User talk:Cyde/Archive014

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 A B C D E F G
X Y Z 10 11 12


Whoops, I forgot to sign.

C'mon you damn bot!

Which bot would this be that you're looking for to sign the comments?

I think Cyde's referring to HagermanBot. Maybe it requires two sentences?

No worries[edit]

I'm not quite sure either :) Seeing as you're testing out HagermanBot, I won't sign this, let's see what happens...

For fuck's sake...[edit]

Cyde, a vandalism box is supposed to contain vandalism. Deleting is not considered vandalism, though it is really annoying. Please restore it. Fredil 02:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, I seriously think you made a mistake here. That page was built for vandalism only, nothing else. Several other editors have the same kind of subpage.--CJ King 03:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I made a mistake by deleting vandalism? Really? "That page was built for vandalism only, nothing else" seems to be the strongest reason for deletion I can think of. Please remember what Wikipedia is, and what Wikipedia is not. If several others have the same type of subpage, point them out to me, and I will delete those as well. "Because other people are getting away with it" is a terrible rationalization. --Cyde Weys 14:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe Cyde was vandalising it by deleting it? Hmmm. Anyway, that was a little strange, Cyde, perhaps you could reconsider. Have a great Christmas. riana_dzasta 03:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

We're writing an encyclopedia here, not a graffiti wall. Anything that solely contains vandalism should be deleted as contributing nothing to Wikipedia and only encouraging further bad activities. --Cyde Weys 12:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That's completely irrelevant. Why don't you delete my userpage then? That has nothing to do with encyclopedia writing either. While you're at it, why don't you delete all the vandalism boxes on Wikiipedia? Fredil 13:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Have you even seen what the "vandalism" subpage is being used for?! "P.S. Fred likes Teletubbies. He also masturbates while thinking about his mother." I'm trying to save you from the type of nonsense these vandalism boxes generate. And you have a good idea, I am going to start deleting every vandalism box I see. They're all a big, terrible idea. --Cyde Weys 14:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
All the vandalism boxes on Wikipedia should be deleted. Can you show us where the others are please? Carcharoth 14:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
You're an idiot. That was my friend, and he was being stupid. We all do it once in a while . Anyways, half of them are never used. Would you rather people be stupid in userspace or mainspace? Fredil 18:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Personal attack noted ... you really need to either read WP:NPA and abide by it, or leave. None of us are interested in putting up with attacks like "You're an idiot". And frankly, I'd rather people not be stupid anywhere on Wikipedia. Allowing stupidity in one place encourages it in other places. --Cyde Weys 18:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree personal attacks aren't good Fredil, it does nothing. But Cyde you say stupidity in one place isn't good but what about This, What can this be classified as? I am just pointing out something...And I am not trying to start an argument. — Seadog 18:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
... Even Jimbo likes these, or finds them somewhat funny anyways. Aren't all of us supposed to support Jimbo? User:Cyde/Weird pictures is also really quite disturbing, and if you delete vandalism boxes I don't see why nudity doesn't go either. Some people are kids, and kids have parents, you know. Parents ask weird questions, which leads to... oh, nevermind. Fredil 18:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Well Jimbo didn't really sign those boxes. Basically it is a passing joke among those boxes where someone places the text "can I really edit here" and then signs the name as jimbo. But if the boxes should get deleted so should the weird pictures box. I think that would be a good compromise. I am just throwing out a suggestion. — Seadog 18:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
(Edit Conflict) Agreed, that Wasn't Jimbo. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 18:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
And here is the edit history to prove it. [1] Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I've been meaning to get around to fixing up Weird pictures for a long time (to more clearly explain its purpose). I just got around to it. It's not in any way, shape, or form, equivalent to promoting vandalism. --Cyde Weys 19:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
RE: the original debate -- there's room for anything on Wikipedia that relates to the concept of Wikipedia, and does not meaninglessly obstruct the goals of WIkipedia. Now, you can split that hair mighty thin, but it;s an important judgment call to decide whether actioning content will result in more conflict than the mere existence of said content.
User:Adrian/zap2.js 20:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that it is worth it, then. There clearly isn't room on Wikipedia for vandalism, and in the grand scheme of things, this "conflict" is naught but a section on here and a section on WP:AN. --Cyde Weys 20:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Cyde, if Jimbo had made a vandalism page, would you delete it? That page and others like it are made so people can vandalise there, instead of actual articles. Which is what we all work so hard to prevent. Also, what about the Sandbox? I have seen some pretty weird stuff there sometimes, too.--CJ King 02:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Hypotheticals are kind of useless when they could never ever be true. If Jimbo did XXXXXX, would you support it? That's not really an argument for or against anything. And you seem to be relying on the misanthropic view that all humans want to vandalize, and if they don't have an outlet for vandalism they will do it elsewhere. I have a different view; that vandalism boxes is a bad idea because it actually encourages vandalism, which then spills over into the article namespace. If we make it clear that vandalism is unacceptable everywhere, not just in certain places, the message is less diluted and more effective. As for the sandbox, that's for people to practice wiki syntax without messing up articles, not for people to vandalize in. --Cyde Weys 03:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, can you not find something better to do than bully junior users? Let them have their pages. They're beneath the notice of someone who actually wants to do positive work here. Grace Note 10:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It's amazing how many people are coming out of the woodwork. For what reason, I'm not sure exactly. --Cyde Weys 14:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This is you[edit]

This describes you perfectly.-- 03:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)



You have put yourself as interested in helping out atWikiProject on user warnings. We are now at a stage where we are creating the new templates and are wondering if you are still interested? If so please visit the overview page and choose a warning type you wish to work on. There is a base template available here, which you can copy and use to get you started. Have a look through the redirects and see what old templates are affected and incorporate them into the the new system. Anyway, any questions please don't hesitate to give me a shout. Regards Khukri (talk . contribs) 08:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


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)


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)
  • Is the other guy even around? Just because one guy is unreachable doesn't mean JasperReports is non-notable and prime deletion fodder. --Cyde Weys 05:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, he's around, I've talked to him at great length on his user page. User:Jayvdb - JasperReports - Here is the usespace copy, knock yourself out. I shall fold like an origami tiger when I see the glorious re-write. - brenneman 05:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 19[edit]

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[edit]

Some people seem to be concerned about your deletion summaries which say "Robot: whatever". Could you clarify what that means? -Amarkov blahedits 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,, 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 blahedits 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 blahedits 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)

Wikipedia: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 blahedits 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 blahedits 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 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 (talkcontribsBot) 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 blahedits 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 Talk 21:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Just make sure that Cyde doesn't get burned for using it. -Amarkov blahedits 21:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


Ok, that's hurdle number one. Sort of. I've posted a note at Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)

Revert warring[edit]

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 -трёп- 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)
Your explanation is accepted. I was previously alerted that a certain group of IRC regulars likes to place unspeakable slurs on the block logs of their opponents. Since it takes a developer to efface them, this may be tantamount to character assassination. I don't want to believe it, but the recent events are hardly helpful for assuming good faith. Nevertheless, I will do my best to do it and not investigate the matter for the time being. Best, Ghirla -трёп- 13:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Kindly refrain from littering my talk page [2] 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)

Civility Warning[edit]

Please refrain from hostile characterizations of other users in good standing, such as the one you recently offered on WP:AN/I. Accusing people of "mutual back scratching club" membership, not to mention announcing that it's "time to stop" a user, is horrible disruptive and incivil. Please consider this an official warning and do try to be pleasant. Geogre 18:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

User ID?[edit]

Hello Cyde,

This is fairly random. You mention that your user id is 6511. I'd like to find out what my user ID is, but I can't seem to find a page documenting it. Could you provide a link? Philip (Respond?) 02:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Special:Preferences. It should say there.


