User talk:Kylu/bot-archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 10
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Contents

[edit] Deathcamps

I disagree with removal of that source; please see here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's an idea. If a deathcamp source is used as a reference, why not leave a title, author, and various info per WP:CITE, but leave of specific link/website name? As I understand, the issue is not not the contents, but who has the right to publish it, so we should be safe when citing the info minus publisher one.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A gift

I thought this gadget may be useful on your talkpage; if you like it you may want to move it to the top of the page, under the archiving bot code. The current layout is a bit confusing - seems I posted my previous messages to the header subpage :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Please add new comments in new sections if you are addressing a new issue. Please sign it by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Thanks in advance.
Took me a minute to figure out... I get it, you clicked the edit in the headerbox. Actually, I'll just remove the header link, but thanks! :D ~Kylu (u|t) 04:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Meta request for usurp

Hi Kylu. While I have a fair idea of the ins-and-outs of steward requests on Meta, I'm clueless when it comes to local 'crat actions. I'm wondering if you can help. Per m:Steward_requests/Usurpation#Alison.40lotsofwikis, I'm requesting rename of the local account m:User:Alison which has only two edits, for usurp under SUL. I've only a handful of accounts left to sort out :) This one, while it belongs to Alison Wheeler, is not her main account; m:User:AlisonW is. She has already assented to have it moved/usurped here. Thanks, Kylu :) - Alison ❤ 01:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied to on Alison's talkpage, partially done (bug moving old username to reserved username)
Anyone else wanting to request renames for mediawiki.org, test.wikipedia, and meta, please request on my meta page, since at the moment I'm (much!) more active there due to SUL rename requests! :D ~Kylu (u|t) 01:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute resolution analysis

I thought you might be interested in m:Dispute resolution analysis group. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 03:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The format of that page looks awfully familiar! :D Sure, you'll sign up for mine too, hey? ~Kylu (u|t) 03:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I wonder where I got the inspiration for the format. ;o) Vassyana (talk) 05:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know, but it looks absolutely inspired! The original designer should just get paid for that sort of thing... (I can wish, still.) ~Kylu (u|t) 05:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Usurpation request at plwiki

Regarding the name usurpation request you've filed at pl:Wikipedia:Przejmowanie nazwy użytkownika/MetaKylu - Kylu. Please, report your request on Meta (m:Steward requests/Usurpation), where it may be processed much faster. PL.Wikipedia usually allows up to 14 days for name usurpation of this sort. stv^ ✉ 12:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yah, I filed that before discovering the pitfalls involved. It'll be easier to just wait for the forced merge, actually. Thanks though! ~Kylu (u|t) 15:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Renames, usurpation, and other such SUL-related trivia

Just a note to anyone who actually visits my talkpage once in a while:

Currently, there are a total of 1,041 1,047 SUL merged accounts across the various Wikimedia projects. On Meta, we have converted all the stewards into bureaucrats to assist with SUL account merge and rename related tasks.

If anyone has the burning desire to become a bureaucrat, it may be a good time to do so, even given the recent rash of failed RfB's here. Once SUL is released from "admin only" mode, I think the user rename page here is going to get absolutely flooded. We've got enough potential conflicts between active editors on different projects that it's ludicrous. ~Kylu (u|t) 17:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: If you're going to create unified login, please make sure you do your usurp/rename work before you start. Bureaucrats (I'd say "we" but I'm not one on English Wikipedia) can't rename you to the unified login name once you start the process! ~Kylu (u|t) 23:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neo-Fascism & Religion

Hi, I was adding information not deleting anything, there was information on Sikh Extremism which you may have deleted by accident, please double check.

Also I wanted to include this as the latest form of fundamentalism wrt the topic in question.

Sikh Extremism - 01:18, 1 April 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.244 (talk • contribs)

There was no article (deleted or otherwise) at Sikh extremism. You'll need to provide the exact name of the article for me to check, as I don't recall a name similar to that nor do I see any obvious candidates in my deletion logs. Sorry. I may be willing to provide a deleted copy of the article to you, but no guarantees that it'll be restored, obviously. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Meta RfC

