User talk:Scottywong/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6


Hi SN. I've seen you relentlessly defending the Neelix RfA. I'm afraid I've had to oppose based some of the criteria you are defending , but my reasons are honest, come from the heart and some facts, and are expressed, I hope, politely enough. However, you are of course most welcome to challenge my oppose vote too. Talk to you soon about the NPP stuff when my own RfA is over :) --Kudpung (talk) 04:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No worries. We don't have to agree on everything in order to work together. —SW— prattle 23:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


As a result of my recently failed RfA, I've realized that I need to make some changes. I thought I'd list a few of them here in case anyone was wondering what I'm up to:

  • Concerns were raised at the RfA about my username. My username is not intended to be vulgar or offensive, but I realize some people find it to be. While I'm hesitant to change my username, I'd like to start by at least meeting my opposers halfway and change my signature so that my full username is not displayed after each comment I make. So, my signature has been changed to "SW" (with, of course, the obligatory flashy colors and such).
  • Many concerns were raised about my past clashes with ARS. While I will continue to disagree with the way certain things are done at ARS, I've come to the realization that my efforts to be outspoken about my concerns has neither helped me nor has it made a positive impact on ARS or Wikipedia in general. Therefore, I've decided to drop it. I'm taking WT:ARS off of my watchlist, I'm going to stop patrolling rescue-tagged AfD's, and I'm going to stop adding {{ARSnote}} notices to rescue-tagged AfD's. If I happen to come across a rescue-tagged AfD, I'm not going to restrain myself from contributing, but I'm not going to specifically target them either.
  • I'll also be addressing some other issues that were brought up such as being courteous more consistently, etc.

If you have any suggestions for other improvements that I can make, feel free to let me know here or via email. Thanks to everyone for your support and suggestions. —SW— squeal 22:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, this may seem a little pedantic, but have you checked if the colour contrast in your signature is sufficient for some people's eyesight? Also I think you'll find that User:SW is already taken, though user:=SW= isn't. ϢereSpielChequers 23:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Point taken. I'm unaware of a method for checking if the contrast is adequate for visually impaired users. If you have any suggestions, let me know. Also, User:SW is a redirect to User:Sean Whitton, who hasn't edited for nearly a year, and whose signature is Sean Whitton. I'm going to steal that redirect from him since nothing links to it. Hopefully he won't mind. I'll leave a message on his talk page just in case. Thanks. —SW— chat 23:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Also, I've modified my sig subtly to add a darker border around the letters, hopefully increasing the contrast somewhat. —SW— confabulate 02:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, The new sig is a lot clearer for me, though the colour contrast is still not ideal. But I wouldn't appropriate a sig that a prolific user was using just because they are inactive - wp:sig has things to say on that. ϢereSpielChequers 10:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Understood. WP:SW had no incoming links, and User:Sean Whitton's signature was his entire name written out (at least on the pages I checked), not simply SW. —SW— babble 14:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I think what you're doing is noble and all, but can I ask you not to stop adding the {{ARSnote}} tag when you come across ones without it? It's almost never added to the AfD, and I do think it's very important that the closing admin can at least be alerted of it.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I won't refrain from adding it if I happen to stumble upon a rescue-tagged AfD, but I'm not going to target them, and therefore the vast majority of them will not have that tag. Perhaps you can take my place. Feel free to use my voting script, User:Snottywong/votetab.js, which includes the notice automatically if you check a checkbox. That's what I always use. If you're interested, let me know, and I'll make a quick documentation page. —SW— chat 15:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I too find the ARSnote of value as I think it reduces the amount of "metoo" that happens. In any case I look forward to supporting you next time around. Hobit (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd certainly be more than happy to take on that script, if you'd be willing to help me out, since I have no idea what to do in all honesty.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
See User:Snottywong/votetab for instructions. —SW— gossip 17:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks, I'll have a look into it later today.--Yaksar (let's chat) 11:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Got it, very cool. I've now been exposed to the world of customization on wikipedia, and will have to see what else I can add in.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


Hi SW! I'm not sending out thankspam to everyone, but I would like to thank you personally for all your support on my RfA. It was far, far more than just a !vote, and more than I deserved, and I'm sure that without it things would have gone very differently. I hope to be able to return the kindness again in the not too distant future. --Kudpung (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