Hi, I have an idea to increase traffic to Wikipedia significantly. Many people are now using Wikipedia as a search engine. Wikipedia's searching has a snag which needs some good coding. There are perhaps more than 1 million misspelled searches being made every day... how do i know? I don't, it could be much more than one million, you find out. My idea, which has probably been thought of before is to supply a - Did you mean Such as Such? - by matching misspelled words and terms to their most relevant article. At present this is in place suggestion for terminology sorting based on relevancy, but not for misspellings. Please let me know what you think, and if you could assist with proposing it. Thanks. frummer 00:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I commonly make typos while I type out an article name in the search box, and leaves me frustrated since I have to type it all over again or at least waste time correcting a single letter that I typed incorrectly. ~~Eugene2x ☺ ~~ 02:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy holidays ![edit]

You may want to consider endorsing this petition: User_talk:Friday#Petition_to_recall_User:Friday_from_the_position_of_admin. StuRat 13:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Cutting Down An Article[edit]

I just did major shortening of the plot summary of Cars (film), and I'd just like someone to check it over to see if I haven't overdone it or if I should cut down on more. How's it look at the moment? I'm also considering making a separate article for the cast. (I thought about doing another page for the references but didn't as the created page would probably get an AfD for fancruft.) Would the cast page be a good idea however? -WarthogDemon 00:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


Hi Cyde: I was curious, how does your bot clear the WP:CFD backlog? Do you manually input the categories, or does the bot read the WP:CFDW page? —Mets501 (talk) 02:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The bot reads WP:CFDW and is capable of doing everything automagically, but I personally confirm the run first to make sure there aren't any mistakes. --Cyde Weys 02:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Care like sharing the code so MetsBot can help out (and I'll alter the code so it works at WP:CFD/WU too)? :-) Is it written in python? —Mets501 (talk) 03:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, it uses a proprietary AI library and API, and thus it really cannot be shared. I know it's against the spirit of open source and yadda yadda yadda ... but I just wanted something that would work without having to build everything from scratch. As for user categories, sorry, I have no interest whatsoever in working with them. I'm here for the encyclopedia, not the social networking, and if I had my way all user categories would be deleted over night. Keep in mind that we have only one category namespace, and having encyclopedic categories mixed in with fluff like "Wikipedians who chose Bulbasaur as their first Pokemon" is a travesty. I'd rather keep the user categories as fragmented and disorganized as possible; hopefully that will mean fewer people using them. --Cyde Weys 03:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks anyway. —Mets501 (talk) 03:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Stay away from those user categories — them's bad luck. --Cyde Weys 03:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I was going to create category:Users who hate user categories, but I couldn't decide whether to join it or not. Newyorkbrad 03:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
You're reminding me of the conundrum I faced with this little Pandora's box:
UBXThis user absolutely hates userboxes.
--Cyde Weys 04:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Bertrand Russell would be proud. Newyorkbrad 04:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Borderline/a_Kiwi_temp[edit]

I was directed by a admin to create this page in order to have a page where editors can work on a mass Scheduled for Deletion. She (Zeraeph) put them all in in-line mode, hidden from view, so no one can find them to edit. She did this yesterday morning, they all will be deleted. She brooks no disagreement.

See Here - [quote]What you want on your article revision is a temporary page, which is usually created as a sub-page. So Borderline Personality Disorder (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) is cut out and copied into Borderline Personality Disorder/Kiwi's Temp. Everyone can edit it, talk about it, and such 'offline' from the main pages. - FrankB[/quote]

Thank you for setting your VandalBot from deleting this page, BUT since this will be happening regularly now, it will be named it ---- Borderline/POV_work_page --Kiwi 20:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Question about IAR[edit]

Hello Cyde, I hope I'm not bugging you and please don't take this as votestacking, it's really not meant to be, but I'm trying to determine whether or not IAR applies in this MFD. If I am correct, in the Esperanza MFD you denied the argument of IAR to protect it, or maybe that was in the coffee lounge games, or maybe it wasn't you at all, but in any case maybe you can explain if it applies. Thank you! DoomsDay349 23:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The way I interpret WP:IAR, it means that actions should be taken for the good of the project, even when a large number of people exist who are arguing against such actions. In this instance, it is clear that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not an online games host. Even if a substantial number of people do not understand this and show up to "vote" Keep in the MFD, it shouldn't matter; it should be deleted anyway because it is against the goals of Wikipedia. That is how IAR should work. --Cyde Weys 23:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Cyde! I think someone else has clarified this on the MFD, but if neccessary I'll quote you. Thanks again. DoomsDay349 01:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ta. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well done[edit]

Well Cyde, you started all this [3]. I think you were quite right to bring all that has been going on out into the open. I hope you have achieved your goal. Giano 19:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am happy with the overall outcome. --Cyde Weys 20:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That's good, I rather thought you would be. Giano 20:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you wouldn't think I'd be happy, but then again, I know something that you do not. --Cyde Weys 20:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Would it be in order to ask what that means? asks a curious Newyorkbrad 22:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Speaking generally only of course: When someone alludes to information that's private without obvious necesity it's often posturing. Even asking only serves to feed the ego, the sense of "specialness." The self-sealing mental trick here is that if either it's an empty claim or a genuine one, it's still lacking in falsifiability: They won't tell you what they won't tell you. Short story: Whenever someoen says something like that, just ignore it. - brenneman 23:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, do you know something you shouldn't? Regards, Ben Aveling 22:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not something I shouldn't know. Just something Giano shouldn't know. --Cyde Weys 16:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Then you probably shouldn't tell me. If it's important, I expect it will become public knowledge in its own time. Regards, Ben Aveling 04:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
It's inconsequential, really. I was just needling Giano back. --Cyde Weys 05:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


Vitruvian Barnstar.png The da Vinci Barnstar
For your invaluable technical work. Timrollpickering 18:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


I was looking for one of these administrator types to get one of them to delete a page for me. I came across you because in the list of administrators, it says that you get things done fast. also you have an image which looks very much like the Falkirk Wheel so you felt kind of close to home in this crazy mass of Wikipedians (I'm from East Renfrewshire, Glasgow).

but anyway, the point.

i was relinking a page due to issues with its current location. Ray LaMontagne's EP "Live From Bonnaroo" did not have "Live from Bonnaroo 2005" in its title page, yet it stated this on the cover of the cd itself as the cd title so i felt it should have been relinked to "Live From Bonnaroo 2005". this page was already taken for something else, so i thought i should relink it to "Live From Bonnaroo 2005 (Ray LaMontagne EP)".

Unfortunately in the process of doing that i made the mistake of typing "Live From Bonnaroo 2005 (Ray LaMontagme EP)". (ie with an "m" instead of an "n" in "LaMontagne"). so now there is this completely pointless page sitting here called "Live From Bonnaroo 2005 (Ray LaMontagme EP)" with nothing but a redirect to the correctly-spelled actual page. I mean, if something classed as "in need of a speedy deletion", i would have thought that this page was it.

can you somehow have this page deleted? as i have NO idea how. --SteelersFan UK06 03:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've deleted it. In the future, if you need something to be deleted, you can use one of the Speedy Deletion templates, such as {{speedy}}. That will bring it to the attention of all admins, and it should be dealt with fairly shortly. --Cyde Weys 03:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


Why in the world are you on my case since I made that comment? I've tried everything to get rid of it, yet each time I failed. Now, I know how Wile E Coyote feels when he fails to catch the Road Runner. If you have any more comments to make to me, then please email me. Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 05:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not "on your case" because you made a comment, I'm "on your case" because you deleted dozens of other people's comments. Please look at that diff link. --Cyde Weys 05:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Click here. I already said that was a mistake, and I already apologized for the problem. Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 16:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh okay, nevermind then. You can understand why I didn't see this comment until now though; you fragmented the discussion by posting it on someone else's talk page rather than responding on your own talk page where the issue was addressed. --Cyde Weys 16:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Child Wikipedians[edit]

Hey. Sorry to bother you, but I noticed you have speedily deleted Category:Child Wikipedians. This category survived Cfd twice, as you probably are aware of since you took part in the second one, so I'm wondering how can it be deleted per WP:CSD? Your reasoning, Could cause much more trouble than it's worth., does not say much. Thanks, Prolog 10:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I would image Cyde deleted per WP:CHILD --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 16:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's pretty much it. I think having a list of children on Wikipedia is a much too convenient target, and the risks clearly outweigh the benefits. --Cyde Weys 16:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
WP:CHILD is still a proposal, and the category being a target was discussed in the Cfd's. I have requested a deletion review. Thanks, Prolog 19:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Editing multiple pages with the same name[edit]

I wanted to add a sentence to the top of the Hadouken page saying that if people wanted to go to the page on the band Hadouken! then they could use a redirect (The Hadouken! page i haven't actually got round to making yet but that's not important). Basically i wanted to use a sentence like this one:

I wanted to edit it so that it said something along the lines of "This article is about the Street Fighter move. For the band, see Hadouken!"