Hi. I will be glad to help. So far my understanding of the situation is that these 2 users are engaged in a conflict, and Uannis was banned in az:wiki for sockpuppetry as result of this CU: [1] Apparently, one of admins (Memty) gave Uannis the access to his account, and Uannis used the admin tools to delete a large number of articles. The CU seems to support this allegation. The result of the discussion at Azerbaijani community portal was to block Uannis indefinitely, and the admin who gave him the access to the tools resigned voluntarily. From what I see Uannis accuses Vusal of being motivated by personal enmity towards him, but the history of these 2 users' interaction in az:wiki needs to be investigated to make any conclusions, however the CU result seems to be a quite strong evidence of disruptive activity by Uannis. Vusal insists that the IP that was leaving the welcome messages were socks of Uannis, and as banned user he had no right to edit pages, so for that reason he replaced the IP's signature. I will ask some questions to these users, and their answers might be useful for understanding of what's going on. Grandmaster (talk) 05:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate it. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 05:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
You are welcome. Grandmaster (talk) 05:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like there's a parallel discussion on another page: m:Requests for comments/Azeri wikipedia involving the same users. So the 2 pages probably need to be merged. Someone tried to do it, but somehow later comments did not get included and the 2 pages keep on existing in parallel. It appears that this feud is going on for quite some time. As I understand, one user (Vusal1981) is being accused of creating multiple pages with no content and incivility, and the other (Uannis) of sockpuppetry and using the account of one of the admins to delete pages. Grandmaster (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've merged the newest dispute to that page, thanks for pointing it out. I'm wondering if they'd accept you as a neutral third-party mediator? :) ~Kylu (u|t) 20:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure. But I wonder what could actually be done in this situation? One of the users is permanently banned, we cannot reverse the ban, only az:wiki community can, so if Uannis wants it reversed, he needs to ask the community to give him another chance, and if the community agrees, he should behave responsibly after that. As for Vusal, all the empty pages created by him need to be deleted, but he should be allowed to recreate any of them, if he adds some content when doing so. I noticed that he made a lot of useful contribs to Azerbaijani cinema articles, and empty pages belong to the same category of articles. A warning to remain civil would also be good. This should be done by admins in az:wiki. But other than that, do you think there's anything that could be done to resolve the problems? It looks like the parties to this dispute believe that the admins in meta can interfere and resolve their problems by taking measures against their opponents, but I don't think the problems could be resolved outside of az:wiki community. People at meta can only give them advises on how to handle the situation. I will comment again and will make the above proposals, let's see the reaction of both sides. Grandmaster (talk) 05:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
In extreme cases, meta can do things. Stewards have removed admin rights from abusive admins before, but in this case, I think perhaps az.wp needs to develop its own dispute resolution system. I'm actually working on a Meta mediation group to try to come up with something (voluntary, not arbitration) for wikis who want to resolve disputes amicably. Sadly, while I get a lot of people signing up as interested, nobody seems to be putting any work into it. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, it seems that there's no dispute resolution system at az:wp. I don't know how many editors they have, but it would be good if they created some mediation cabal (not sure if they are ready to create an arbitration committee at this point though). Meta mediation group is a good idea, since some wikis seem to lack the experience of mediation and other dispute resolution procedures, which are well developed in en:wp. But it requires some dedication and time, as it is not so easy to try to understand what happened in a different language wiki. But I will be glad to help whenever I can. Grandmaster (talk) 06:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
meta:Mediation planning group - I think the most important thing at this time is to find people who can give other-language support to cases and who are able to be trusted by the involved parties. If you'd like to help me with my project, I think it'd work out well. If we could get some others and get the idea launched, I really do think it'd be a great benefit to all the projects that don't currently hold their own DR processes. Even better, if you know anyone (especially with wide language skills) who's interested and are trusted for their peacemaking skills, feel free to invite them. I assume that most of those involved in the creation of the group will end up being part of it, but at the moment it needs help just being created. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I can help out with Azerbaijani and if needed Russian language, or provide any other assistance. Right now, I cannot think of anyone who would be interested, but if anyone comes to my mind, I will let them know about this initiative. As for the dispute in Azerbaijani wikipedia, it seems to calm down, at least nothing has been heard from the parties for a few days. Grandmaster (talk) 04:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:PermissionOTRS-ID

Template:PermissionOTRS-ID has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 15:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Noted and commented. ~Kylu (u|t) 00:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • (This had the same section header, removed for easier indexing)

Template:PermissionOTRS-ID has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 23:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry for the duplicate notification! (Blame Twinkle!) The difference from last time is that all the old usages have now been bot-replaced with {{PermissionOTRS}}. Kelly hi! 01:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IRL Busy