Hi SN. For obvious reasons I haven't been keeping tracks on the NPP problems for the last few days. Are we making any progress? --Kudpung (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The thread on WP:VPT has fizzled out. They are convinced that nothing is wrong with Special:Newpages, and that the backlog must have been processed in a normal way. I'm still not convinced, but I don't think there's anything that can be done about it. It seems like Special:Newpages is operating correctly at the moment. There doesn't seem to be a straightforward way to figure out exactly what happened. My theory is that we lost a large chunk of articles at some point. Whether it was a technical glitch from the mediawiki upgrade or a new page patroller who thought they were doing us a favor, it doesn't seem like anything that is undoable. After your RfA is over, take a look at the checklist I made and see if you think anything needs to be added to it. My intention is to spell out the essential tasks which should be done by patrollers, along with relevant links to all of supporting pages they will need. —SW— converse 23:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
OK. I'm going to be taking a few days off Wikipedia - not to recover from my RfA, but I have to go to Laos. My logins for the next week or so will be a bit sporadic. --Kudpung (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the five last entries at the bottom of the list as at now:
  1. 17:56, 3 March 2011 ‎Pepsi-Change the Game ads (hist) ‎[601 bytes] ‎Aditya Simha (talk | contribs | block) (←Created page with '{{Info box |Sponsored_by =Pepsi |Type= Advertisement |Sport=Cricket |Started=January 2011 |Ended= |Starring=Different Cricket Players }} '''Pepsi Change the Gam...')
  2. 17:35, 3 March 2011 ‎Ray Donn (hist) ‎[3,133 bytes] ‎Valleyman1970 (talk | contribs | block) (←Created page with '<ref>{{cite book|last=Keith|first=Skues|title=That's Entertainment 100 Years Chelsea Lodge No.3098|year=2005|publisher=Lambs Meadow Publications}}</ref>')
  3. 10:03, 3 March 2011 ‎Jesús Ochoa Domínguez (hist) ‎[4,840 bytes] ‎Mobset1980 (talk | contribs | block) (←Created page with '{{Ficha de actor |bgcolour = |name = Jesús Ochoa Dominguez |date of birth= May 21 1959<br />({{age|21|05|1959}})| |place of birth = Hermosillo, [[Sonor...') (Tag: movies)
  4. 03:49, 3 March 2011 ‎Ellie Rose (hist) ‎[1,140 bytes] ‎Pghn (talk | contribs | block) (GOOD page.) (Tag: possibly non-minor edit)
  5. 02:01, 18 February 2011 ‎Till the World Ends (hist) ‎[3,666 bytes] ‎Nickyp88 (talk | contribs | block) (←Redirected page to Femme Fatale (Britney Spears album))

I say there is still something wrong, but I'm beginning to thing there may well be some over enthusiastic patrolling from some very new, and not so new patrollers. I saw one new page today tagged CSD, CSD declined and PRODed instead by another patroller, CSD again by another patroller, and then finally deleted by the sysop, all in the space of about 10 minutes! Kudpung (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeting the February 18th article on the bottom of the list. The last article I see is Ellie Rose. —SW— express 19:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your support!

Hi Snottywong,

Looks like you're getting two of these in a row! You deserve the thanks. You were my most vociferous supporter in this RfA and I am indebted to you for your help. I sincerely appreciate the time you put into defending my contributions and voicing your confidence in me, particularly because we've never really interacted before. Thanks for everything.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


Feel free not to answer, but I had a question regarding this. To me it seemed like an attempt to bring an editor into a discussion for reasons unrelated to the contents of the article itself, but I don't want to assume anything until I can get another opinion. Thanks.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that yesterday. I think if he had notified multiple editors, it would be problematic enough to make a fuss over. But, judging from his contributions (which I checked yesterday but not today), it didn't look like he asked anyone else to come to the AfD. So, I wouldn't worry about it. At the most, you might want to post a brief notice on Zabanio's talk page just making him aware of WP:CANVAS. —SW— chat 18:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Got it, thanks. I only brought it up because I found it odd that the deletion of this article was being contested at all (seems like a pretty clear case to me).--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

NPP again

HI I've added something up there a few minutes ago - there's still something wrong. Did you see it? DGG said somewhere that he was going to look into the question of 'over enthusiastic patrolling' - do you think he got round to it? --Kudpung (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I had lost track of that thread but just read through everything I missed. I left a message on User talk:Kamkek, and I'll probably chime in at WP:VPT shortly. —SW— communicate 19:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
One of the ways to do some checks (I know this will slow down your own patrolling) is instead of clicking the yellow ones in the live feed box on the left, click the white ones that are already patrolled, then check the page hist to see the time lapse between pge creation & tagging. --Kudpung (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Disappearance of Kyron Horman

