User talk:X!/Archives/8/2010

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interiot's opt-in

Hello, something easy first: For the German edit counter interface, it ought to be "Beitragszähler" instead of "Beitragszählera", and "Am meisten bearbeitete Seiten" instead of "Am meisten bearbeitete Artikel".

Ok, so your edit counter appears to check for existing "/Editcounter" user subpages and reads those as opt-in independent of content. But if you look at, de:user:emkaer/Editcounter, eg, according to User:Interiot/EditCountOptIn, that user chose to not show his monthly edit count (Month-Graph:no) as well as his most edited pages (Usercontributions:no), but your tool shows his full data anyway.[1] It would need to independently check the pages for "Month-Graph:yes" and "Usercontributions:yes"; if one's missing, at least that corresponding part shouldn't be visible.

Also, your edit summary counter in effect shows a monthly mainspace edit count as well (even showing only relative data would still count as profiling monthly activity, imo) so, just like the edit counter, it should check for "/EditCounterOptIn.js" or "Month-Graph:yes" (in "/Editcounter"). Same goes for the top namespace edits tool (with "Usercontributions:yes"), actually.

Oh yeah, one more thing. I don't know if you've already thought of this, but the latest editor of "/Editcounter" has to be the page owner.--141.84.69.20 (talk) 23:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I suck. Your tool seems to work mostly fine, except for the users Emkaer, M.L and Königsgambit.--141.84.69.20 (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I've added it to my to-do list. (X! · talk)  · @293  ·  06:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

SoxBot's edits on WP:Introduction

Hi. For some reason SoxBot treats the page like a Sandbox and removes unconstructive edits thereby leaving the following at the end of the page:

<!-- Feel free to change the text below this line. No profanity, please. -->

My concern is that this gives new editors the impression that it is okay to carry out newbie experiments on the page. I would suggest that the page be semi-protected and SoxBot be relieved of cleaning up the page regularly. Thank you. --Forty twoThanks for all the fish! 14:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... apparently the Introduction is now no longer a sandbox. It used to be a sandbox, so the bot would clear it. I've removed it from the rotation, so it shouldn't clear again. (X! · talk)  · @292  ·  06:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay... Would it be good idea to semi-protect the page and put an edit notice that links to the sandbox?--Forty twoThanks for all the fish! 16:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Wouldn't hurt. (X! · talk)  · @733  ·  16:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Safesubst support for User:X!/Tally

Can you get the bot to start adding the safesubst prefix? [2] Would make it a lot easier to enter the final tally. –xenotalk 14:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Filed as bug 17. (X! · talk)  · @291  ·  05:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Clerking

What should I start doing, as a clerk trainee? NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 18:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Err, hello? :P NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 02:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Replied on IRC. (X! · talk)  · @290  ·  05:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect user page links in edit counter

On your edit counter, spaces in user names are incorrectly turned into plus signs in the link to the Wikipedia user page — see [3] for example. —Stephen Morley (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This will be fixed when bug 3 is fixed. (X! · talk)  · @290  ·  05:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Please accept my apologies for not noticing you had a bug tracker before reporting this issue. As a quick fix, I think all you need to do is find the line $content->assign( "usernameurl", urlencode($cnt->getName()) ); in index.php and replace the urlencode function with the rawurlencode function. —Stephen Morley (talk) 06:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, I didn't have a bug reporter until about 30 minutes ago. I didn't even know that function existed, thanks! (X! · talk)  · @301  ·  06:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Image caption

This edit, [4], does add the deletable image caption but did not add it so that editors can see them, which is the point of the caption. Most infoboxes have a caption field and this is where the caption should be added. I have moved the deletable image caption into the infobox caption field for this article. Aspects (talk) 05:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I've put it on the to do list. (X! · talk)  · @289  ·  05:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit count translation -ter-

Did you notice my post : Edit count translation ? Thanks to taking care of it. Arno Lagrange ✉ 11:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You moved my post to archives, but didn't yet answer it. Arno Lagrange ✉ 14:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the translation was encoded wrong, so it became mojibake when I recieved it. I've just rewritten the translation interfce, so tit works better now. (X! · talk)  · @688  ·  15:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

SPI trainee clerk

Hi! Do you do SPI clerk training? I requested to be a trainee clerk awhile ago but was told by Tim Song to get active in projects. I've done it but he won't be regularly online now. He has asked me to ask another active clerk. Can you please take me in? Bejinhan talks 12:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for asking! At the moment, I'm only looking for admins to take on as trainees, because the backlog is in blocking socks, not the paperwork. I'll keep you in mind though if I need non-admin trainees! (X! · talk)  · @290  ·  05:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Alright, thanks! :) Bejinhan talks 05:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Strange SoxBot edit

What was the reason for this edit, clearing the article Summerland (novel) and calling it the sandbox?--ShelfSkewed Talk 17:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Strange.... I'll keep an eye on it. Let me know if it happens again. (X! · talk)  · @755  ·  17:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks for the prompt reply.--ShelfSkewed Talk 17:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like something like it happened again here. --Nigelj (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Page History Statistics

It appears that the edits per user are always less than one. It looks like you got the numbers on the wrong sides of the divider. 117Avenue (talk) 07:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

How come autoedits died?

http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/autoedits/index.php?name=Soap just goes to an emptified version of the article history page. Is it a bug or another example of a tool that was deemed to be too invasive of privacy? If so, can I opt in again? —Soap— 11:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Clearing the sandbox (BOT EDIT) ...I miss that.