Is there like a pre-written piece of code for this? I mean obviously you could just use italics and stuff to get it the way it is in the example sentence, but that piece of code starts off with "otheruses4", i was wondering if there was more example sentences like this? (otheruses1,otheruses2...etc)--SteelersFan UK06 20:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's the template you're interested in. It explains how to do all of this stuff. I think you want to use the {{otheruses4|USE1|USE2|PAGE2}} syntax, particularly:

--Cyde Weys 21:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


Thought I'd thank you and let you know that I ripped your page design for my new userpage :) I basically copied your code and altered colors, changed text. I credited you, just so you know. So thanks for having a good userpage for me to stealborrow from. DoomsDay349 20:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article be located at Grizzly bear? I see no reason that "bear" needs to be capitalized. If I forget to effect this move within three days, bug me on my talk page. --Cyde Weys 22:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You are being bugged. :) Vranak 23:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Upmerge request[edit]

User:Pilotguy has mentioned that you have a bot which might implement the upmerging agreed in upmerge - which would be greatly appreciated. roundhouse 23:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

CFD backups[edit]

Not so much a time back-up, but one of the nominations just closed has no less than 93(!) categories in it. Timrollpickering 13:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, no kidding, this is taking even Cydebot awhile. --Cyde Weys 18:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You've got to hand it to the Military History guys!
Now it's the turn of the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals - another nomination just closed does the nice small matter of bringing a consistent naming scheme for all the national categories for awards! Timrollpickering 15:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


Can you fill me in on whats going on with the Minerals/Minerals in Your World images categories? I can't seem to find any rationale behind the move anywhere. -Ravedave (Adopt a State) 01:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Amplifying what Ravedave says: can you please stop moving? It doesn't make any sense: for example, Shocked Quartz is a mineral, but has nothing to do with "Minerals in Your World" (which I've never heard of). Thanks. hike395 01:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out; there appears to have been an error at WP:CFDW. I've rolled back all of the changes and will now go investigate as to how this happened. --Cyde Weys 01:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've figured it out. The correct source category was Category:"Minerals in Your World" images; it was supposed to be moved to Category:Minerals in Your World images. However, it looks like Cydebot choked on the quotation marks. I'll go fix it so that it escapes quotation marks automatically. --Cyde Weys 02:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


Have you seen this?--CJ King 19:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have. Is there any reason you thought I should know? --Cyde Weys 18:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You have a history with him, and I wanted you to know that it was over.--CJ King 03:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't really consider it a "history" though. All things considered, my interactions with him were minor compared to my interactions with some other people. He just made some poor decisions regarding starting a club whose stated goal was to oppose me and a few other people. And then there was the issue of him impersonating me on my talk page to make a point. But largely, I didn't have much to do with him, and I don't particularly feel anything one way or the other over his departure. --Cyde Weys 05:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Mozilla Firefox - Why is this article semiprotected?[edit]

After protection has been lifted I saw only three vandalizing edits, from the same IP (actually, another IP even corrected vandalism, see recent history of the article, right before your protection). So, according to Semi-protection policy it should not be semi-protected in this case. This situation could be considered "as response to regular content disputes, since it may restrict some editors and not others" (specifically, it restricts me; I am not vandal but contributor to the article). Happy New Year! 00:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Please remove your semi-protection of Mozilla Firefox as the edits preceeding the block do not constitute considerable vandalism. Semi-protection is supposed to be a last-ditch thing to do and as such, blocking of the IP's would have been more appropriate. As it stands this block prevents the above user from editing the article entirely. (PS. I will post this on WP:RFPP tomorrow if I haven't heard back from you by then - just in case you are too busy with other things). Thanks, Localzuk(talk) 22:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I have just noticed that the above user has already done the RFPP request, so I will just add my support for the protection to be lifted there now. Thanks, Localzuk(talk) 22:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Just a Minute panellists[edit]

I wanted to ask about this edit: . You deleted it with this note: "Removing category Just a Minute panellists per CFD at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 24". On that December the 24th page there is no mention of this category. Please explain. Flutefluteflute Talk Contributions 09:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

He got the date wrong. Use "what links here" on the redlink to find out where the deletion debate took place. For example: what links here for Category:Just a Minute panellists shows that there were two deletion debates: here and here. As for correcting the misleading delete log summary, I would suggest undeleting and then redeleting with a link to the correct location. Carcharoth 13:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like whoever filled in WP:CFDW had a date off-by-one error. Ah well. No real action mistakes were actually made, just some bad edit summaries. --Cyde Weys 15:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Not your error then. :-) Sorry about that. Carcharoth 17:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for answering so quickly. :) Flutefluteflute Talk Contributions 18:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I would like to know every time Cydebot makes any mistakes. --Cyde Weys 19:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


RE "No, it doesn't, because Google the verb is much, much more notable and widespread than the term "Wikipedian". I've seen Google used on many television programs, and frequently in real life. The only time I've ever heard Wikipedian was in the context of Wikipedia on Wikipedia. The two situations are not comparable. --Cyde Weys 03:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)"

You should know better than me that WP:N doesn't require TV anchor man coverage. Real life application too is hard to monitor. lol, Owned and ASL are compliant with WP:N in this regard too. Prominent media bodies are have already taken on this term. Google it. Thanks for your input. frummer 04:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm sorry, you're the one making the claim, you have to provide the evidence yourself. It's unacceptable to tell me to Google it and then act like you've presented evidence. Please, I implore you, give me some links that are reliable sources that talk about the term "Wikipedian" in the same was as all of those articles we've both seen that talk about "Googling" and "LOL". --Cyde Weys 05:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Putting it that way is obviously making it unnecessarily harder. In my humble opinion there is an ongoing misconception as far as the letter of the law is concerned in regards to Internet fame and the relatively new phenomenon in crowd sourcing and user based websites such as YouTube and MySpace etc. It is ludicrous to think that this project remains in the realm of the encyclopedic rules it first adopted. I am talking specifically of WP:N. Wikipedia has succeeded in functioning as a wiki search engine for millions of users who now constitute a community and must modernise the rules so as to include information that is regarded notable by a wider array of social circles, to put it broadly. This is a typical example of this problem. I would like to ask you to take your mind of this particular term and comment on a possible solution for this problem. As I'm sure you are aware it has been brought up thousands of times. frummer 05:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Please read WP:RS carefully, and then provide me at least one source that talks about the phrase "Wikipedian". Until you can provide even this minimal amount of verification, there is no evidence whatsoever that it merits an article. --Cyde Weys 05:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
You won't like the ones I give you. I'd appreciate you addressing the point I digressed to. Cheers. frummer 06:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
We'll never know if I would like them until you provide them. I haven't even made up my mind on this issue; if there are good sources about the term "Wikipedian" out there, I would like to know about them, and I would like to read them. Please stop evading and offer up at least one reliable source. If you can't even do that, the rest of the discussion is entirely moot, as things without reliable sources don't have articles on Wikipedia, period. --Cyde Weys 15:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Esperanza deletions[edit]

Cyde, why are you taking such an interest in deleting all these Esperanza pages? You're popping up A LOT on Recent Changes.--CJ King 04:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not doing anything special — just helping to clear the huge backlog of stuff to be deleted that was just created by the Esperanza MFD. As for showing up on recent changes a lot, I guess that shows I'm doing work, eh? --Cyde Weys 06:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Cyde, two of the pages you deleted were salted. Were you aware that the pages had been salted? This is being discussed here. Thanks. Carcharoth 11:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
There's not much point in salting these. Salting already removes the edit history (as deleting does). And I really don't see anyone trying to sneakily re-create Esperanza under our noses, so salting is most likely unnecessary.--Cyde Weys 14:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Come on Cyde! This makes it look like you didn't even read the closing admin's decision and the talk page discussions. OK, let's make it simple: Why are you over-riding the closing admin's decision and the talk page discussions? Carcharoth 18:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Could you also stop deleting the Calendar pages? People have put a lot of work into them and they will probably be gradually moved under Wikipedia:Birthday Committee. If you question the idea of a calendar as a whole, you can nominate it for MfD (damn, I feel like violating WP:BEANS now...) Миша13 12:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks like the calendar pages had better be moved elsewhere then (i.e. not in Esperanza space). --Cyde Weys 14:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
They probably will, but deleting a totally random bunch of them (like you did) will not make this process faster. Миша13 15:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I didn't realize these were the same things being considered for subsumation by the Birthday Committee. I won't be deleting any more of them, but still, they had better be moved, and quickly. --Cyde Weys 15:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Why quickly? Is there a really good reason to rush? Carcharoth 18:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The sooner it's done the less problem there's going to be with other people accidentally deleting them. I'm far from the only administrator who wanted Esperanza gone. Anything still in Esperanza subspace has a bit of a target painted on it right now; might want to move it out ASAP. --Cyde Weys 19:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I've never gone near Esperanza (apart from a few edits on the talk page of the Admin Coaching program, I believe), and I'm not going to do any dirty moving work. I'm just someone who wants to be able to pick over the bones afterwards, ahem, I mean review the history. Seriously, I am absolutely serious about preserving history, and I would like to be able to look back on this a year later without the feeling that half the stuff was hurriedly shoved under a rug and a big cupboard moved over it, if you see what I mean. Anyway, see below for something else, more relevant than this. Carcharoth 23:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of restarting things on that page, I thought I should point out this edit where I respond directly to one of your comments. Not sure if you are still watching that page. Carcharoth 18:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Either way, I think way too big of a deal is being made over this. Something deleted by mistake that should really just be redirected? Fix it. All of these angry remarks on the relevant talk pages seem to be the actual problem, not the actions. --Cyde Weys 18:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe too big a deal. Maybe not. Anyway, I can't fix things, I can only point things out and ask for things to be done differently. In cases like this it is probably best to ask the admin who did something whether it is a mistake or not, rather than just 'fixing it'. Carcharoth 02:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

