Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:49, 29 October 2008

Notice

Hi there Lightmouse!
	Please accept this invite to join the Good Article Collaboration Center, a project aimed at improving articles to GA status while working with other users. We hope to see you there!

Recruit Training Command, Great Lakes, Illinois

A template

	Hi! I noticed your contributions and thought you would be a great addition to the California State University task force over at WikiProject California. Please consider this your personal invitation to join; if you're interested, you can signup here! We currently have 1348 articles under our task force and would appreciate any assistance, large or small, with getting them to good article status. (We've got 19 there so far!) Whether you decide to join or not, thank you for everything you've already done to make Misplaced Pages better, and oh yeah...GO STATE!	[REDACTED]
~~~~

AWB misuse

Hi, for the time being I have revoked your access to AWB. The reason for this move is that a number of extremely minor, inconsequential edits have originated from your account through the tool. This sort of change, which isn't really important in the grander scheme of the article, is best added to the "general fixes" part of AWB so that the "problem" can be fixed when more effectual bot tasks are run. Please file a bug against AWB to have the fix added to the general fixes. Thanks, Martinp23 15:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems a trifle harsh. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Not really. If he's not going to make that sort of edit again, he's welcome to request the access back either via me or the usual process. Martinp23 16:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The harshness is partly in the fact that your move is unannounced and left no lattitude for prior communication about it. I do not approve of this method of administrative action. As well, it's vague and unexplained: what kind of trivial, "ineffectual" tasks are you referring to? Tony (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately things are quite reversable here when the issues are resolved. I took this action not so much as an admin (though it required access to admin tools) as a once AWB dev. If you're attempting to suggest that you don't know why I removed the access, you'd be well advised to take a look at the recent contributions of Lightmouse, which illustrate it quite cleanly. Thanks, Martinp23 16:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at Lightmouse's recent contributions and I could not find what you meant. Lightmouse has been essentially running a version of his date unlinking script through AWB. This seems to fit current policy, and I cannot see why this is "ineffectual." NuclearWarfare _{My work} 02:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I should have my access revoked as well, I'm doing pretty much the same thing as Lightmouse. No point being inconsistent. --Closedmouth (talk) 03:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The numerous spectators to this thread will probably find this interesting. Martinp23 12:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Why is the delinking of dates, per our Manual of Style, "inconsequential"? Tony (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Because minor edits such as this should be done while doing significant edits (i.e. typo fixing), rather than just racking up a huge edit count making inconsequential changes. –xeno (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I should be banned as an undesirable. Tony (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Indeed; I believe that the proper process involves the setting out of exactly what is at issue, rather than generic assertions without even exemplification. Tony (talk) 03:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

<undent>Martinp23: I saw that you also revoked access to AClosedmouth's AWB. You cited rules 4 and 5. These rules are "Avoid making insignificant minor edits" and "Abide by all Misplaced Pages guidelines, policies and common practices." I'm not sure I agree with you that the former applies, and I would certainly disagree about the latter. NuclearWarfare _{My work} 21:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to argue the point, feel free to use my talk page or (better) email. Martinp23 23:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Issue resolved (already); see my talk page if anyone is actually interested. NuclearWarfare _{My work} 23:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Here we are again

How cunning of you. I've removed you again, for the same reason, and have added you to the banned users list for AWB. Martinp23 16:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. What do you mean 'cunning'? Lightmouse (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Martin, I think you are using your tools for the wrong reasons. You need to explain the reason you have banned Lightmouse from using AWB or I will be forced to report you to AN for misuse of your admin tools. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 25, 2008 @ 16:17

Lightmouse got his AWB access removed for making a lot of minor edits, including some mistakes, as you can see on this talk page. Afterwards, instead of saying he wouldn't do it anymore or discussing it or something, he goes back to the access page and requesting it again, without mentioning the fact it had been taken away before, and then makes the same sort of edits. I don't think this comes under "misuse of admin tools". Tombomp (talk/contribs) 16:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