Something doesn't seem right about SoxBot. mechamind90 04:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Presumably the above comment is a reference to the fact that SoxBot suddenly stopped clearing the sandbox on 4 August. Is this deliberate? If so, why, and if not can it be put right? JamesBWatson (talk) 08:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I think it was malfunctioning, blanking pages that weren't the sandbox, and so X! disabled it as an emergency measure. See the section labeled "Strange SoxBot edit" a few paragraphs before this one. —Soap— 09:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I hadn't noticed that section. I hope it gets corrected. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

X!'s Edit Counter

Hi, I don't really know where I could repport it, sorry if I'm wrong. I could be really great if this tool include the count of sysops actions... Otourly (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Soxbot request

I'd like to request a slight change to Soxbot's programming regarding the {{uncat}} template. An article is supposed to be tagged as uncategorized if it doesn't have any permanent content categories on it, even if it is in a stub category that's being artificially applied by a stub template — because the stub category is meant to be temporary and maintenance-oriented and removed from the article once it's been improved beyond stub length, it doesn't count as a true subject category for the purposes of categorization. However, the bot untagged Clarence Smedley Thomas a few days ago. Could you please reprogram the bot to exclude stub categories when it's evaluating whether a tagged article is categorized or not? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It was because of the Category:Year of death missing category. It saw that and said "oh, it has a category!" (X! · talk)  · @060  ·  00:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, it shouldn't really be doing that with hidden categories, either. Bearcat (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
At the moment, there's no reliable way to determine hidden categories. When my pageprops API module is pushed to the main site, then it'll be possible. (X! · talk)  · @024  ·  23:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
It's just that it becomes very difficult to make any real headway on the backlog of uncategorized articles if there's a bot repeatedly untagging articles that should be tagged. I realize there may not be much you can do at this point, but it does get intensely frustrating having to constantly retag some of the same articles every day. Bearcat (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

User requesting unblock.

Good day, I note you are away till the 6th of August but I thought I would drop you a message anyway, as this request may still be pending. User talk:Itsbydesign has requested unblock, a user you blocked as a sockpuppet. The relevant investigation is here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ElPilotoDi/Archive. As they have asked for the rationale for the block to be given in more detail, I thought I would drop you this note. Regards, --Taelus (Talk) 09:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I found that there was no good evidence linking the above user to the other socks, as noted on the SPI page. -- Avi (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I have unblocked the user, as I cannot see the behavioural evidence myself, and the SPI closed as inconclusive, thus I felt it right to unblock until there is sufficient evidence available. I hope you do not mind, but in my mind if the user is innocent, then all is well, if they are a sockpuppeteer then it is only a matter of time till they are re-caught, thus in the long run I saw this as the best option. All the best solving your real-life challenges! Regards, --Taelus (Talk) 22:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Automated edit tool error

This shows I have made one edit with AWB, yet I have never used AWB. STiki also appears to have disappeared. Could you fix these? Thanks. ~NSD (✉ • ✐) 22:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I crashed your toolserver script...

Hi,

I had been looking up my stats using your script on ToolServer. I got the (not so) neat idea of trying to look up ClueBot's stats to satisfy my curiousity (via: ~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=ClueBot&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia), which seems to have caused the script to crash. I am hoping my curiosity simply took out that script instance and not the bot/server itself for any period of time (checked my stats via the script and all seems well), so, just wanted to offer my apologies if my curiosity caused a problem. Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 15:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

August 17

Could it be, at least, August 17 2012 ? I was too addicted to this thing... nice to have it down. Like selling an old car... and enjoying just walking.

Cheers, East of Borschov 17:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I was going to say the same thing, albeit less eloquently. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Digimon

Could somebody remove the CSD tags from the articles where Digimon images are located, please? I've added the appropriate non-free copyright tags to them, but I don't know if SoxBot removes them. mechamind90 18:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see here

Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2010_August_14#File:Edit_counter_disabled_time_for_reflection.png Thank you! Kipzock (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Soxbot tagging of images used in infoboxes

Currently the bot is tagging the image name, which doesn't make the FFD notice display, rather than the caption field. Compare this Soxbot edit with this one fixing it. postdlf (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Toolserver editcounter