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Disappearance of Kyron Horman has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I do hope that this missing person is found, but nonetheless, the subject of this article does not appear to meet the general notability guideline or the Wikipedia:Notability (events) guideline.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Onthegogo (talk) 01:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Disappearance of Kyron Horman for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Disappearance of Kyron Horman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Kyron Horman until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Onthegogo (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


Hi SW. There's been a spate of schools being sent to AfD recently. Possibly because the patrollers are not aware of a special dispensation. I'm considering adding something like this to the NPP page, but I don't want to do it unilaterally:
When considering school articles for deletion, WP:OUTCOMES#Education may offer some additional information. More information is available at WP:WPSCH and WP:WPSCH/AG.
--Kudpung (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It may have something to do with a recent mass deprodding performed by User:Colonel Warden and being discussed here. In any case, I think a general link to WP:OUTCOMES would be a good addition to the "required reading" for patrollers. Did you ever take a look at my draft at User:Snottywong/NPP checklist? Do you think it's useful enough to move somewhere into the WP namespace as an essay, or perhaps even to replace some of the instructions currently at WP:NPP? Is there anything glaring missing from it? —SW— gossip 17:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I certainly did take a look at it and I thought I had replied, but what with getting over my RfA and then having to go to Laos for several days, I might have forgotten to send the reply, or, what often happens, after pressing the 'Show preview' button, I forgot to press the 'Save page' button. It's 1 am here now, I'll have another look in the morning. --Kudpung (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good, thanks. —SW— confabulate 18:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's excellent. Problem is what to do with it. 1). I could see it being used instead of the 'Improving new pages' section, but if you were to BRD it, there would be opposition and a tedious long debate. I've gone through all the diffs since the NPP page was created and there may be a couple of editors who generally oppose any changes to stuff if they didn't have the idea first - that's one of the biggest hurdles to getting consensus on anything. There are also editors who have recently spoken out against NPP as being an entirely necessary process. Since we started looking into this a few months back, I've come across some terrible patrolling. Some of it is genuine misplaced good faith because people just won't read the instructions first. Some of it seems to be just blatant editcountitis, often by users who think it's a quick ticket to adminship. I've even come across classmates holding tagging competitions and giving barnstars for the winners. 2). You could add it to the bottom of the page, thus avoiding replacing any of the existing text, by adding 'For more details see the checklist below', or you could 3). move it to a Wikipedia essay and link to it. But wherever you put it, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Kudpung (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to see it added to the main NPP page, but I agree with you that it probably won't stick. So, I think it would do well as an essay that is linked from the main NPP page. That would make it easy to send a quick link to a poor patroller, and hope they read it. Thanks for the improvements you made, they look good. I'll move it into the WP namespace in a day or two. —SW— speak 15:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
There's one more possibility: Leave it in your user space, announce on the NPP talk page what you would like to do with it and why, and link to it, and wait for feedback. If nothing much happens after 7 days, just do it. Kudpung (talk) 08:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
It's worth a try. —SW— soliloquize 15:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
We have another problem patroller - wanna hear about it? I need some suggestions how to handle it.Kudpung (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure we have a lot more problem patrollers than we know about. Tracking patrollers is not very easy or transparent. Who is it? —SW— spout 16:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I dream of horses. 4 a minute (that's 240 an hour...). Some really awfull unsourced BLP patrolled untagged. Lots of mistagging for CSD - wrong CSD tags, CSD tags on notable BLPs. You name it. Kudpung (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I've found a few more possibly over enthusiastic patrollers. They are all working in entirely good faith, and I think I've found a cool way of handling it. Kudpung (talk) 05:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


See User_talk:Acroterion#Unexplained_revert - might need fixing still; not sure. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  01:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts on AfD statistics


Thank you for developing this bot, which I think is very useful. I disagree with Colonel Warden on this matter, as it is hard for me to visualize editors making the effort to jump on the bandwagon on a large number of AfD debates, just to show up as mostly green on your report. Personally, I prefer to be among the first one to three editors to comment, simply because I don't want to be swayed by an emerging consensus, or waste my time dancing in a snow storm.