May take a couple days to clean things up, and I won't be very active online. Indiana really fails to prepare for earthquakes.. ~Kylu (u|t) 19:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Geez, Kylu :( Hope everything is okay with you. {{hugs}} - Alison ❤ 19:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks much... just some pictures knocked off the walls, some broken dishes and glassware, and a large number of cranky coworkers who were shaken at 5:30am. On the upside, I have a good excuse to shop for a new china pattern. ~Kylu (u|t) 19:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Ha...I woke up twice during that earthquake. Fell asleep in the middle and woke up a second time. I sure did stay awake once I realized what woke me up, though! (The first time I woke up I thought it was a loud train or aircraft.) Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 23:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Comment by User:Potatoswatter on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of symbols found on electronic equipment

Thanks for your input. I actually began searching for images in the Commons the next day, and I did not find any of the images I was looking for. They are only uploaded to en.wikipedia.org. That is when I decided to abandon the project entirely. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Thanks for the offer, though. I just thought it would be the sort of thing Wikipedians might find useful, but unfortunately it broke the law at the same time. That's okay, though, because I've found a pretty sweet niche in the Twinkle Patrol and the Tree of Life at Wikipedia. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Request for unblock of BepBot

Hi, since my bot now has been approved and flagged, could you please remove the block from User:BepBot? Thanks. Bep --84.208.95.239 (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Done ~Kylu (u|t) 01:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks Re: Mickey Kantor

Yes, lock down is probably best. Though are you a bit surprised that it has no talk page discussion at all? Considering how high this got on Digg and on other blog sites. -- Fuzheado | Talk 02:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Iárnvidia

Teh Grawpinator
Teh Grawpinator

Checkusered, blocked, and cleaned up the sockies :p - Alison ❤ 01:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. We'll get more, he'll do moar. Until someone hunts him down and molests him with a cheese grater, we're stuck with him, and... I hear he uses 7 proxies! omg. Thanks tho, Alison. ;) ~Kylu (u|t) 01:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Oooh - bring it on :) - Alison ❤ 01:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
He'd probably enjoy it. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 01:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Image renaming

Hi! I was the first "trusted user" to get approved for this function. Unfortunately, I got sidetracked. Now I want to work on these images but I have never seen any clear instructions for how trusted users go about approving the rename. If a user tags an image with the {{rename media}} template and I check out the image and agree, what do I do?

Also, with BC's bot being banned, what bot is running these tasks now?

Thanks! - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 16:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I suspect, with BC's bot-wrangling abilities firmly under the influence of kryptonite, there won't be any renaming at all. Honestly, you'll have to ask BC for the answer to your questions. I simply don't know. ~Kylu (u|t) 22:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: My immaturity

sorryies. Regret Tenenbaum (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Dis interwebs is serious bizness! ~Kylu (u|t) 02:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] D'you think maybe you could lend someone a hand...

Please see m:User_talk:Lar#Usurpations_in_languages_I_don.27t_speak if you have time/interest. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 00:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Will do, looks like you only need German, French, and Russian done. No problem. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

I honestly thought you'd consider it amusing - or, at best, say "not funny". I did not actually mean to hurt your feelings. DS (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kelly

After 8x edit conflict trying to reply to this user, I've given up. I'd assumed it was a technical issue, due either to automated work (botting) or a server-side technical glitch not allowing Kelly to see the new messages bar. Assuming good faith, I therefore also assume it's some obscure MediaWiki bug or caching problem, though hopefully they don't assign the bug to me to fix.