This suspension of service makes it very difficult to assess applications for AWB since {{AWBUser}} links to your toolserver page. Any idea what we tell appplicants who could normally expect a maximum 48-hour service level? Cheers. Rodhullandemu 18:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Here. If "older 500" is linked, they have over 500 mainspace edits. (X! · talk)  · @823  ·  18:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Cheers. Rodhullandemu 18:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
This really is intolerable; of the tools I have available, and rely upon as an Admin, Interiot and SQLBot stats are both suspended due to "user inactivity". Meanwhile, I have ceased to even consider AWB applications, of which I have over 1000, simply because Special:Contribs doesn't give me the breakdown between article and other space, which is quite an important consideration in that context. Cuh! Rodhullandemu 23:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi X!
Thanks for the edit counter. It is very useful. Tools like this are a big part of what makes wikipedia great, and I miss the tool now that it's temporarily offline.
However, I agree with the stance that you've taken over editcountitis in RFAs. It's disappointing to see that people are witholding votes on candidates because the counter is unavailable (not just withholding, but going to the effort of posting a non-vote on the RFA to complain that they're unable to form a judgement), and I think that underlines your point.
Just a little moral support from a random wikipedian :-)
bobrayner (talk) 11:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GorillaWarfare

Copy edit for pronouns? She's a she, not a he. (Nice to see a lengthy rationale, by the way.) Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 21:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

New userright

You mentioned that it might be possible to craft a userright that permitted banning accounts no more than 5 days old. Would it be possible as well to create a userright that let one see only deleted pages that had been initially created by those users? Or only deleted pages containing edits by those users? - Dank (push to talk) 11:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

And, just checking: to mesh better with UAA instructions, there's no technical reason why 14 or 21 days wouldn't be possible, right? - Dank (push to talk) 12:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Another thought: it wouldn't be necessary to check every page for "deleted contribs by new users" every time the "clerk" pulls up any page; it would only be relevant at the point where the clerk pulls up the blocking screen for a new user, and the clerk could be alerted then to possibly relevant deleted contribs. - Dank (push to talk) 12:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
The way the discussion is going ... that last bit would actually be preferable. Only let them see deleted contribs if they've actually made an initial determination to block (by invoking a tool or pulling up a block screen). - Dank (push to talk) 14:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice close on GorillaWarfare, but a comment on considering modified !votes

Nice close on GorillaWarfare. I knew it was going to be close (despite the assumption of several that it would fail), and you could have taken the easy way out, but I think you made the right call.

But enough praise, I came to make a different point. It has become wiki-lore that modified !votes - "strong" or "weak" may be signals to other !voters, or even notes to oneself, but are ignore by 'crats. However, I note you explicitly considered them in your close statement. Nor long ago, someone was talking about the concept of ignoring the modifiers and I thought about it a little. I came to a conclusion that may be consistent with your thinking, or it may not. I concluded that a modifier of "weak" whether support or Oppose, could be accepted prima facie, but not "strong". My thinking is that if someone decides to support or oppose, but hasn't done much homework, or doesn't feel what they've noticed is particularly compelling, we can take them at their word. In contrast, if they want to state that their Support or Opposition is strong, assertion isn't enough, provide some evidence. The 'crat can then examine the evidence, and conclude that it does deserve extra weight, but you can't get extra weight for a position by just asserting it. (The minor clarification is that a "weak" oppose means you cab discount it, but you are not obliged to. If the !vote says Weak Oppose because of the multiple copyright violations and the recent block for vandalism, you don't have to accept that as a weak oppose.)--SPhilbrickT 12:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

In this case, the bolded text !votes all were supported by the rationale. Basically, the votes that were marked as weak expressed a desire to do well. It was a small point, but I felt it was worth mentioning. (X! · talk)  · @577  ·  12:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I strongly dislike your closing rationale here. I don't really care about the result - I don't know this editor, but your explanation leaves a lot to be desired.

First: "Additionally, there were a large amount of editors in the support party that stated that the opposes were unconvincing. Thus, they hold less weight, as there is a lack of consensus surrounding the ideas behind them." This is ridiculous. They hold less wait because people who disagreed said they were unconvincing? Everybody who voted support found them unconvincing. And everybody who voted oppose found the support arguments unconvincing. Anybody who found the arguemnts convincing voted with those arguments. Saying that opposing arguments are unconvining isn't an valid counter-argument. It's like saying that content you don't like is unencyclopedic. It doesn't mean anything.

Second: "To quote WJBScribe, "there remains no consensus as to whether a proven record of article-writing ability should be a prerequisite for a contributor to Wikipedia to become an administrator."" What are you trying to say here? That opposes based on lack of content creation are not valid? I really don't think that's up for you to decide. It's true that not everybody thinks that it's important. But others do, and it's a perfectly valid reason to oppose. For you to just discount it because not everybody agrees, I think is in appropriate, and not your role as a Beaurocrat. Related - your objection to people opposing because of large amounts of automated edits. Why do you get to decide whether or not that's valid, too. You're supposed to be judging consensus, not deciding what rationales are valid and which are not.