I strive hard to reflect policy, guidelines and consensus in my AfD work, so am very pleased to see much more green than red in my report. I also take pride in rescuing (or improving) articles I discover through AfD, but am not a part of ARS. I prefer to work pretty much alone, while trying my best to be collegial with others.

I do have some comments, though, on possible improvements to your bot, using my own report as an example. In nine cases where I had said "Keep", you reported the result as "Undetermined". These were cases where the nomination was withdrawn, and so effectively amounted to a "Keep". It could be said that the "Keep" arguments were so persuasive that it amounted to a "Superkeep" since even the nominator agreed. In other words, "Withdrawn" equals "Keep", so if the editor you're analyzing said "Keep" the result should show green on their report.

I have a similar point about "No consensus" results, which now show beige. This is the weaker counterpart of what I discussed above. The effective result of "No consensus" is that the article is kept. If I said "Keep" then my result should show green. If I said "Delete" then my result should show red.

I know that this would be extra programming work, and I am not complaining about your bot in any way. Instead, these are just my friendly suggestions for improvement if you are so inclined.

Thanks again for the work you put into this bot. I think that it is reasonable to expect an editor who is trying to gain the confidence of the community to have a mostly (but not entirely) green report. Cullen328 (talk) 05:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I noticed an error in your report on me, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rules of Accumulation I recommended "Delete" but the report says "Keep". Cullen328 (talk) 05:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Another minor glitch - in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalpataru Diwas I originally said "Keep" but then ended up writing another article called Kalpataru Day, and ended up recommending a redirect there. That was the outcome. Perhaps I should have struck my original "Keep". Cullen328 (talk) 05:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. Some things I can explain and some I cannot. In most cases, the bot is just looking for bolded votes and bolded closes to determine what happened. If it sees something that doesn't fit into its definition of a standard vote or a standard result, it's not very graceful at handling it. So, whenever a result is "Undetermined", it means that the bot couldn't figure out what the result was because the closer either didn't bold the result or didn't bold a word that the bot recognizes in the result. If it sees a vote that it doesn't understand, it just ignores it and pretends it never happened (e.g. your second vote on Kalpataru Diwas was New article, which the bot doesn't understand), however it does have some logic built in to deal with multiple votes (e.g. changed votes, stricken votes, etc). "Withdrawn" currently isn't a result that the bot recognizes, but I think there's a good argument for adding that in. The error on The Rules of Accumulation, however, I can't currently explain. Looking at the text of the AfD, I can't see any reason why the bot would have gotten it wrong. I'm going to delve deeper into the code tomorrow and run some tests on that AfD to see what went wrong. Hopefully fixing that bug will increase the overall accuracy of the bot. I'll let you know what I find. —SW— comment 06:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I have found out why the bot marked that vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rules of Accumulation as Keep instead of Delete. The reason is because your vote was Keep at the moment the bot looked at it. It appears the AfD was briefly vandalized and your vote was changed by an IP for a short time. —SW— communicate 17:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

