User talk:Misza13: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:27, 16 September 2008 editSlakr (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators33,695 edits →Gra wp reverts: +r← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:35, 16 September 2008 edit undoProdego (talk \| contribs)30,033 edits →Gra wp reverts: re\Next edit →
Line 78:		Line 78:
	::::::::::In the Real World, rule of law is generally crucial because there are many actions which cannot be undone; on a wiki, where the vast majority of actions can be undone with both ease and speed, that's less of a concern. Rules are not an end unto themselves, on this project -- that is another philosophical cornerstone of this wiki, like it or not. You ask how I can defend this? Simple enough: no one has yet demonstrated any harm being done, here, but many users, even including the administrator who's prematurely threatened to block Misza, apparently believe his actions are helpful. The question remains: what damage is being done to the project? – <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 22:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)		::::::::::In the Real World, rule of law is generally crucial because there are many actions which cannot be undone; on a wiki, where the vast majority of actions can be undone with both ease and speed, that's less of a concern. Rules are not an end unto themselves, on this project -- that is another philosophical cornerstone of this wiki, like it or not. You ask how I can defend this? Simple enough: no one has yet demonstrated any harm being done, here, but many users, even including the administrator who's prematurely threatened to block Misza, apparently believe his actions are helpful. The question remains: what damage is being done to the project? – <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 22:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Agreed. More importantly, given the scientifically-measurable amount of damage that one could statistically gather, does that damage outweigh the similarly measurable benefits? Clearly the number of automated fuck-ups is statistically insignificant— if it even exists in recent history— in comparison to the automated one-ups that said automation has achieved. Simply put, if this bot is only causing good, one can only remove that good by blocking it. In effect, one is indirectly creating an imbalance; for, the amount of bad (vandalism) would inherently increase by negating the measurable good (this bot) in favor of some hypothetical-but-immeasurable good (strict adherence to policy). --]<small><sup>\ ] /</sup></small> 22:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)		:::::::::::Agreed. More importantly, given the scientifically-measurable amount of damage that one could statistically gather, does that damage outweigh the similarly measurable benefits? Clearly the number of automated fuck-ups is statistically insignificant— if it even exists in recent history— in comparison to the automated one-ups that said automation has achieved. Simply put, if this bot is only causing good, one can only remove that good by blocking it. In effect, one is indirectly creating an imbalance; for, the amount of bad (vandalism) would inherently increase by negating the measurable good (this bot) in favor of some hypothetical-but-immeasurable good (strict adherence to policy). --]<small><sup>\ ] /</sup></small> 22:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

			I agree policy is fluid, but it is all we have got. Please, I urge you, if there is consensus a to allow bots that do not require approval through the BAG process, the policy should be changed. All one must do to change policy is to obtain ], and change the policy. Right now the blocking policy tells me explicitly that I should block "bots operating without approval", and indeed this happens all the time to non-admin editors. Admins and unapproved admin bots are held to the same standard as a non-admin or his/her unapproved bot. But again, this is all speculative, I am sure that Misza will simply request approval through the process that current consensus has created, and there will be no additional problems. <span>] <sup>]</sup></span> 23:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

	== Wikinews leads update ==		== Wikinews leads update ==

Revision as of 23:35, 16 September 2008

“

Here, we are polite, thoughtful, smart, geeky ~~people~~ dogs, trying only to do something which is undoubtedly good in the world: write and give away a 💕. —Jimbo Wales

”


Misplaced Pages ads	file info – show another – #143

Retired This user is no longer active on Misplaced Pages.

EDIT EDIT Welcome to my talk page!

Start a new talk topic.

All archiving tasks which used to be performed by the MiszaBots are now performed by lowercase sigmabot III without the need to change the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} configuration. The actual MiszaBots are neither functioning nor expected to become functional. Please do not post here regarding archiving bots.