The way you pick and choose which argument are valid and which are not, based on what appear to be your own personal biases, I find quite objectionable. It seems that you don't think that content creation is important. That's fine, but I don't think that you should be using that to discount the opposition of those who do. It's not a "frivolous" reason to object.

Oh, and one more thing - the fact that an argument is challeneged does not invalidate the argument. Opposes almost always get more challenges than supports. What's to challenge if someone says, I like their contributions, etc. etc. You're just going to encourage baseless badgering with this sort of rationale.

Thanks for your time. -208.97.245.131 (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Um, I'm sorry to knock some of your comments 208.97, but your assumption that everyone who supported found the opposes unconvincing (and vice versa) is, well, wrong. You would have to assume that every supporter had evaluated every oppose (vice versa again) when clearly that's not the case as early supporters may well not have evaluated later opposes and come back (or not) to modify their vote. Pedro :  Chat  19:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, but do you really think that saying an argument is unconvincing is a valid counter-argument? It doesn't address any specific issue and could be said about anything. Basically they're just saying that they don't agree. Nothing wrong with that, but when a 'crat takes that and then decides that it somehow undermines the arugment not agreed with, I have a problem with that. -208.97.245.131 (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I do see you point. I'm not really in a position to comment, as at the specific RFA this thread is concerned with I was a vocal supporter so any response I might make will seem (and may well be) somewhat biased. Pedro :  Chat  21:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
No response? -208.97.245.131 (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Are you ignoring me? -208.97.245.131 (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
"I'm going to be quite inactive for the next few months, as I anticipate much real-life activity until the end of the year. My activity should increase by the end of January, but I may only be sporatically editing until then." This is called a Wikibreak. X! might not respond to your comments for weeks. Thanks--intelati 18:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm aware of what a wikibreak is. He's responded to others. Just not to me. And as far as it goes, he shouldn't be taking Beaurocratic actions during a wikibreak that he doesn't have time to discuss. -208.97.245.233 (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
And another week goes by. Contribution history indicates user is still active, but apparently refuses to discuss beaurocratic action. -208.97.245.131 (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

From edit summary deleting section: "Acknowledged. Please note that this is a moot case now. The RfA is closed (a month ago, at that), and I gave a detailed rationale. I evaluated it fairly and impartially. I'm sorry it didn't turn out in your favor."

I think that you're missing the point. As I mentioned above, I don't care about this particular editor and their RFA. My concern was with the rationale itself. Detailed or not, I found it to have numerious problems, which I outlined above. The issue is not moot because you are still a beaurocrat and you still evaluate RFAs. So the rationales that you apply should be open for discussion. I would like to discuss them with you and for you to address the points I raised above. Please do not simply delete this section again. I will, of course, not restore it if you do, but it will make our discussion much easier if you simply respond here instead of in edit summaries. Thank you. -208.97.245.131 (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit counters disabled???