AfD statistics

Can you share the Snotbot source or just run it on me, I'd like to see? :) Just out of curiosity. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, see User:Snottywong/AfD stats/User:JoyUser:Joy/AfD stats. Keep in mind that it currently only looks at your last 5000 edits. —SW— confabulate 18:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Oooo! Can I have an AfD summary? :) CTJF83 18:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
User:Snottywong/AfD stats/User:Ctjf83User:Ctjf83/AfD stats —SW— gossip 20:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
That is impressive. I would very much like to see a report on my account. I was thinking of compiling it manually. Cullen328 (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
User:Snottywong/AfD stats/User:Cullen328User:Cullen328/AfD stats (with vote tally). —SW— gossip 20:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! CTJF83 20:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think it's a very cool idea; thanks very much for that, even if RfA was not a very welcoming environment (for some understandable reasons...) bobrayner (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Snotty, can you run me too? Great tool!--Milowenttalkblp-r 03:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
User:Snottywong/AfD stats/User:MilowentUser:Milowent/AfD stats —SW— converse 17:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I know I ran on about how it wasn't a perfect tool for RFA applicant evaluation, but I would greatly appreciate if you would run the tool on my AFDs. Kudos for developing a neat bit of programming, something I would never be able to do (unless it was in Fortran, Basic or Pascal). Thanks. Edison (talk) 05:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
User:Snottywong/AfD stats/User:EdisonUser:Edison/AfD stats —SW— converse 17:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm out of town for the weekend, won't have access to the computer that runs the script until Monday. I will fulfill any requests then. —SW— yak 06:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
See links above. —SW— converse 17:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • These statistics sound interesting but are of limited value because editors choose which discussions to enter and are free to !vote as they please without any consequence. It would be quite easy to get a conformity value of 100% by just !voting in snow discussions, for example. Psychologists have done many studies which show that groups make poor decisions when they are influenced by each other and tend to be afraid to express a dissenting opinion. See groupthink for more details. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
That would be valid if this tool existed 5 years ago, and everyone had been voting at AfD's with their stats in mind. However, I think that this is really showing historical trends from a time period before the whole groupthink thing would have skewed the results. In particular, I think it is informative, not to see how many times an editor was "wrong", but to see if there is an overwhelming pattern with the editor whereby he/she often votes one way on AfD's that close another way (i.e. often voting Keep on AfD's that end up being deleted). I think that an overwhelming number of votes in that category would indicate that the editor either doesn't understand or isn't in sync with community norms and standards for inclusion and deletion. —SW— confabulate 18:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
It would be interesting to run this on DRV, too. There are a number of editors there who constantly seem to be arguing the same thing, no matter what the rest of the community thinks. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I could probably adapt it to run on DRV's too, although there would be some technical hurdles to overcome. Firstly, DRV's don't have their own page, there are generally multiple DRV's on a page which makes it harder to parse which DRV the user actually voted on. Also, right now the script is pretty dumb and it just looks for bolded votes (and bolded closing statements) to determine what occurred. I think DRV generally has more non-standard bolded votes (and really no standardization for closing rationales), which would make it harder to automatically parse. —SW— communicate 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Would you mind making me an AfD summary. Feel free to post it in one of my user subpages. I agree that this tool can be used to help editors understand whether they are in sync with community applied norms and standards for inclusion and deletion. It would be interesting to run this on MfD and the other XfDs. Will this be available on so we can run reports on ourself and others? Also, perhaps the tool can be expanded to spot editors who XfD !vote together perhaps once too often with an overwhelming common pattern to be a coincidence. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind seeing one for myself as well, would be interesting to see if my keeps crack double-digits. :) Tarc (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I'm not putting them in my userspace anymore, see User:Uzma Gamal/AfD stats and User:Tarc/AfD stats. I'm going to move the other ones in my userspace as well. —SW— gossip 18:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks SW. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Note to everyone who asked for AfD stats, I have moved your stats page to your userspace. It should be at "User:<yourname>/AfD stats". This is now your page and you can do what you like with it. If you'd ever like an update to the stats, just let me know. Also, in response to Uzma Gamal's question about whether this will be available on toolserver, at this point I don't have toolserver access, but I'm going to look into what it would take to get access, and whether or not I even have the programming chops to make this script work there. So, for now if you'd like to see your stats, all you have to do is ask me. In the future, I agree it would be best to have this process automated. —SW— spill the beans 18:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for running the stats. I notice they only go back to August 2009. Also I see two errors so far: [1]. The bot says the article was kept, but it was deleted. [2]: the bot says it was deleted, but it was kept. Even good programs may need a tweak or two. Edison (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, these errors are bound to happen when the closer doesn't bold the result correctly. In both of those situations, the entire closing statement was bolded. The bot looks at the bolded text and searches for keywords. In the first case, it searched for the word "Keep" before it searched for the word "Delete", so it found Keep and then gave up even though there was a "Delete" in there. In the second case, the word "delete" was bolded, and this is what the bot latched on to. I think I'm going to have it also look for the word "withdraw", and maybe I'll also have it notice if it finds multiple keywords, and in those cases just label it as "Undetermined". Thanks for the report! —SW— squeal 20:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

General outcomes for AFD?

I wonder how much work it would be to turn your existing AFD-related code into something that reports the aggregated outcomes? Nothing as extensive as Wikipedia:AFD 100 days, just a table that says, "January 2011: X kept, Y deleted, Z merged..." I realize it would take a long time to crawl through the old AFDs, but it might be interesting to have a basic stats page, and if it could be updated automagically every month or two, then so much the better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You can get current information from I usually copy that entire AfD log page and past it into an Microsoft Excel spread sheet so that I can sort the columns. I added a total # participants column in my spread sheet and a keep/delete ratio column to keep tabs of where the AfD action is (as of this moment Proposed Libyan no-fly zone has 22 participants and Anton Hysén has a 10:1 keep/delete ration and 2009 UCLA throat slashing has a 1:9 keep/delete ratio) and to post at the oldest AfDs having the fewest participants (Jumz was filed 2011-02-01 05:42 UTC and has 0 participants). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
My interest is in the historical trend, actually. (If we're deleting three-quarters of AFDs now, has it always been that way?)
The toolserver link doesn't seem to be on any of the participant pages. I wonder if we should propose its addition to WP:AFD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Signature question