DRV concerns[edit]

I see you have been raising the same concerns as Doc g at that DRV. You might be interested in the note I left at Doc g's talk page (surely people are aware of this sort of thing?). The veiled and not so veiled references you and Doc g made to already having had problems over this issue do raise concerns. If this really is a problem, what can be done? Wikipedians can't monitor every single talk page. Am I right that we are limited to suppressing age-related information, or the gathering together of age-related information, plus making clear that WP:NOT censored? The trouble is that many parents probably think we are just a reading resource, not an active editing community. I feel concerned now that I, and others, aggregated age-related information during the ArbCom election. Well, I wasn't concerned until I realised that two were self-identified as younger than the others. I note that the Signpost still identified the youngest age. Of course, those who didn't reveal their ages could have been even younger for all we knew. Agh! This whole issue makes my head spin. Can't the WMF sort out a policy, rather than leave the community to squabble over it? Sorry to bring this to your talk page, but I know how random Wikipedia processes can be, and important things like this shouldn't be left to a self-regulating mechanism that doesn't always regulate itself, if you know what I mean. Carcharoth 23:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean, and I've tried bugging Jimbo and the Foundation to make some sort of a statement, but no luck yet. It always seems like it has to boil over first before they say anything about it. In the mean time, I think you underestimate how much trust the individual communities are given to sort these kinds of things out on their own. I believe this is something that we can handle on our own, and in the absence of the Foundation stepping in to do anything, it is something that we should do on our own. We don't really have to do all that much to at least get this problem somewhat under control. It's not even the teenagers I'm really worried about, just the children. It's a bad, bad idea to have a category putting all of these children together in one place, making them easy targets. Just remember, there is MySpace out there after all, and other social networking stuff like it. They're much more unsafe than we are, so long as we keep out these silly categories that allow you to, effectively, find people by age. MySpace doesn't really have an equivalent. --Cyde Weys 23:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