When posting on this page, please observe the following guidelines:

Discussions should be kept together, so unless you request otherwise, I will reply to your posts here and will also watch pages where I have posted myself and expect replies there. Do not use the {{talkback}} template or derivatives thereof here.
Keep content disputes on relevant articles' talk pages.
I'm not interested in XfD discussion adverts - these will be ignored. Similar requests by email are redirected to /dev/null immediately.
Don't revert edits to this talk page, unless they're obvious vandalism like blanking/malicious editing of other's comments etc. I'll deal with stupid/hate/spam messages myself by promptly ignoring them.

Thank you!

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Category trackers

could you add Category:Orphaned articles as a new tracker? Canis Lupus 16:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe I could; I'll see what I can do as soon as I "recover" from vacation. ;-) Миша 13 14:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Status

I am currently using your status script (I love it!) But I was wondering if there could be a way to set a time period that would always be set for "out" automatically. This would be very useful for school or work, I think!

Cheers! --Wyatt915✍ 21:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Not in a straightforward way, because any change requires that your browser actively edits the status page, so it has to be on. One possible alternative way be to use conditional m:ParserFunctions but I'd have to think more about it first. Миша 13 14:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Archiving troubles, part 2

Please, program your Bot to archive things when it's really needed.

Thanks and Godspeed to your efforts, --Crapunzel (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that's exactly what the bot does, where you can define "really needed" by specifying the period after which threads are considered "stale". Миша 13 14:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:The Lion King archival

I undid an automated archival of several threads from Talk:The Lion King, that MiszaBot I had moved to Talk:The Lion King/Archive 1 which has all threads from November 2006 and older. There is already a Talk:The Lion King/Archive 2 which has threads going nearly to the end of 2007, so any recent threads being archived should go there (or perhaps an Archive 3 created and the threads moved there); it should not in any case be archiving any discussion threads to Archive 1 at this point. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 07:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. I am not responsible for the configuration that people set up on pages. Миша 13 14:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:PW Newsletter

The next issue (Number 25) is now ready for delivery here. Thanks, and I hope you ejoyed your vacation! ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 11:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Not yet, sorry. iMatthew (talk) 12:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Problem fixed. Go ahead. Thanks, ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 13:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Delivery in progress. Миша 13 14:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Your Bot Brought My Bridge to Nowhere (Literally)!

LOL. If I'm not horribly confused, your bot, in archiving the Palin talk page, took my section that I had just edited --"Bridge to Nowhere Redux" -- and destroyed it in a puff of bits, brought my bridge to nowhere, so to speak :-) Not sure why it happened, but I can't find it on current page or either of the two older archives. So I'll restore it.GreekParadise (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Gra wp reverts