Hey, I was wondering what color background you use when you edit. The reason I'm wondering is in vector, your signature is pretty light and almost blends into the white background of the page. Is there any way you could darken it a bit as some people's eyes might not be as sharp as some of us young people. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this issue. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you using Internet Explorer? —SW— chat 20:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes. I'm assuming you're probably using Firefox then. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I usually use Chrome, but I recently found out that my signature doesn't display correctly on Internet Explorer, because IE doesn't support CSS text shadows. If you look at this page with a browser other than IE, you'll see there is a dark shadow behind the text in my signature which makes it plainly visible. Without the shadow, all you see is the light gray "SW" against a white background, which admittedly is difficult to see. I could try darkening the "SW" a bit more, but the darker I make it, the harder it is to see when the shadows are correctly displayed. This is one of the many reasons that I hate IE and haven't used it for many years, and frankly have little sympathy for those who do use it (nothing personal against you). I'll see if there's anything I can do to alleviate the problem in IE without affecting the more functional browsers. —SW— prattle 22:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, that makes much more sense. Thanks for replying! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh wow, that's one epic signature shadow! Good job on that one as it looks much better than the old one you used for awhile there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk page stalkers

To all my stalkers, you may be interested to read and optionally weigh in on a bot proposal that I have recently put forward. See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 108#Bot to reduce duplicate references if you are interested. Thanks! —SW— yak 00:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Your on to something

Hi SW. Your post at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol#Patrol_checklist is on the right track. I revised Wikipedia:New pages patrol and Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Article namespace checklist is waiting to receive User:Snottywong/NPP checklist. Also, check out Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Wikipedia namespace checklist. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I moved the checklist into WP namespace. —SW— spill the beans 16:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I transcluded it into Wikipedia:New pages patrol. I think this will help much more than what previously was there. Please go through the Other comments and delete information already contained in your Article namespace checklist. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Time limits on adminship

Hi I have proposed time limits on adminship. I'd appreciate your input! --Surturz (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Why are you notifying me and various other editors when we have all clearly already commented on your proposal? —SW— communicate 21:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Oops, sorry. I was going down the WP:RFAU list, should have cross-checked. --Surturz (talk) 01:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure, because having only recently got the mop, I'm busy catching up on some of the finer points of policy, but is this not at least partly in conflict with our WP:CANVASS policy? --Kudpung (talk) 07:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


Hi, noting your comment at RFA, by coincidence I have just added a commitment on my talk page which runs along these lines. This applies whether I become an admin or not. Thanks (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see it, appreciate the note. And early congratulations to you, I don't see much chance of your RfA failing at this point. —SW— confer 16:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


Would you do me a solid and patrol the Wikipedia namespace pages after 23:20, 27 February 2011. I created most of them and can't mark them as patrolled, but they are beginning to clog my Wikipedia namespace page efforts. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Although I left Wikipedia:List of userbox nominations at miscellany for deletion unpatrolled, because I don't understand the purpose of it. Will it be automatically updated or will it be outdated in a few days? —SW— confabulate 16:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm working on revising List of userbox nominations at miscellany for deletion to make it more userfriendly. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


Sorry I just removed the ANI thread to reduce exposure of the outing. I think the user should be blocked -- would you consider doing so? I have requested oversight. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I would have blocked the user, but I am not an admin. —SW— babble 23:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Looks like User:Eagles247 just blocked him. —SW— confabulate 23:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Excellent. Sorry I assumed (having supported it) that your RFA passed. I need to pay more attention. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice singnatures!