My concern is that this is happening in the wrong order: One (or two) people make a decision that something is a "bad idea" and steam ahead without discussion. A stampede of sheep-ish "Yeah mans" takes the place or reasoned discourse, and we're all left a more poorly positioned for whetever big thing comes next.
Decisions, big decisions, can happen two ways here: From the mountain top, or from broad consensus. When people "knight up" to fix things, particularly using administrative tools, it neither creates lasting solutions nor short-term peace. There are very rarely such overwhelming emergancies that it's required to squash something as a "bad idea" rather than talking about it first.
Taking the "child wikipedians" category as an example:
  1. Step one is it an emergancy? Is there immediate harm going to come to the encyclopedia? If it is, fine, plug the dyke and worry about the fallout later.
  2. Step two is it a "Foundation-level issue?" If it is, then words needs to come from on high, as opposed to it being guessed at. Until it does, no good appealing to authority.
  3. Step three is determining if consensus exists or is forming. The second one is the most important, actually. If there is a good chance that things are going to go a certain direction it's often better to wait until it is rather than chomping at the bit and muddying the waters. Mixing metaphors is usually a bad idea as well.
Since the answers were no, no, and no, deleting this did little to further the stated goals of protecting children.
If we don't get a bit better at fostering and respecting an atmosphere of community consent, at working out difficult decisions rationally as opposed to via moral panic, we're creating weakness in the encyclopedia. A robust and transparent forum would might have come to the conclusion you clearly support, but without the acrimony. This "whack-a-mole" style of decision making way just pushes something down in one spot without solving underlying issues. Note how carefully WP:ARB (CHILD) fails to make any sweeping statements?
brenneman 01:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia. People can spend months talking about an issue, and sometimes, at the end, nothing is even done about it. I considered this issue of sufficient importance to warrant doing something now, which then precipitated real action that had so far failed to materialize from any of the discussion. I guess you're a discusser and I'm a doer. There's room for both on Wikipedia. --Cyde Weys 01:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I sometimes don't know in what tone my text is going to be read, so below have me speaking in an intense, furrowed brow, long syllables way. Leaning towards you, making small hand motions. Like I'm trying really hard to make a point, but without any nastyness. Oh, and make me sound like James Earl Jones, too. That would be cool.
That's a sort of back-handed compliment, suggesting that those who talk don't do anything! ^_^ The point is not that there's nothing wrong with doing something bold per se. But that when there's already existing discussion that belies that action you're about to take it not bold, it's something else. Here is a serious question, no agenda: When it to comes to making that decision, do you reckon that you're:
  1. The smartest, most wordly, best placed admin on all of Wikipedia, or even
  2. The absolute only admin who was aware of the issue?
Because that's what it comes down to. The telling point here is that you considered it to be so, knowing that there was reasonable opinon otherwise. What is it that makes your opinion worth more than theirs? Do you see what I'm getting at at all here? Oh, and it's stupidly easy to find teen meat on MySpace, so that's a bit of a straw man argument.
brenneman 02:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I consider myself neither. There's lots of stuff to do on Wikipedia, and people frequently get distracted. I'm conferring with some other people and a few of them would have done exactly what I had done — if they had been aware of it. Since I did become aware of it, I acted on it. Doubtless there's lots of "rouge" stuff I'd do on Wikipedia right now, if I only I knew of them! So I don't consider myself the smartest admin, or the only one aware of it — just the only one aware of it who decided to do something. --Cyde Weys 03:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Tone change: Now leaning back in my easy chair, I'm more Matt Lauer now, and we've just come back from a commercial break.
Ok, so it was the khutzpah that was the tipping factor, not anything else. But this ignores the fact that there were admins (myself included) who were aware of it but choose not to delete it. User:Mike Selinker springs to mind, him having closed one of the CfDs as "no consensus" and all. Again, actual question, no agenda: How would you have felt had I restored this cat the second I saw it had been deleted? - brenneman 03:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Then I think Jimbo would have gotten involved already, had that happened. --Cyde Weys 03:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The appeal to authority isn't going to serve to dodge the question: Would it have been ok for me to have restored this category as soon as I saw it deleted? Had my ire outweighed my distaste for overturning actions without discussion, of course. - brenneman 03:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
You carry on the discussion, in a more widely-visited venue than CfD or DRV, and try and use the ArbCom ruling and guidance (was it "carry on discussing"?) to achieve some longer-lasting consensus. Until consensus emerges, play it safe. That's my view. Things can always be undone later if need be. Carcharoth 03:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, seeing as you found this discussion, this one should also go on the record. Carcharoth 03:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Aaron, please stop assuming the worst. It wasn't an appeal to authority, it was a simple fact. If there had been a wheel war over this, he would have stepped in already. As it is, he's staying out of it, for now, because it looks like we've been handling it on our own. --Cyde Weys 03:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand how that's "assuming the worst" at all. I am using the phrase only in the most literal sense; It's a logical fallacy. I apologise for any unintended offense. Trying to be brief:
  • A single revert is not a wheel war, and
  • You don't actually know that the whale king would have stepped in.
It is a simple enough question: Had I noticed that you deleted the category, would it have been inappropiate in your opinion for me to restore it. Can I please just get an answer from you on that?
brenneman 04:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think it would have been inappropriate for you to restore it just as much as you think it was inappropriate for me to delete it in the first place. --Cyde Weys 04:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, sorry for the formatting abuse there, I just realised I used fourteen apostrophes in four sentences. All right, here's the bit where I totally go off the rails. I don't understand: How it can be ok in your view (presuming you thought it was ok when you did it) to ignore other views and delete while at the same time it not be ok for me to ignore your view and restore? The only logical basis I can see is if your opinion "counts" more than mine, somehow. I'm happy to hear arguments based on policy, or previous arbcom decisions, or even *shudder* a post to the mailing list. But all I see so far is "Because I was right." What am I missing?
brenneman 04:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't ignoring other views. I took them into consideration. If you look at the DRV, you will see that the majority of the people there agree with me and agree that deleting the category is warranted per child protection issues. You're trying to paint me as taking a unilateral action that no one agrees with when it is simply more opposite the truth than it is the truth. --Cyde Weys 04:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to "paint" you as anything here, I'm trying to highlight to you the problem with proceeding in the manner that you did: You would think it inappropiate if I treated you in exactly the same way you've treated others.
There are several things rolled up here. To address the disparate themes:
  • There's another logical fallacy above: You've gotten support on a mostly discussion-free forum after the fact, but that can't be used to support your actions at the time.
  • You have explicitly said on the deletion review that you deleted the category because there was no consensus.
Can you not see the dynamic tension between these two things? If the issue had been so clear cut that you knew how the debate was going to go, why wasn't it already worked out in CfD? Put another way, why is it that the only compelling argument for deleting this category seems to have been the actual deletion? Do you understand that I'm not only talking about the deletion, but about the mental model you used prior to the actual deletion?
brenneman 04:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
There is a very compelling argument, and it has already been made, by many people, in the relevant DRV discussion. That argument is very simple: to protect children from child predators. The risk of the Child Wikipedians category far outweighs any possible benefits (which are none). Even ignoring the dangers, a children category is a bad idea for another reason; how are other editors supposed to make use of it? If someone wants to be treated like an adult, they shouldn't proclaim that they're a child. If someone wants to proclaim that they're a child ... how can they really get involved in all of the complex stuff that we deal with at Wikipedia? --Cyde Weys 05:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I probably should keep quiet here but i would like to point out that Aaron is right here Cyde. This is not a one man show and you are heading down the same path that Kelly Martin took as she matured in wikipedia. Ignoring other peoples opinons, dare i say thumbing your nose at them, is not the right way to go about business. You need to convince the others of WHY you are right. If you can't do that, whether you are right or not, then it will not be peacefully resolved and will waste more of your (and others) time than you save by not trying to win over your critics. David D. (Talk) 05:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I already have done quite a bit of trying to convince others why this category is a bad idea; just see the DRV discussion for more. I think it's a bit naive, though, to think that discussion will solve everything, and that if you just try hard enough, danggit, you will get everyone to agree with you. It just doesn't work like that. There are differences of opinion, and these differences will not narrow considerably. I've "lost" a fair amount of arguments myself, and I just lived with the fact that the majority of the people didn't agree with me. That's just the way it goes some times. I've really tried to "win over my critics" here, but if you honestly cannot see how dangerous a category of children is ... well, what else can I do? You're trying to say it's some fault of my actions that people disagree with me, but I'm afraid that can't be pegged on me. There will always be disagreements. --Cyde Weys 05:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying it is your fault they disagree. I am just saying that if they can't be convinced then the arguments do not go away. Is there really no way for them to be persuaded? I have to admit i have not followed this closely. In general, I find myself siding with your opinion, so I am not trying to take sides here. But these dramas just wear everyone down. David D. (Talk) 06:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, in what way differently would you have had me act in this matter? I engaged in significant discussion regarding this deletion, not just here, but also over at the DRV discussion. Have you read it? I'm getting some contradictory indications here. On the one hand I'm supposedly being encouraged to discuss. On the other hand, all of my (and a dozen other people's) arguments are being dismissed as irrational. It almost leads me to believe that discussion simply can't work in this instance. The opinions on both sides are too hard held. What to do now? Wait for a message from on-high? Or just count up the votes, which is how DRV is traditionally run? --Cyde Weys 05:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
And of course i have not read it. Which is why i should have kept quiet. I just find it amazing that on an issue like this there is no way to present a convincing argument. Against my better judgement, I'll go and read the discussion in more detail. David D. (Talk) 06:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Aaron, I have a candid question to ask of you. Are you primarily objecting to this because you don't like that process was not followed, or do you truly think that a category listing children on Wikipedia is a good idea? --Cyde Weys 05:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to skip over (for now) the apparent inability to seperate the ex post facto quasi-consensus and your claim that it was required somehow to short-circut consensus. I'll address the later post though, as it is a very fair question. I'll answer it first in a "skip to the pudding" short version, then in a "real answer no one will read" version.
Short version - nine words.
No I am not and no I do not.
Long version - first a short jeremiad about process.
We Wikipedians (with a nod to the section below) commit the sin of jargon incessantly. We apparently have so much to do and feel as though we have so little time that we often use cryptic shorthand in place of fuller, more forthright communication. For example, the ability to link an argument rather than to restate it has a seductive appeal in making us clever "by proxy." See any school-related deletion debate from last December to understand why this is suboptimal.
More insidious though is the tendency to use single words in conversation; a mental compression algorithm that often appears to speed discussion but that actually impedes it. One person says "he's a troll" and thinks that others will understand and agree implicitly. But since definitions of troll may vary wildly, they end up arguing about the definition rather than the problematic behaviour that predicated the conversation. Second only to "troll" in suffering this fate is the term of art "process."
My interpretation of process is that is grows from the dynamic tension between what we actually do and the deliberate statement of what we should do. This has an apotheosis in the current deletion review page: Process-heavy, with templates, conventions, and instructions enough to stun a Mandarin. Almost all of these grew organically from trying to make sure that things ran smoothly, insuring that we could focus on sharing ideas, and making sure that zealots didn't gum up the works. It is the result of hundreds of thousands of words of debate and many months of discussion over what is the best way forward. It is in fact the transubstantiation of consensus into praxis; a tool that hopes to ensure that not only is the best result achieved this time, but every time.
I'm willing to bet my arse to a hat that you don't mean that when you say "process."
It is not a hair shirt, nor Prometheus's chains binding us, but a finely tuned set of checks and balances that guard against hubris, passion, and myopia. It should be questioned constantly and refined daily, but cast aside only when calamitous misfortune will result if it is not.
Long version - the ends and the means.
Since a process is a tool, and its purpose is to facilitate an outcome, it can be enticing to proceed from the argument of the consequence: If all parties want to get to the same place, why natter about the method? This is an observational fallacy, one that in its reductionist manner ignores the ongoing development of Wikipedia, the existing plurality of its contributors, and the capacity for errors of good faith.
Each decision, each edit, each administrative action is only one in a mind-bogglingly long chain of similar actions. We follow and set precedent every minute, and the more high-profile the action the greater the implications. There will be some dismissingly few times where unanimity is achieved, but mostly Wikipedians will fight and bite and spit and snarl until reaching an agreement everyone is equally unhappy with. By taking shortcuts in the occasions when there is some rough-toothed agreement and pushing aside forums for mannered debate, we are setting the stage for progressively less inclusive debate. There should be no volume component to a rational debate.
It's comforting to stand in the company of the like-minded and pass agreement around like a totem, and easy to be dismissive of a dissenting opinion. Like Copernicus. While there is meaningful debate on an issue, it should continue. Weight of numbers alone does not a compelling argument make, and it's a sign of maturity to accept the possibility of one's own errors. In the rare event that you and I do agree on something, I understand that we might both be wrong, and I am eager to have opposing views presented to me.
Long version - the actual category.
There is zero chance that we are going to agree on this, but you did ask: The likelihood of this category being used in the manner that loosens the bowels of the crowd at deletion review is so small, the projections of doom so fantastically far-fetched, that I struggle to put it into words. I've said this several times before, but I will say it again here: If a person wants to find someone vulnerable online, there are countless places less moderated than Wikipedia. MySpace, MMORPGs, MSN-style chat, it's a cornucopia of young and dumb. The fact that "something could happen" is a statement of fact that in unassailable. Yes, something could happen. But realistic assessment of risk is simply not occurring here. Even more shockingly thoughtless are comments about "making it easy" to prey upon children: Is the implication that if it were difficult than no one would do it?
Your actual question presented a false duality by asking if this was a "good idea." My personal opinion is that the overwhelmingly vast majority of user categories are nonsensical at best. I have three - "Admin" in case someone needs one, "Australian Admin" in case someone needs one in my time zone, and "Admin Recall" which is borderline useless like almost all the others. I could stretch a long bow at the last and suggest fancy ways it could be used, but it's main purpose would be just as well served by a simple notice on my talk page.
In an ideal world where everyone thought like me and half of them looked like Isabella Fiorella Elettra Giovanna Rossellini, all this sort of identitarian gimcrackery would vanish.
I don't personally understand the urge to create userboxen and "hi mom" categories, I prefer to not pigeon-hole myself. It's only circa yesterday that I added biographical information to my talk page, and only then as a mirror to my Citizendium pilot page. But lots of people seem to enjoy labelling themselves in such a manner, and I see very little harm in it in moderation.
What I do see harm in is zealous enforcement of an individual's belief set about the way Wikipedia does and should work. And I react with utter abhorrence to taking the name of the foundation, jimbo's will, IRC chat, or as-yet-unknown-potential-victims as a gonfalon.
brenneman 07:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose we don't agree on what process means, then. Could you please take a look at Wikipedia:Five pillars and tell me what the fifth one is? (Actually, you don't have to, that is a rhetorical question). Ignoring process occasionally is, paradoxically, part of process. You speak of a process over-burdened with rules as if it were a good thing: "This has an apotheosis in the current deletion review page: Process-heavy, with templates, conventions, and instructions enough to stun a Mandarin." — but I don't see it that way. I'm a five pillars kind of guy: do what is necessary for the good of Wikipedia, and don't let overly-elaborate process stand in the way. Process isn't divine nor foolproof. It is clunky, and when the wrong decision is being made merely because "process tells us so", that is a good reason to ignore the process. I have yet to see one good argument advanced as to how a category of Child Wikipedians is a good thing. There have been lots of reasons advanced why it is a bad thing (some of which you seem to disagree with, or feel that the risks are being over-emphasized) — but, I don't see any reason why it is a good thing. There has been a lot of quibbling over process not being followed, yet no objections made on the basis that deleting the category is actually a bad thing. You yourself admit that you don't like any of the user categories (just like me), and that you don't like this Child Wikipedian category either. So why the huge fuss? --Cyde Weys 17:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Because you and I together shouldn't just get to decide things, that's why. Next time have a little bit more respect for other people, that's all I'm asking. Don't delete things that have had debates without a much better reason than you had, open debate on it instead. Made a good case, argue with words not deletion tools. And please please don't be swayed by the mindless after-the-fact support for this action. Even Jimbo can be stupid. - brenneman 22:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, even better: Next time you itch to delete something that's survived multiple deletion discussions, leave a note on my talk page. Between the two of us we'll thrash out some compelling and rational reasons , and I'll write out a new deletion nomination. I understand that it would take (at most) a couple of days extra, but really there is no hurry. How does that sound? - brenneman 00:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, this'll be fun. I'm going to take you up on your offer someday. --Cyde Weys 00:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Admin coaching[edit]