X! with the disabling of the edit counters, you have taken away a very valuable tool in the RfA assessment process. I understand your point, but please return things to normal ASAP. Thanks--Hokeman (talk) 03:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I have to agree with X! on this one, editcountitis has been taking over Wikipedia a lot lately... Pilif12p :  Yo  03:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but what if I hit 50,000 before it's back up? How will I know when to party? Drmies (talk) 03:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Special:Preferences? Or any of the myriad other counters? It's good to have a week off, so that editcount-happy people have to deliberately seek out another counter. Makes us all think, I guess. That said, I'm also surprised personally at how many times I've attempted to use it - how integral the counter is to Wikipedia now, in so many templates and such-like. sonia♫ 04:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Editcountitis is a perennial problem and I can understand your concern. However, your edit counters are powerful analytical tools. I find them indispensable for assessing participants' motivations in mediations. Despite editcountitis, the serious work of Wikipedia continues. We won't change human nature. But on the bright side amassing a sizeable edit count is what motivates many to keep at it. Sunray (talk) 07:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey X! I am a big fan of your Edit Counter. For other people I only use it occasionally out of curiosity (as you suggest), but for myself I use it frequently to make sure I am not lapsing into the dreaded editcountitis. If the numbers that you illustrate get too big it's time for me to go get some fresh air. I understand your protest completely, as editcountitis and efforts against the same are big issues around here and people are probably using your Edit Counter to judge others unfairly or for unsupported backup of their own opinions. Hopefully your temporary protest will have an impact. But rest assured that many of us like your Edit Counter for its... curiosity value... and nothing else. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Don't quite understand the fuss. What difference does it make to anyone if I check my edits once or five times a day? As for the abuse, wouldn't it have been better to approach the individual(s) who have used the edit counter for personal and vindictive reasons? Seems like because of the actions of one or a few users the many many thousands of other users have been punished. Wikipedia in its entirety is subject to abuse, but the good users always come out on top because we outnumber the jerks 100 to 1. GWillHickers (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand the fuss and applaud X!'s noble actions. There really is no inconvenience; Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters has links to other edit counters. Granted, X!'s was the best, but complaining because it's gone for a few days? That's just sad. SwarmTalk 08:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes there are other edit counters, but this edit counter is the one that wikipedia, Consensus, or whatever, decided to use as the vital link at the bottom of the contributions page. Now I don't know anything about editcountitis, but it sounds like a X is treating everyone like he's our nanny. Deciding what is best for everyone. If X wants to disable his edit counter, then I guess he has every right. He is the creator. But if this is the case, then perhaps wikipedia, Consensus, or Whatever, should link a different editcounter at the bottom of the contributions page. One that may be less likely to be disabled by a nanny creator, hoping to save our souls.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what led up to your suspending the edit counter, but I applaud your seeking to get people to stop obsessing about edit numbers. I'm very disappointed to see more tahn one person suggesting that those who have reached a certain number of edits should automatically be made admins. Especially since I just can't understand the practice of making 20 tiny edits to an article when one thorough go-through will do. Isn't that what the preview button is for? And to me, changes are frequently related - I fix or tweak one thing, then it leads me to see another thing or I need to change another thing as a result . . . I've been told I would see it differently if I were a programmer, but it adds to my skepticism about pronouncements based on number of edits. . . . However, I eagerly await the 17th and the return of your counter because I wanted to check how far my percentage of article edits vs. everything else had sunk this month, and here I am further reducing it :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Hush, or someone else will disable the preview button. East of Borschov 15:15, 15 August 2010 (UT:C)
Facepalm Facepalm Honestly guys? It's edit count. I REALLY dont see why people are so obsessed with edit count... Pilif12p :  Yo  15:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Nice edit counter X! but wouldn't it have been better to deal with the offending party? Look at it like this.. You walk into a grocery store, and the manager walks up to you and says: 'Because we caught a shop-lifer yesterday we are closing down the produce department so you can reflect on what the produce dept was meant for.' Jack of Ages 17:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack of ages (talk • contribs)
It's more like "Because we caught hundreds of shop-lifters yesterday, we're..." (X! · talk)  · @792  ·  18:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Shoplifting is a poor example, because shoplifting is wrong, and checking an edit count isn't. I would consider it more like "100 people who bought cookies yesterday were fat, so in order to reflect on why people are fat, were going to close down the cookie aisle".--Jojhutton (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Love your edit counter. Among other uses, it lets us know if someone's actions were done by some fly-by-night 'editor', or someone with an established edit history. This is a public forum. If there are individuals who don't like people looking at their track record then they should, one, either clean up their act, or two, stay home where no one can see or bother them. -- Just out of curiosity, how do you know there are "hundreds" of abusers, and how do you know if any 'abuse' is occurring in the first place? GWillHickers (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Disabling the edit counter for a week to "give the English Wikipedia editors a chance to realize what editing is all about and why I created this tool in the first place" is more than a bit pointy. I just use it to keep track of my edits, and I can't do that today because someone want to make a point. Please, drop the sanctimony, and either restore the counter or removeit completely. If someone knows another counter by another user that works as well, I'd be happy to switch to using one in which the user is less "political", and change the link on my user page to point to it instead. - BilCat (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with BilCat. This is clearly a disruption of Wikipedia to make a point. You of all people should know how much use it gets. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't see what the big deal is. Other tools provide the same information just about such as WikiChecker. --Bsadowski1 21:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes there are other tools, but this is the edit counter that is linked at the bottom of the contributions page. This is all most antone knows. If this is going to be the default edit counter, then it shouldn't be held hostage by an overly sensative nanny who thinks that he has to save the world from itself.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me for playing devil's advocate but how is it a disruption to Wikipedia for a person to disable (what, in my understanding, is) a third-party tool separate from Wikipedia which they created? Is it his fault that so many people came to rely upon it that it felt like a limb was torn from them, much to the exact opposite of what X! intended (an assumption I make based upon recent actions)? There are other tools out there, should one happen to be so obsessed with edit counts (though none provide the intricacies of X!'s counter such as breaking down edits in a pie graph and numerical chart by namespace). So you'll have to forgive me, but I fail to see the logic in that argument as no essential function of Wikipedia has been broken. Nothing stops someone from heading over to Special:Contributions, Special:Log, or Special:ListUsers; and if a user wishes to check their own edit count: Special:Preferences. On another note, editcountis has plagued Wikipedia RfA's as of late and I've watched completely valid users fail RfA's because they did not have 9 x 10^11 or higher total edits (blatant overstatement, but you get the point). It makes me wonder what kind of chance I would stand, opting for my substantive edits rather than 500 reverts a day. That said, I fully support your choice to suspend usage of it for a week. Now if Pilif12p does not mind, I am going to adopt his reaction to the obsession with edit counts. Facepalm Facepalm ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 22:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