But the way Martin is going about it does (to me anyway). If Lightmouse is making good edits, even if they are minor, I don't see the problem. Isn't that what AWB is used for? Making quick work of lots of minor edits? - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 25, 2008 @ 16:29

He has been removed for exactly the same reasons as above, and the same reason that Closedmouth and Nuclearwarfare were removed. You can look at the reasons on their talk pages too if you like. I am abusing no tools - were I not an AWB dev, I wouldn't be removing him. That position affords me a degree of discretion, and I have explained and justified my reasons fully. You might like to familiarise yourself with the AWB rules too. Martinp23 16:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Being that I barely understand how AWB works, I will forego looking at the rules. But if Lightmouse is making edits that aren't goofing anything up and are doing good, what is the harm? - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 25, 2008 @ 16:36

As you can see from several threads on this talk page, he has a high false positive rate (due to running it in a semi(?)automated fashion), and he is making inconsequential edits that bog down recent changes for stuff that doesn't really matter that much - i.e. minor fixes that should be done alongside other more necessary changes. The quietly re-requesting AWB access without addressing any of this doesn't help either. –xeno (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

To me he seems to be trying to fix those problems. Again, I don't know much about AWB. But I think an outright ban, even if he didn't address that his access was removed, is a little harsh and with Martin removing access from other users for the same reason (like Closedmouth who brought up that he makes the same edits) is pushing things. Martin could be explaining how to fix those false positives, not blocking access. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 25, 2008 @ 16:50

Edits such as this are not permitted via AWB. He was given advice on how such edits could be worked into the general fix matrix of AWB, and should pursue that approach. –xeno (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, for someone who doesn't understand AWB that much....why aren't they allowed? If he could work those edits into the "general fix matrix", could he have AWB access back? - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 25, 2008 @ 16:55

See Misplaced Pages:AWB#Rules of use. I would gather that if Lightmouse agreed to only make such inconsequential changes in addition to necessary changes (such as typo fixing), Martin would be amenable to re-granting his access. –xeno (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I would be glad to work with Lightmouse and Closedmouth to make sure they make the minor and necessary edits so they can get AWB access back. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 25, 2008 @ 17:03

It's as simple as turning typo fixing on and skipping the article when no typo is fixed. Closedmouth has already had his access re-granted and is going forward with this in mind. –xeno (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

As long as everyone has access back to AWB, then I am happy :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 25, 2008 @ 17:08

NeutralHomer, while your diligence is appreciated, it would be an idea to look at the rules if you haven't thus far. They're quite comprehensible for any user - AWB user or not, and fully justify my actions. I consider myself to have acted completely properly. It might be appropriate to bring up a discussion on my talk page if you have any specific issues to bring up with me about it. Martinp23 20:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that I left a couple messages on his talk page about his unilaterally revoking users access to AWB.--Kumioko (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Lightbot

The lightbot is auto-deleting carriage returns it deems superfluous, but many pages deliberately have extra carriage returns so that they display properly. I can't help thinking that maybe you should disable that particular function. Gatoclass (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a general fix in AWB. --Closedmouth (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Any chance of an example edit? Lightmouse (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, check the Revision history of Joshua Hendy Iron Works. You can see how the bot screwed up the page formatting. Gatoclass (talk) 04:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't look good. I will investigate. Thanks for letting me know. Lightmouse (talk) 10:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I have reported this but we can't see what is wrong. Would you care to respond at Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs#Possible_line_feed_error. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Link removal

No quarrel with removing links to years, etc., as links like 2005 are against the MOS, but in this edit, you accidentally removed a link to ]. Something's wrong: if you meant to make this edit, the next line of the table has a link to ] which wasn't removed. Nyttend (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

So I see. You are right to say that they are either both right or both wrong. I will investigate. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Date links

Can you please stop removing links to dates as there seems to be more discussion about this at WT:MOSNUM of late (and IMO, there doesn't seem to be consensus for removing date links at this point)? —Locke Cole • t • c 12:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)