Hi Cyde!

As you know, Esperanza was recently successfully deleted/salted as a result of its MFD, with only four exceptions: COTM, the birthday thing, Stress Alerts, and Admin Coaching. I don't believe you said anything about Admin Coaching during this MFD, but during the last one, I remember you said it was for the most part gaming the system.

Cyde, you're a well-respected admin, and your work on AntiVandalBot and CydeBot alone make you very worthwhile to the Wikipedia project; so many times I've gone to revert vandalism, only to see it's already been reverted by AntiVandalBot. Because I am an active admin coach, and because I would like to see this program be successful, I'm requesting feedback from you on ways in which Admin Coaching might improve. Your comment indicates you believe admin coaching isn't worthwhile because it is gaming the system.

Could you possibly take a look at some admin coaching sessions and point out potential problems that could be avoided in the future? For example, if there was something you specifically objected to, or something you felt should be added, we could address that, and improve the program. Here are some examples of Admin coaching sessions which I have participated in: My admin coaching page (June '06) Ginkgo100's coaching page (Oct '06), Exir's coaching page (Oct '06), Fabrib's coaching page (current). (Feel free to seek out others yourself; each admin coach has different techniques or ideas, and this may not be a representative sample). I know you keep pretty busy, but if you have a chance, your feedback, even very negative feedback, would be appreciated.

Feel free to leave comments on my talk page or on the Admin coaching talk page. Best wishes and happy editing! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 05:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the first thing I have problems with is the name. It seems to imply that the point of the program is to coach admins, rather merely coaching editors in such a way that a side-effect is that they are more suitable for becoming an administrator. I don't think it is appropriate to be coaching people specifically with the intent of making them into administrators. That's the "gaming the system" I was talking about. I fear that some of this coaching will devolve into advice like, "You should say that you value process but you think there are some situations in which the the rules should be ignored". In other words, I fear that admin coaching will turn into more about teaching people how to look and act like an acceptable administrator candidate rather than actually being an acceptable administrator candidate.

I think there are definitely many people out there who will benefit from working closely with established Wikipedians, and will thus become more productive Wikipedians themselves, but, I wonder if "admin coaching" is really the way to do it. I fear that it attracts people who just want to become admins and will go through this as a way of getting further to that goal, rather than attracting the people who actually want to become better and don't just have increased power on their minds. I also worry that admin coaching may at some point become a "badge of admission" to RFA, that is, yet another pointless admission requirement. We already have various ill-advised litmus tests, including edit count, featured article requirements, lots of work in XFDs, vandal-fighting, etc. --Cyde Weys 16:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested in WP:COACH a new overview page for coaching resources on Wikipedia. Any assistance on expanding coverage would be appreciated, and deciding which other pages to add it to - something that is sometimes difficult to do without accusations of spamming something. PS. I've also added a note in the Esperanza deletion thread above. I know that it is sometimes easy to miss double addition of notes, so I thought I'd add a note here as well. Carcharoth 18:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I always click the history link on the new messages banner, so I see who's contacted me, in what sections, and on what topics. So it's very unlikely that I would miss multiple comments. --Cyde Weys 18:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, Cyde. I appreciate the time you took to respond. I agree that "coaching" RFA replies ("you should say...") is a Very Bad Idea. At the same time, while coaching, I've asked editors sample RFA questions, to see if I would !vote for them on RFA.
I think your fears that Admin Coaching will become a "badge of admission" at RFA are quite valid; I've often thought many of the editing requirements at RFA were ridiculous (Featured article work, no edits in X space, etc, which don't have anything to do with Adminship), and seem only designed to throw obstacles into the path of Admin candidates (but I have a 2K editing requirement on RFA that I rarely waive; go figure). But since few successful RFA candidates come from the Admin Coaching program, I don't think it's destined to become a big deal on RFA anyway. You are right that Admin Coaching could be abused by a candidate who only is interested in "more power", but since it often takes months for those who have signed up for admin coaching to begin admin coaching (because of the backlog), it would probably be much faster for them to (for example) submit their own RFA and try to look up old RFA answers for the "right" answers to the RFA questions people ask. In other words, there are always ways to "cheat" the RFA system; cheating the system through Admin Coaching seems like a very long and laborious process, because it takes months and still obviously doesn't guarantee a successful RFA. Still, I guess that possibility is something I hadn't seriously considered.
Anyway, Cyde, thanks for your responses. I appreciate your time, and will consider your comments. Even though you oppose the program, I think I've taken away some valuable feedback and will watch for the potential danger areas you have mentioned. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 19:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't necessarily say that I completely oppose the program, nor some of its stated goals. It just needs to be handled very carefully. But you seem competent, and I trust you to do it correctly. --Cyde Weys 20:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, thank you for the compliment, Cyde. I definitely agree it should be handled carefully, and you've given me some idea of potential danger areas. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 20:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A request for assistance[edit]

Would you support the concept of moving the Earhart "myths" to a separate page or article? The reason for my suggesting this is that the main article should be an accurate and scholarly work while the speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart are interesting, they belong in a unique section. Most researchers, as you know, discount the many theories and speculation that has arisen in the years following her last flight. Go onto the Earhart discussion page and register your vote/comments...and a Happy New Year to you as well. Bzuk 05:52 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Yes, I do believe that the controversy (and conspiracy theories) around her disappearance are of significant notability to warrant their own article. This will also give the opportunity to flesh out the details more fully; as it is, they are all crammed into a smallish section on the main article, and are lacking the full depth of inquiry that they deserve. --Cyde Weys 16:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

With the caveat that the myths section be reliably sourced, and not just a collection of every little "theory" anyone has ever heard regarding Amelia Earhart. I'll be upfront: I think all of these conspiracy theories are nonsense. But they have entered and had an impact on popular culture, and so we should document them, but do so accurately, talking about them as false, or at least wholly unsupported by the available evidence, in no uncertain terms. --Cyde Weys 16:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Is your bot really fixed?[edit]

Excuse me? WTF? Is your bot having problems with dates of XfDs again? I believe some further testing is in order. Миша13 17:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the tone. This is the first I've heard of this problem. And obviously, yes, it is a problem, and I'm looking into it right now. Thanks for informing me (I wasn't aware until just now) ... but I think you could have done it in a nicer manner. --Cyde Weys 17:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've figured it out. This comes from an unusual listing on WP:CFDW. Everything else that's ever been put on there has been linked to a per-day CFD page, but this Esperanza stuff was a bit of an exception, as it linked to an MFD page. The bot has never before had to handle anything like that, and so it didn't do it as gracefully as it could have (note that it still took the correct actions, it just got the edit summary wrong). This is the first time this bug has ever showed up, so I don't understand what you mean by "Is your bot having problems with dates of XfDs again?" The prior error was actually a human listing error on WP:CFDW. Even if you were doing the edits manually you would have made the same mistake. Also, note that this current error shouldn't even have happened, because Category:Wikipedians in Esperanza is a userspace category and should be handled at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/User, not Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working. I already removed it once, but Radiant! appears to have not noticed and re-added it. --Cyde Weys 17:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... Sorry for the tone. From reading the thread above yesterday I have left myself with the impression that some date-blunders happened in the past already and didn't re-read it today. Good to know it's fixed - if I may share my experience though, if you run a bot manually (as opposed to cron or whatever), do monitor it for a few first edits - I tend to find a lot of bugs this way (imagine running an untested code on 700 ESP members' talk pages o.o). Миша13 18:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This isn't untested code though; it's been running for many months now. There are just so many very rare edge cases that are revealing bugs (or at least, unforseen circumstances) in the months-old code. --Cyde Weys 19:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks[edit]

Many thanks for reverting my talk page, although I firmly believe in freedom of speech, (you will notice that my post at the top of my talk page encourages people to speak their mind. Moreover, I actually think that, while Scifiintel's comments are obviously unsolicited, he does have a point, and I am wlecome to suggestions as to articles I may be able to improve. Anywho, I think I will add a comment discouraging reverts of my talk page as I would like to see personally what other Wikipedians are telling me, and I would ask you cordially not to revert it again.