When referring to your fellow authors you keep using the term 'obsessed' when as you can see from the debate above it's mostly over 'why' the counter was disabled. Mention was made about edit counts in relation to writing articles and other utility efforts but I didn't see anything that warranted referring to it as obsessive. And no one has been very clear about the 'abuse' that prompted the suspension of the counter in the first place. I believe that was X!'s original point. GWillHickers (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps I should clarify. Editcountis, is seen as a point of being overly fixated with edit counts, to the point of it being unhealthy, or an obsession. That is what I mean when I say obsessed. I should've made that point clear above. As for the abuse, I think it is more in relation to a reliance specifically on edit counts rather than substance, or more colloquially stated, "quantity over quality" becoming the standard as opposed to substance over copious amounts. It gets to the point that some rely entirely upon edit counts or using these tools to make opposes or supports of things such as RfA's. To give an example, I point to this recent RfA which I silently observed. I quote, "It would be nice if you opted in for X!'s edit history tool, so we could have a bit more history to use to judge you." Just have a look at the opposes, many of which seem to be completely ludicrous, such as, "even his or her userspace edits are more than his or her project space edits." That is what I refer to when I say obsessed with edit counts or maintaining a high reliance on said counting tool. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 23:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi X! may I suggest a compromise. Block it for anyone with an RFA/RFB created but not marked as closed, and allow it for everyone else? ϢereSpielChequers 23:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
If such is possible, I fully support this suggestion as well. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 00:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
If nobody else cares, the edit counter is a invaluable tool(or whatever you want to call it) I'm surprised nobody thanked him for the tool. Thanks "x" for this awesome tool for us to play around with.--intelati 01:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Editcountitis?
I agree with the handful of commenters who state that the purpose of this tool is to gauge some other editor who is muffing things up and to determine what to do about it.
And, parenthetically, when are the detailed breakdowns going to be re-enabled universally?
Apparently some whiny little shit objected to that being public information.
The hell with that. Virtually nobody has taken the step to re-enable those breakdowns, and that interferes with the purpose of the tool (see above).
Varlaam (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
WELL SAID! As I mentioned above, if someone is that concerned about people looking at their edit history they should clean up their act or 'stay home'. As can be seen above, the edit counter is a lot of things to a lot of people. I like X!'s edit counter because of its pie-chart format that breaks down the edits into categories. What would be a really nice addition is a 'deletion counter' and a 'word counter'. Now wouldn't that be revealing? -- Perhaps to qualify as an administrator one should be required to have ten times as many 'additions' as 'deletions' in their edit history. I understand that sometimes a page needs a lot of cleaning up, and I certainly have made my share of deletions, but I think I can safely say that the bulk of my efforts, edits, have been spent building articles for the public that we are here to serve. -- GWillHickers (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
GWillHickers: Bad idea. The counter lives the life of its own, a universal yardstick-for-all. There's a pie chart, someone said it must be well-rounded, so editors rush for silicon implants into their WT: space count. There's a month-by-month chart, and some will strive to keep it evenly distributed even if they have nothing to say. Now you say "word count". You'll get word count. A flood of unnecessary words. My point: if the counter is de-facto used to judge people, it will be gamed. The more detail it shows, the more damage. East of Borschov 08:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Can we try to maintain some sense of civility and not engage in personal attacks against persons, please? ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 20:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed! The detailed edit count info should be opt-out, not opt-in. X!, please, when this is re-enabled again in an hour (I hope), don't make further service suspensions without at least a week's notice. Thanks! —Train2104 (talk · contribs · count · email) 23:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the counters, they were nice while it lasted. But frankly, from your message I do not have a clue why I am denied access. What did I do? Superp (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
NOOOOOO! I miss it so much Soxred. I like looking at the counter to remind myself to get back to actually editing articles instead of talk pages (although I usually don't follow through). Thanks for the tool.Cptnono (talk) 02:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Please may you switch it on again? Eugene-elgato (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank You!!!!!!!!! :)--intelati 00:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Merci Beaucoup~Eυχαριστῶ πολύ Eugene-elgato (talk) 13:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Curiosity

I am curious to see how many edits of mine have been to various categories like Talk, article, wikipedia etc. Please re-enable your excellent edit counter tool. Thanks...Modernist (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