I hope you don't mind me dropping by to say, but I quite like your signatures! The variations are incredibly entertaining. Sophus Bie (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

RfA stuff

Hi SW. You might be interested in this discussion on my tp. Feel free to chime in. --Kudpung (talk) 05:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: LivingBot 11

Oh, I postponed that indefinitely. I got into an argument with User:Kleinzach (I think: not sure), and my enthusiasm for the project got sapped. I can give you the code if you want? Not sure what state it's in though... - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 21:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, I just wanted to see if the bot was still active. If it's been postponed indefinitely, then there may be value in trying again. I've already got some code together which should work pretty well, but I'll let you know if I want to take a peek at yours in the future. It's unfortunate, but I definitely see how enthusiasm for improving the project can be quickly sapped by editors who constantly oppose proposals without a full understanding. We'll see if I have any better luck, but I'm not holding out much hope. Thanks. —SW— soliloquize 21:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

ship classes

Nother list here: User:Snottywong/Ship classes/List 3. This is from searching Category:Watercraft for class and type to a depth of 11 levels. — kwami (talk) 09:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I took the liberty of trimming a few articles out of the list 3, as they were items that wouldn't take a hyphen (or a dash of anykind). GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I think you guys will need to get a clear consensus first before the bot request for this task will be approved. There are several opposers at the bot request. See my comments on kwami's talk page. —SW— yak 16:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


Hi SW. It looks as if someone has gone ahead and pasted your checklist to the NPP project page. However, there seems to be a lot of red links. Perhaps you could check that the move went smoothly. --Kudpung (talk) 11:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I have commented out the other checklists since they either don't exist yet or aren't ready for prime time. I'll let Uzma know. —SW— communicate 14:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
The scope of the problems with NPP is far greater than I imagined. As you will see from some recent messages with NPPers on my tp, there are some total misconceptions about what NPP is for, and how it should be done. I'm going to ask you a favour: are you able to make list of all users who regularly patrol new pages who are not admins or well established users? I'll write to them all if I have to. IMO it was a great error in the days way back when it was decided to allow just any autoconfirmed user to be an NPP. The task is far more important that even rollbacking or reviewing. I wonder if it's possible to make it a user-right, because new users are joining Wikipedia all the time and going straight for this semi admin task - it makes them feel important. Kudpung (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll get you that list when I get a chance, might be a few days. As for NPP, I would be wary of doing anything that would reduce the number of patrollers out there. We need all the patrollers we can get. Ideally, it would be better to "patrol the patrollers" and make sure they're doing an adequate job, and correct them when they aren't. Build a patroller army. —SW— communicate 02:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree entirely, and this is exactly what I have in mind. --Kudpung (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
See User:Snottywong/Patrollers. —SW— talk 22:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────This is absolutely brilliant work. Roughly how far in time do these 35,000 new pages go? Can you let me know:

  • Whether you think it's worth putting an individual message on certain users' talk pages


  • Messaging all (through a message bot) new page patrollers.


  • Doing an NPP newsletter, also delivered by a bot.

For these, we would need a list of 'all' users who have patrolled pages, say , within the last 12 months. There are two problems here:

  • Not all patrollers have a NPP user box, so they won't be figuring in cat: NPPer
  • Not all patrollers are listed as members on the NPP page
  • Not all patrollers listed on the NPP page are listed in cat: NPPer.