Many Thanks, -- Jonabofftalk 21:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Being in the same position as Mr. Jonaboff, I should like to add that my feelings on the issue are much similar to his. Cheers – DBD 22:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It was just a massive rollback of two hundred spam solicitations. I'm not interested in examining each user talk page individually to see if they actually want such a thing. Canvassing is against policy and will be rolled back. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I too object to the rollback of my talkpage, perhaps you should direct your efforts into the policing of article content and leave users to look after their own talk pages. dvc214 08:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Jesus reverts[edit]

Just wanted to say thanks for the reversion of Scifiintel's canvassing/spam. Thanks! --Jhortman 22:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Unblock requests[edit]

My response on ANI may get lost in the middle of threaded discussion, so cross-posting here with apologies. I didn't think it was necessary for an admin to check what linked to the "unblock" template to get a list of pending requests for unblocking. I thought those compiled automatically at <category:Requests for unblock> and that's the page admins can check to see what requests are pending and maybe review some. I wonder if it would be helpful for the list on that page to be in order of time posted rather than alphabetically, or to be marked reviewed after a previously uninvolved admin has reviewed the request, or something like that. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, you're right, it does also show up on a category. But that's still only one click more convenient than clicking the "what links here". And you'd have to do it fairly often. Most admins just don't bother, because 90% (at least) of unblock requests are utterly invalid. --Cyde Weys 02:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Unwieldy acronym needed[edit]

Something like Iyaabtfrcit(and)jiii?

  • There is no denying that you get my knickers in a knot on just about every third working day of the month. I'd wager too that you've worn grooves in the sockets rolling your eyes[1] when reading my comments.
  • There is also no denying that we both care deeply about the project, or that we each think that we're doing what's best for it. You are, of course, totally wrong, but that's hardly the point.[2]
  • There is also no denying that I have given you less and less respect as time has gone on, and have failed to be calm, slow and civil with you on occasion.[3] Regardless of how I feel about yor style of communication, that's unnacceptable on my part.

I don't want to have a repeat of the way things are now with Tony and I. He, Kelly and you may be the Wikipedian Axis of Weevil (because you bug me) but I still wish that he and I had found some way to work together. Same goes for you and I: We want many of the same things, we just have slightly different styles of operating.

I'm willing to make some concessions in the way that I operate.

brenneman 04:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ Oh, Brenneman
  2. ^ PO'd?Jiit.
  3. ^ Steel-Toes Boots: Now available to fit an arse.

Alright, so let's work together then. And I shouldn't have been so flippant when you first inquired about Cydebot — it's just that other people had already bugged me about it and I thought the issue had gone away. At least now it's gone away for real — before, I didn't have a huge discussion on the Village Pump to point at in support, so I thank you on that point. As for the more recent WP:CHILD stuff, I was accused of all sorts of things — going against consensus, willfully disregarding other people's opinions, etc. — but the thing you have to realize is, to me, working outside of process is really no big deal. I don't do it to piss people off, merely to save time. Mostly (at least 90% of the time) there's no big ruckus, and we all save time by not having to go through unnecessary process. I honestly thought this Child category was going to be the exact same thing. All I ask of you is that, in the future, do not fight an action for the sake of process; only fight an action because it is wrong. As much as you may disagree with WP:IAR, remember that it is one of our five pillars (incidentally, process isn't), so you'll just have to accept that is a valid way for some people to conduct business on Wikipedia. Because just think of how much time we could save on non-controversial cases if discussion only happened once an action was objected to rather than all of the time. The development of new CSDs and the advent of WP:PROD are steps in this direction. --Cyde Weys 21:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

CFD category rename to Category:Category:University of Louisville alumni[edit]

Yep, "Category:" is being specified twice in the rename. I hope you can quickly reprogram the bot to do another rename, as a small mess has been made. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 06:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of fixing this. alphachimp. 09:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The people at CfD probably need to be made more aware that a lot (all?) of the category renaming and "moving" (actually old category deletion, new category creation and retagging of articles) is done by a bot (is Cydebot the only one that does this?) and thus the people at CfD need to help make sure that the submissions are correctly formatted and so forth. Cyde, is there a standard explanatory text about Cydebot that you can post or link to at CfD where people will see it? (I'd like to add that Cyde's bot does sterling work on category renamings, mostly without any problems. Most seem to be traceable to human errors, with the occassional unavoidable snafu due to strange names or links). Carcharoth 11:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks loads! Stevie is the man! TalkWork 15:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The regulars at CFD are well aware of how this works. The Category:Category: thing was just a mistake. Documentation is available in the edit source of WP:CFDW. I suppose if we get these human errors under control it will be smooth sailing. --Cyde Weys 14:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, those damned user-monkeys! :) :) Stevie is the man! TalkWork 15:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, be nice now. They do a helluva job on a rather unrewarding task. They're easily ten times as important to the process as Cydebot is. (And yes I know you were joking, but I still wanted to make a point.) --Cyde Weys 21:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy notice[edit]

You deleted HK's userpage simply because you don't want Wikipedia to host criticism from a banned user, but that's only your opinion and has no ground in policy. Since the last MfD had no consensus to delete, I restored it. If you'd like to get it deleted, please nominate it for MfD again. But HK's ban does end in May so maybe this is a waste of time. Ashibaka (tock) 18:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I think Cyde blanked the page rather than deleting it. -Will Beback · · 23:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VII - December 2006[edit]

The January 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


Wow you're rude... Adriaan90 ( TalkContribs ) ♪♫ 20:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You're the one saying I was a vandal. What kind of response did you honestly expect? --Cyde Weys 22:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

To be very clear, vandal and vandalism are two words you should never, ever use when describing another established editor (let alone an administrator). No good can possibly come of it. --Cyde Weys 23:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Describing any conscientious attempt to make warranted improvements as vandalism has got to be galling. However, you've made changes I would consider in the grey area, if not the real thing. My point is that status in the project isn't proof against accusations of vandalism, though it does make the accusations less plausible. By the same token, an editor should not have to face unwarranted allegations of vandalism, regardless of status on the project. --Ssbohio 00:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Please look into the allegations of this specific incident. One user spammed almost 200 talk pages with the same canvassing message. All I did was revert the spam and I get accused of vandalism by one of the people who was spammed. It's infuriating. --Cyde Weys 00:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I knew enough from looking at your "accuser's" contribs. I have no doubt that you weren't vandalizing anything in this case. I wish I'd been clearer about that in my previous comment. I was trying to draw the distinction between your actions not being vandalism when judged on their merits and the idea that being an established editor or administrator inoculates against accusations of vandalism. In my example above, there has been a time or two where I would have described your actions using the v-word despite both my high regard for your contribution and your rank within the organization. --Ssbohio 01:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


Hi there. I shrank the lead a little, in response to your comment. Also, if you had time could you have a look at immune system? It's FAC stalled due to prose issues, but it has been completely re-written. Any comments or suggestions would be most welcome. TimVickers 21:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that when I suggested shortening the intro I wasn't talking about removing information from the article, just moving it down into the meatier sections below the table of contents. I see you removed some content from the intro but didn't add it anywhere else? Hopefully you didn't take out any content entirely. --Cyde Weys 22:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Tim has been fixing a lot of my flabby prose in this article - everything in the lead is also mentioned elsewhere in the text, and some of what was in the lead isn't entirely necessary for an introduction. Opabinia regalis 01:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
It's a very fascinating article, by the way. I'm in the lucky position of knowing just enough about this subject to be able to read the full article and understand it (whereas, I suspect, the layman wouldn't grok most of it). I guess taking genetics and cell bio in high school was worth it after all. --Cyde Weys 21:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks; glad you enjoyed it. Any other suggestions?
I think you're right that there's probably nothing to be done in this article for those who hear protein and think steak. I keep thinking articles ought to have prerequisites. IIRC you used to be involved in the MCB project (or one of the bio projects?) - you should stop by sometime, we've been getting a lot of good work done lately. Opabinia regalis 06:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


I have already changed my signature so that it is shortened in Wiki source text already. Anywhere that you see my signature extensively long was previous to when I shortened it. Any thing that I sign now is clutter free under edit. :-)
Why1991 22:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

it's against the policy to have templates in signatures. AzaToth 22:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


Where is the stuff that makes this bot work located? Somewhere on Meta?--CJ King 05:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I really understand the question? You mean where is the code that runs the bot? It currently runs on Toolserver, but it could be any server really; a few months ago I was running it on my server. --Cyde Weys 17:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


When someone posts something on my talk page, please do not remove the comment without consulting me in advance. Thanks.