GW RFA close

Fine by me. It was a rather weak oppose. I stand by it, but I recognize that community consensus doesn't agree with me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Compliments on the closing rationale - very cogent and very well-explained. ~ mazca talk 21:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
A good closing rationale on a (numerically) close call RfA. I'm glad I'm not a 'crat sometimes...! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
A big mistake IMO. Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the rationale. I think you made a great decision. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Closes such as this are never easy but your rationale supported you closing as successful. I've had some of these closes myself. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Not quite. It supported his preconceived ideas about the strengths and weaknesses of various arguments, too much so IMO. But it's done and dusted now, so who cares. Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
That's about what I'd expect you to say Malleus. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Does that make me wrong, or just unpopular? I firmly believe that X! has made a mistake, but I equally accept that such mistakes are virtually impossible to address. End of story. Malleus Fatuorum 00:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I think the close is defensible, but iffy at best. No one is going to agree with you every time on these close calls, of course, but I have to say that I was disappointed in the third paragraph of your closing statement. Despite the fact that a number of people felt her content work was inadequate, it seemed to me that you simply dismissed those concerns as "she has some content work and content work isn't necessary anyway, per a statement by WJBscribe that itself has no general agreement as to its applicability for closing RFAs". Anyway, just my two cents. NW (Talk) 00:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Agree with NW. I supported, but the bureaucrats' increasingly dismissive attitude toward opposition - thus emboldening other community members to turn oppose sections into free-for-alls - is becoming a cancer on RFA. Townlake (talk) 01:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I tend to steer clear of this sort of thing here because, to be honest, I've done it for a living and have been subject to judicial review. This behoves one to be ultra-careful in assessing facts and formulating arguments, lest a single flaw bring the whole edifice crumbling down, with the inevitable obloquy and concomitant impact upon career prospects that follows. Here, those pressures are not so vital, since they do not have such an impact on the liberty of the subject, or anything of comparable importance. However, I am impressed by the closing argument because it covers all the bases, is well-argued, and totally defensible. The decision was not so grossly outside discretion to be worthy of challenge. That's all. Rodhullandemu 00:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Even though I opposed, I feel you fully justified your decision, and don't think 71% makes it controversial: in my opinion Thumperward's was a more controversial call, despite the fact that it was 75% and I was supporting.
However, I have to agree with the above concerns about the third paragraph. The way you used WJBScribe's quote suggests that "no consensus" means that a crat should totally discount opposes on those grounds, rather than give such arguments less weight. --WFC-- 01:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully do not agree with your close. That rationales were challenged was a reason to discount them? Well, great, you'll encourage people on both sides of the divide to challenge the other. The supports found the opposes unconvincing? Hardly surprising, if they found them convincing, they would have opposed. I just have the feeling, reading your rationale, that the outcome of promotion was the option you felt more comfortable with, and you had a little bit of confirmation bias. This one is not a big deal. But you may have let loose an awfully big badger, only time will tell. All the best, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I will certainly agree that this was no easy close to make, and thank you for having provided a detailed rationale. I have to agree with Townlake and Wehwalt, and add that I was simply amazed that other admins were allowed to use tactics and levels of incivility with impunity, that they would probably warn or block other users for, and with them, influence your decision..--Kudpung (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Ditto. I was quite disappointed with the close but I understand where you are coming from... Isn't it strange? People tend to dismiss certain concerns because they "happened 3 years ago". Through that RFA, I discovered what a valuable tool admins are in the support section. In our chase to increase the amount of admins, we've got to remember that quality matters over quantity. Bejinhan talks 06:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
And in our chase to find more admins, there is a raging debate that suggests the bar is too high. This RfA has sucessfully demonstrated that opposite is already true, and being implemented. I am now expecting a crush at the admin admission door and I might even be in it myself ;) --Kudpung (talk) 06:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • A gutsy close, and one I think actually helps the RFA environment - specifically when we see crats clearly prepared to closely read the discussion and to exercise their discretion. I'm biased, as a supporter of the candidate, of course. I'm also a big fan of closing rationales on borderline RFA's so my thanks for your detailed explanation. Pedro :  Chat  08:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

In such a close case, I think it would have been controversial either way. Obviously, the fact that I supported the candidate makes me biased, so I won't render judgement as to whether you reached the right decision. However, I think it was good of you to give a detailed rationale where you went through the points for and against promotion, and that you balanced them in a fair manner. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I opposed, and not for one of the reasons you mentioned in your summation. However it was in the discretionary zone, and whilst I don't think I used the word "weak" I do regard GW as being close to ready, so a difficult close, but not in my view a bad one. ϢereSpielChequers 17:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I've considered whether to comment here for several days now, but I remain of the opinion that some parts of your closing comments were misguided. It seems to me unreasonable to dismiss the strongly held views of those editors who feel that admins should have some experience of building the encyclopedia rather than policing it. I am particularly worried by the possible future precedent of your quoting WJBScribe, "there remains no consensus as to whether a proven record of article-writing ability should be a prerequisite for a contributor to Wikipedia to become an administrator." -- of course there isn't a consensus, otherwise such candidates would receive almost unanimous opposition and would never fall into the discretionary zone! As countless discussions on the RfA talkpage attest, there's no consensus whatsoever as to what characteristics are necessary in an administrator candidate. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Great user page

The Excellent User Page Award
I looked at your user page and i was very impressed. Inka 888 (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment

As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hi X!, I was wondering if you could look at the Guidelines for the Pending Changes Trial Vote commenting since Mkativerata expressed concerns over it. It's here: Wikipedia:Pending Changes/Vote comment. Thanks!

Also

X! has been made a member of the Order of the Mop,
for their work as an admin and is entitled to display
this award for being such a great admin,

Kind regards and happy editing,
Ғяіᴅaз'§Đоом | Spare your time? 02:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

For a userbox version go here.