Just dropping by and making sure you are here, and not running an adminbot, since you keep beating me to reverting grawp. :P How are you doing that so fast? Prodego 20:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on your lack of response I believe, though I hate to assume, that you are running an unauthorized bot. I just wanted to point you to WP:BOT and note that you should request approval before running any unattended bots. I also ask you discontinue using any bots until they are approved. Thanks, Prodego 21:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Administrators are given access to tools so that they can better protect the project from harm. What harm is being done? What harm is your threat preventing? If you're really that upset Misza is beating you to reverts you yourself agree need to be made, maybe you should take up a hobby -- I hear knitting can be very soothing. For the record, I will insist that any sanction against Misza regarding these allegations is first discussed and supported at WP:AN/I, given the numerous prior discussions which have opposed any such thing. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, no I think you misunderstand. I noticed because of Misza's blocking speed. As you know, grawp is a high speed vandal, and Misza seemed to be using a script (which is initiated and reviewed by a human, unlike a bot) that was faster than anything I had seen. So I was interested in anything that could help deal with this vandalism faster. Unfortunately I found that this was not in fact a tool that is permitted, unauthorized bots are forbidden by the bot policy, and should be blocked according to the blocking policy. If Misza does not stop using the bot, as required by policy, I will have to block him, as required by policy. But I doubt that will be necessary, surely Misza simply didn't understand. Established consensus and policy clearly do not allow unapproved bots. You are free to bring this up on WP:ANI yourself, but I do not believe it is necessary in such a clear violation of policy, or in a situation which I am sure can easily be resolved simply by Misza getting approval for his bot. Happy editing! Prodego 21:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think you misunderstand. This isn't a game. Can you demonstrate any tangible way in which Misza has damaged this project, or in which Misza's actions currently pose an imminent danger to the encyclopedia? It seems to me you haven't even taken a moment to research past discussions regarding this very topic, with this very user, nor to resolve this without immediately reaching for your block button. For shame. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:BOT, WP:POLICY, and WP:BLOCK. Prodego 21:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I asked you some questions. Given your abject refusal to answer them, I can only assume you agree Misza's actions pose no danger to the project. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Does it matter? Atlanta, Georgia has a law against pants being too low. It doesn't hurt anyone or anything, but you still have to follow it. --Skunkboy74 (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, in Gainesville, Georgia, a city ordinance prohibits eating chicken with a fork. It's a law, but you still don't have to follow it. --slakr 22:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I should very much hope it matters. Any block which cannot be explained as somehow preventing damage to the project is by definition a bad block -- this is, after all, one of the philosophical cornerstones of our blocking policy. Note that your argument, while a nice soundbite about the nature of authoritah, provides no reasonable evidence that any such damage has occurred. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If this user did use an unauthorized bot, they broke a rule, did they not? How can you defend that? --Skunkboy74 (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Our policy about that and the essay that goes with it might help clear up any confusion in such a situation. --slakr 22:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

So if it helps Misplaced Pages, you just ignore the rule? Wow... what logic. -.- --Skunkboy74 (talk) 22:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep. That's why we have that policy. Pretty cool, huh? --slakr 22:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Acutally no. It's horrible imo. Anyway, I guess I'm done in this debate. Good luck Prodego! --Skunkboy74 (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

In the Real World, rule of law is generally crucial because there are many actions which cannot be undone; on a wiki, where the vast majority of actions can be undone with both ease and speed, that's less of a concern. Rules are not an end unto themselves, on this project -- that is another philosophical cornerstone of this wiki, like it or not. You ask how I can defend this? Simple enough: no one has yet demonstrated any harm being done, here, but many users, even including the administrator who's prematurely threatened to block Misza, apparently believe his actions are helpful. The question remains: what damage is being done to the project? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. More importantly, given the scientifically-measurable amount of damage that one could statistically gather, does that damage outweigh the similarly measurable benefits? Clearly the number of automated fuck-ups is statistically insignificant— if it even exists in recent history— in comparison to the automated one-ups that said automation has achieved. Simply put, if this bot is only causing good, one can only remove that good by blocking it. In effect, one is indirectly creating an imbalance; for, the amount of bad (vandalism) would inherently increase by negating the measurable good (this bot) in favor of some hypothetical-but-immeasurable good (strict adherence to policy). --slakr 22:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree policy is fluid, but it is all we have got. Please, I urge you, if there is consensus a to allow bots that do not require approval through the BAG process, the policy should be changed. All one must do to change policy is to obtain consensus, and change the policy. Right now the blocking policy tells me explicitly that I should block "bots operating without approval", and indeed this happens all the time to non-admin editors. Admins and unapproved admin bots are held to the same standard as a non-admin or his/her unapproved bot. But again, this is all speculative, I am sure that Misza will simply request approval through the process that current consensus has created, and there will be no additional problems. Prodego 23:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews leads update

Hey if you want for the time being you can have Wikinews Importer Bot (talk · contribs) stop updating User:Wikinews Importer Bot/Wikinews Lead articles and delete that page, or retain it for historical purposes if consensus is later to utilize it for the Main Page. After some good discussion we decided to revamp Portal:Current events instead, using Wikinews Importer Bot to pull links from n:Wikinews:Wikinews Importer Bot/Today, n:Wikinews:Wikinews Importer Bot/Today-1, etc. Thanks so much for making this possible! Cheers, Cirt (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)