again about the strong support, thing. I hope you can forgive me. Useight (talk) 01:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]