Thanks for the hard you put in your tools! Ғяіᴅaз'§Đоом | Spare your time? 02:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

A3RO's votes

If you are going to unindent one of his votes, shouldn't you unindent them all? Personally I don't think that we, as bureaucrats, should involve ourselves in the ongoing edit war over the votes (it should be taken up at WT:RFA) - but there is something to be said for consistency in execution (lest it be seen as bureaucratic favourtism to the candidates where the votes remain indented). Are you aware of the ANI thread concerning this user? –xenotalk 12:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't just seem like bureaucratic favouritism, it is bureaucratic favouritism. Malleus Fatuorum 13:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm presently working under the assumption that X! has not noticed there are two other RFAs where votes are still indented. –xenotalk 14:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm working under the assumption that bureacrats have no place altering votes at all, much less if they're not going to be even-handed about it. Malleus Fatuorum 14:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
FYI user(s) are now unindenting votes "per X!" I agree with Malleus that bureaucrats should not get in the middle of this. Sought comment at WT:RFA. –xenotalk 18:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I believe I'm actually the only user who unindented "per X!" (correct if wrong). Xeno is right, if he unindented one of the votes, he should have done them all. I assumed he didn't realize that vote existed which is why I unindented that !vote. SwarmTalk 19:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
You're probably right, but I didn't want to single anyone out. Whatever approach is taken, it should be consistent. –xenotalk 19:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I was unware that all of his votes were unindented. Historically, only banned users have been indented. Indenting votes by a use who is only temporarily blocked at that is really stretching that definition. (X! · talk)  · @891  ·  20:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
X!, I reinstated the !vote at Fainites' RfA to be consistent with my RfA and Nikkimaria's RfA. Feel free to revert and/or trout me if need be. See also this discussion. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree that consistency is paramount and as the closing bureaucrat indented the vote in Fainities at the time of closure, I have applied consistency to the other two RFAs still live. –xenotalk 14:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
An awful precedent. X! was correct on this. Townlake (talk) 05:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
The "correct" course of action is largely a matter of opinion. The community has consistently failed to come up with set of guidelines to deal with this type of voting at RFA. The closing bureaucrat commented on their rationale here. As for "precedent', we typically don't do precedent. For the instant case, it doesn't appear anyone feels that inconsistency is appropriate. –xenotalk 14:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

UAA

Hiya, your bot reported "Lofanlongschlong", I responded at WP:UAA. - Dank (push to talk) 00:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

Either the bot has a bizarre sense of humor, or it's malfunctioning. Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Watch

I would watch this conversation. It borders on incivility. Thanks--intelati 20:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

intelati has given you a Cheeseburger! Cheeseburgers promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Cheeseburger, whether it be someone you've had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating!

Spread the goodness of Cheeseburgers by adding {{subst:Cheeseburger}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Never mind. the conversation's done. Thanks anyway. enjoy the cheeseburger :)--intelati 17:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Non free images in CSI:NY episodes 1-5

Even though the user who added them has been warned, they continue to put scans from their DVD boxes up. I do not know how to revert them without banjaxing the page completely. Would it be possible for you to check on this? They have also done this in other shows, despite repeated warnings. Trista (cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 02:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox redirects

Hi X! Your bot probably shouldn't follow redirects when cleaning the sandbox[5][6]. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey! You solved the issue of the bot reverting non-sandbox pages! Thanks! (X! · talk)  · @592  ·  13:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Details of deleted edits?

Really like your Article Blamer and Edit Counter tools! Noticed your Edit Counter tool knows how many deleted edits a user has made. Any way to get to the detail of which edits were deleted? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You have to be an admin to get them. they're just pages that have been deleted (Usually CSD taggings) I don't think that it counts revdels. Pilif12p :  Yo  03:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the info - it makes sense that they're deleted articles. GoingBatty (talk) 03:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Test Message

Hello, MessageDeliveryBot has been updated to the latest development version of Peachy, and this is a test message to make sure that everything is still working. Feel free to delete it now.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of EdoDodo at 23:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC). Redirected here from User talk:Soxred93.

Three no-longer orphan images still being tagged for deletion

Three images were recently tagged for deletion, because they were previously orphans(File:MikeyScars.jpg, File:SVitabile.jpg, File:Capo-1-.jpg). However, since I found articles for these images, they shouldn't be tagged. ----DanTD (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

question...

I'm not ignoring the request to use the bug reporter, just unsure if this is a bug/issue/intentional fix. This fixed my overall editcount, but apparently undeleted all my deleted 'tribs. Any idea why? sonia♫ 09:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, will be updated in the next run. (X! · talk)  · @495  ·  10:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

STiki Talkback

Hello, X!. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:STiki#Error_when_running.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by West.andrew.g (talk • contribs) 06:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:X!/Archives/8/2010&oldid=1146827496"