Kudpung (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the table provides a good starting point for looking at random patrols from "high risk" patrollers and sending out individual messages if deficiencies are found. I could certainly come up with a bot that delivers a newsletter to any user who has patrolled an article (or 10+ articles) in the last 12 months. I'm not exactly sure how far back the 35000 patrols go, at least a few months. I'll find out and let you know. —SW— confess 01:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry about a message delivery bot, we have several already. In the meantime, I'll be checking on the patrol logs of several individual accounts. Kudpung (talk) 04:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
This table covers editors 250 editors. If I'm not mistaken, it covers in fact 24,486 articles. This would probably be about one month's worth of new pages. There are not many of the names I expected to see, and all the others are unknown. The ones I recognise are mainly established editors and/or admins with high edit counts and a low ratio of NPP, and just a few NPPers whom I have recently helped to understand the system.
I'm not very good at reading stats although I've tinkered a lot with the sortable table. I was expecting to be able to see newbies being the users at the top of this list as those who have both a relatively low edit count and a relatively high patrol count. Might be true, but we would need an additional column for 'first edit' to be able to tell (there's too much to do it manually, and there are are some relatively new editors who use Huggle and rack up a high number of edits in a relatively short time).
I think we need to cover a larger time span if this is possible, such as going back to the days when there was still a huge backlog, say from beginning October, and with a column for the users' first edit date. That would give us an idea if the problem really is with new users who have not read the instructions, or with regular editors who only occasionally patrol and who have not fully understood the criteria.
Otherwise, this sortable table is exactly the right base to work from. If we get the stats right, at least we can refer to them if we get any odd questions when applying for changes to NPP (I would like the NPP page get official guideline status). I always thought NPP should have been a 'right' from the very beginning, such as 'reviewer', and 'rollbacker' etc. It's probably too late to set the clock back, although we do need to encourage users to read and understand not only NPP and CSD, but also the other tasks too. Again, subjectively, I do get the impression that page patrolling is a very hit-and-miss affair; since becoming an admin and working through the deletion backogs, I've come across dozens of wrong CSD and PROD tags; OK, the articles would have been deleted anyway, but under other criteria. I think if NPP were a privilege, we might have fewer patrollers, but they would be keen enough do a thorough job, even if the backlog creeps up again. Poorly patrolled pages, or ones that are passed but should be tagged, are just as bad as the unpatrolled ones that fall off the 30-day cliff. Let's get that army together. Kudpung (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe the bot found around 1500 editors in its search, but I only listed the 250 with the lowest "edits per patrol" ratio. I could probably run it again and make a separate table that lists any user who has patrolled more than 10 articles, and whose first edit was less than 6 months ago, and who has less than 5000 edits. Or something along those lines. Do those numbers sound right to you or would you want to see a different set of users? —SW— converse 13:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I think that's a better solution, say October through March. That would include stats from the periods when the 30-day backlog was full, the sudden drop over the Xmas/New Year period, and the newbs who have started recently. Of the 5,000 edit cut-off, perhaps it's better to go higher to include the Hugglers who have monstrous edit counts , but also includes a lot of newcomers. I see a lot of "Yeah, sorry for the mistake - I was using Huggle" from relative newbs. We can raise the bar though to include only editors who have patrolled more than 40 pages. We only need to run this once, and having tinkered with your table a lot more, I think I know now how to read what I want to see. Much later, we might need to report some percentages such as for example: 75% of patrolling is done by users who first registered after 3 September 2010 blah blah. So that extra column with the 'first edit' date is needed if it is possible. We could then perhaps write an article for Signpost like WSC did for the RfA problem.
To sum up, in the table we need:
  • Users with first edit since 22 March 2010
  • No ceiling for total number of edits (include all)
  • Users who patrolled more than 40 new articles
  • Stats drawn from Oct 2010 thru March 2011
  • Column for date of first edit.
Don't hesitate to tell me if you think I'm barking up the wrong tree with all this - I live in dread of wasting people's time. Kudpung (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Turns out that 35,000 patrols only gets us back about 2-3 weeks. I'm running it again to hopefully go back more like 4-6 months. It will also ignore any users with less than 40 patrols, and it will add a column for the date of the user's first edit. It'll take a little while to gather analyze that much info, but it should be done shortly. —SW— communicate 18:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good. I hope it doesn't blow a server fuse. It's 2 a.m. here, I'll check it out in the morning. Kudpung (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Updated. Take a look. —SW— soliloquize 20:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────This new run gives a much better overview. I have played with the sortable table a lot, and although I haven't checked out any individual accounts yet, it does look as if new users often go straight for new page patrolling as their main activity. This will mean that a lot of new page patrolling is being done by users who have given themselves least time to familiarise themselves with deletion policy and new page patrol guidelines. You've obviously had a good look at this yourself, what do you think? And is is possible to extrapolate some statistics from all this? --Kudpung (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the table can be effectively used to find the "high-risk" patrollers. I checked a few of them out and many were indeed marking articles patrolled when they needed a lot of work. I've refrained from acting on that information, just because I can't think of a good way to tell a random new user that they're doing a bad job at patrolling without alienating them. —SW— comment 18:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed from the CW tp that you are able to provide some pretty convincing individual stats. I've always had a theory that all pages that end up at AfD are there for a good reason. It would be interesting to know how many of them actually get closed as 'keep' vs those that get closed as 'delete'. I'm sure somebody will have made that stat already once. Kudpung (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I've applied for a toolserver account, and that is one of the things I'd like to analyze. It would be far too time-consuming (and server resource-intensive) to do this with a normal bot. —SW— spout 18:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Fine. I don't know how they award tool server accounts but if you need any support don't hesitate to give me a poke. --Kudpung (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
It appears to be a very slow process. It seems like anything having to do with bots on WP is an extraordinarily slow process. It takes weeks to get anything done. Ironic, if you think about it. —SW— chat 15:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)