Allixpeeke 17:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to consult 200 people individually over whether reverting some spam is okay. That would be as bad as the problem. --Cyde Weys 17:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

AVB Code[edit]

I wish to make a weasle words bot and i would like to base it off of AVB bots code and if i get the code which programing language does AVB bot use. Cocoaguycontribstalk 19:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Jesus article[edit]

Just wondering; why was an edit by Scifiintel on my talk page reverted? I saw it as a request for improvement of an article. --Anthony5429 19:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read the rest of this talk page. I've already answered this same question several times. Also, there is a relevant section on WP:ANI. --Cyde Weys 20:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert. Although it was an interesting article, it was considered as spam, and thanks for doing an awesome job preventing spam (even though it probably wasn't meant to be taken that way). --lovelaughterlife♥talk? 04:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
CupcakesFrosted wb.jpg
And reading some of the previous comments, you don't get many positive comments, do you? We'll, here's a cupcake to show that your many contributions are very valuable to Wikipedia, despite what some might say. Cheers, lovelaughterlife♥talk? 05:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Awww, thanks for noticing. It can be a downer when lots of people are complaining at me, especially because all I was doing in this instance was reverting spam. --Cyde Weys 06:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Moving categories[edit]

Both Category:Extreme Championship Wrestling roster and Category:Stampede Wrestling roster were supposed to be moved after being voted on. This was a couple of weeks ago and neither move has happened yet. I was told to talk to you about it. TJ Spyke 22:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for telling me. --Cyde Weys 22:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


Reverted me wrongly here [4] Just thought I'd inform you (and am slightly curious as to what triggered it). Thanks. Trebor 19:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Cydebot[edit]

I'd just like to let you know that the response I gave here was false (and it's been gnawing on my conscience ever since). The truth was that Cydebot was very insecure, with some possible remote code exploits, so I didn't want to open source the code for that reason. Of course, security through obscurity isn't a good solution, so I'm going through a security audit right now and hopefully once everything clears it will be suitable to share. --Cyde Weys 19:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know :-). Actually, AWB now has the task built in so I don't really need it anymore. —Mets501 (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh really? I'll have to take a look at that then. Isn't Bluemoose gone though? I guess someone else took over development? --Cyde Weys 20:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Cydebot Category removal question[edit]

I went through Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 28, and I couldn't find the CfD which discussed this. Could you clarify? - jc37 15:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the error can be traced back to these two edits, wherein someone modified WP:CFDW to change it from being in that category to saying that that category should be deleted. Regardless of its status as an error, I'm going to let it stand, because that category probably should be deleted anyway. It only had one page in it, and unless the CFD process expands to include many working pages (/me shudders), there's no point for it to exist yet. --Cyde Weys 17:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

My Request for Adminship[edit]

Thanks for contributing to my RfA! Thank you for your (edit-conflicted) support in my my RfA, which passed with a tally of 117/0/1. I hope that my conduct as an admin lives up to the somewhat flattering confidence the community has shown in me. Please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page should you need anything or want to discuss something with me. As you are an experienced en admin I doubt I can do that much for you here, but if you need an insta-delete of a Commons image you know who to poke :P--Nilfanion (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Logo for your AntiVandalBot[edit]

Hi! Out of enthusiasm about your AntiVandalBot, I made a logo for it. I posted it in AntiVandalBot's user talk page. Could you take a look? Thanks. If you want, you could modify it in any ways you like & maybe take out the "AntiVandalBot" phrase so that it could be applied to all bots in Wikipedia. (Wikimachine 01:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC))


Blocked. Explanation at User talk:Cydebot. Hesperian 04:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed and unblocked; details at Cydebot's talk page. Thanks for catching the error. --Cyde Weys 14:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of User:UserBox[edit]

I think you misunderstood the purpose of the user. It wasn't the boxes no one wants, it was intended to be a common repository for all userboxes. McKay 17:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Which is exactly why it was deleted. There is never going to be a common repository of userboxes ever again. The powers that be will it. --Cyde Weys 18:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Redirect Delete template[edit]

Would it be possible to put the "speedy" template on the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion page's infobox. Either under the "speedy" category, or under the "Redirect" category? The other article speedies are listed, but this one isn't. There isn't an easy way to find the {{db-r1}} template! SkierRMH 01:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. I'm not sure the optimal place for it on the template exists though; now it's just in amongst all of those main namespace speedy deletion tags. Ah well. --Cyde Weys 02:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


Your the only admin person I can remember. Anyways could you please do something about the vandalism this girl keeps doing? Her name is and her edits are here. She's added alot of nonsense to articles about actresses, tv shows, and several movies. I really hope you can help us all out by stopping her vandalism. (Sorry but I don't know any other admin people) - 08:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

How many ...[edit]

Hello Cyde. It's probably a secret, but if you don't ask, you don't get. So I'll ask. How many complaint emails does WP:OTRS get for each shock image that appears on the main page? I'm hoping for 10 or less, which is still a lot, but I am an optimist at heart. A very approximate answer is all I'm looking for. Thanks in advance, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope, it's not a secret. The answer is about four. Each time a shock image shows up on the main page (and it usually only lasts a minute or so), we get four emails. That's four people who actually care enough to contact (and who manage to find out the OTRS email). For every one person that sends a complaint email there are hundreds more who don't. --Cyde Weys 02:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. As you say, going to the trouble of sending an email is a fair bit of effort to make. Let's hope that the ProtectionBot can prevent most of these! Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Someone also calculated about 16-25,000 page views of an example of penis vandalism on the Main Page over a 6-8 minute stretch on 24 December (Christmas Eve and a Sunday). The calculation is at the end of the thread archived here. Carcharoth 13:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Your comments on my RFA[edit]

Hey, thanks for your comments on my RFA. I was curious about your comment regarding the use of templates. On WP:AIV, it states the following:

Editors: Before listing a vandal here make sure that:
  1. The vandal is active now, has received a proper set of warnings, and has vandalized after a last warning.

Do I not understand the policy correctly or is there another policy that I'm unaware of? Cheers for your time. The Rambling Man 08:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (aka Budgiekiller).

Oftentimes templates aren't the best way of dealing with vandals. And when we're talking about anything other than vandalism, templates almost never help. --Cyde Weys 17:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


Cyde, you recently blocked User:DownDaRoad as a sockpuppet of User:Vintagekits, but it appears you have also blocked User:Vintagekits at the same time. He has left these messages on his talk page:

Logoistic 14:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits has not been blocked (you may confirm this by looking at his block log). At the worst he may have been hit by an autoblock, which will clear within 24 hours. --Cyde Weys 19:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

My RFA[edit]

Hey, thanks for participating in my recent RFA. You were amongst a number of editors who considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and as a consequence the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). I am extremely grateful that you took the time to advise me on to improve as a Wikipedian and I'd like to assure you that I'll do my level best to develop my skills here to a point where you may feel you could trust me with the mop.

I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 19:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)

Your RfA Question[edit]

You recently asked someone "Can you guess how many complaint emails OTRS receives for each shock image that appears on the main page?". I was just curious about how many complaints OTRS do receive. Catchpole 21:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Scroll up a few sections. --Cyde Weys 23:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


I've copied your remark on WP:ANI regarding WP:PI to its talk page, since it's relevant to the discussion there. Hope you don't mind. HAND! >Radiant< 13:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Category talk:UN Secretaries-General[edit]

Hi Cyde. On December 21, your bot deleted Category:UN Secretaries-General. However, it left the talk page, Category talk:UN Secretaries-General, intact. If you haven't done so already, could you make sure it takes down talk pages too? I've tagged this one with {{db-talk}}. Picaroon 01:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh, interesting. You're right, Cydebot isn't programmed to delete talk pages. I don't think I've run into this issue in six months. Not many category pages have talk pages, apparently. I'll look into making the appropriate changes so that this is handled automatically. --Cyde Weys 01:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


I'm intrigued. When you beat me to blocking ByeByeSelfRespect (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), you used a summary of "Foot clothing of disinvited participant". I'll admit I've seen a lot of unique block summaries, but I honestly have no clue what this one means. Mind telling me? alphachimp 05:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me try. "Sock of banned user"? Newyorkbrad 05:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I'm pretty tired. alphachimp 05:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way, does either of you know if any Checkusers are awake, because it looks like Cplot has a bunch of these lined up, and we're going to need an IP block. Newyorkbrad 05:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)