Hopefully this doesn't result in massive Wikipedia-disrupting drama and the contributors involved can go back to editing normally. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you please put an entry in my block log to say that the block was mistaken? Kelly hi! 04:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd already placed a "technical problems" unblock there. That is not correct? Also, I tend to block vandalism-only accounts posting penis pictures without warning. You may be thinking of a different user, perhaps. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, so your block of me was an error? Kelly hi! 04:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
That's yet to be determined. I assume, still, that there was a technical problem that kept you from seeing the new message banner somehow. If this is correct, then the unblock message (Which certainly sheds no bad light on you) is still correct. If, however, either you continued to perform the edits aware that it was bothering the other user, then the unblock message is incorrect. If the editing was automated, then the unblock message was incorrect. While the block might be characterized as unjustified (and you'll want to develop consensus for this, instead of simply my opinion on the matter) then that could be added, but I'd argue that stating that the message was in error actually is detrimental to your position. Personally, I'd rather have an unblock message that essentially stated, "The block was to resolve a technical problem that affected the user", myself. We used to have users who would accidentally delete large chunks of the page, simply because the browser they used couldn't hold a text entry box over a certain size: the block they received noted that it was a technical issue, and therefore did not reflect badly upon that user at all: It more reflected badly on the design of the browser. This all depends, of course, on what actually happened on your end. Were you editing the pages manually, and did you see the new messages notice and click to view said new messages? ~Kylu (u|t) 04:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess what I'm really curious about is what provision of WP:BLOCK you were using to block me. Yes, I saw your message. That is why I stopped any sort of tagging that left messages on Ryulong's talk page (though that was irrelevant due to his protection , anyway) and started doing non-controversial housekeeping stuff. (Of course, I don't think there was anything wrong with original activity, which is what I'm soliciting opinions about at WP:ANI. Is it normal practice for admins to block editors if they don't immediately reply to talk page messages? Kelly hi! 05:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
If you saw the message and kept editing files he was already working on, then I'd suggest it'd be the consensus formed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Abu_badali#Wikistalking_Is_Never_Acceptable (later an arbcom case, but the RFC presents precedent), which states that following the contributions of one specific editor is unacceptable. Don't, however, think that I'm insinuating that you were stalking Ryulong: you were merely focused on the upload log of a specific contributor. That's a bad idea, don't do it. (If you do insist on stating that I'm insinuating that you're stalking someone, by the way, I'll ignore you. Seriously.) That in combination of Wikipedia:BP#Disruption, specifically harassing a user by editing solely his contributions even after he's requested you refrain, is disruptive, and the above RFC contains a consensus that can be applied.
See also:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Abu_badali#Role_of_editors_who_specialize_in_image_review
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Abu_badali#Dialogue
I can find other, similar findings from other Arbcom cases if the community requests it, but I do think you're blowing a half hour block far out of proportion. I'd suggest letting it go, frankly. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I was already pointed to the Arb case and read it - the RfC is garbage, probably the worst RfC I've ever seen, and that was addressed in the Arb case. But you haven't addressed the fact that the only editing I did after your message was non-controversial housekeeping, and what part of WP:BLOCK justified a block without warning. An apology on your part would solve all of this. In regards to the Arb "Dialogue" finding you linked, how many seconds did you wait for dialogue on my part before blocking? Kelly hi! 05:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Let's see:
I left you the note: [2]02:56, 13 June 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Kelly‎ (→Messages: hiya, please stop?)
You edited more of the pages:
  1. 03:03, 13 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:JohnTui-Daggeron.jpg‎ (→Fair Use Rationale for Daggeron: change article link)
  2. 03:00, 13 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Columbo-Titan.jpg‎ (rm unused rationale)
  3. 03:00, 13 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Black Lance-Sleipnir.jpg‎ (→Fair Use Rationale for The Infershia Pantheon: fix link)
  4. 03:00, 13 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Black Lance-Sleipnir.jpg‎ (remove unused rationale)
  5. 02:59, 13 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Synapse-CoH.png‎ (furd)
  6. 02:58, 13 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:SisterPsyche.png‎ (furd)
Then you were blocked: [3] 03:05, 13 June 2008 Kylu (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Kelly (Talk | contribs)" (autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 30 minutes ‎ (Please see your talk page.)
Looks to me like you had nine minutes to reply to the request. I corrected Ryulong's mistake and asked him (off-wiki, granted) to not repeat that. If Ryulong's driving too slowly in his car, you don't tailgate him and bump, you go past him and work on something else. While image tagging is certainly important, you don't have to do it while that person is trying to write the FUR's. You don't have to edit-conflict them when they're working on tagging the image: Not everyone has the templates handy, and it's only courteous to give other editors time to fix the various templates we have.
If someone asks you to stop pasting notices on their pages, by the way, you stop. While his page protection was completely unmerited, it's also unmerited that you kept trying to put the templates on his page even after he asked.
Anyway, thanks for the input, please do keep up your work, but try to have a bit of consideration for others here. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
There was no reply because I complied with your request, and intended to reply later. (Please note that I was engaging in dialogue with Ryulong at the time you intervened.) All of the edits you point out above were minor housekeeping edits, none of which necessitated (or resulted in) a notice on his talk page, and wouldn't have even if the talkpage hadn't been protected. The changes I made to FURs were actually fixes to improve them - avoiding redirects to provide a direct link to the article in which the image is used per WP:NFCC#10c - this prevents bot-deletion-tagging of the article - and removing unused rationales, in addition to marking the images as being rescaled. But to repeat a question I have asked multiple times - exactly which provision of WP:BLOCK was I blocked under, especially without any warning? Kelly hi! 06:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption
  • persistent harassment;
  • persistently violating other policies or guidelines, where there is a consensus among uninvolved users that the violation is disruptive. (I was, at the outset of this conflict, an uninvolved user).
Other policies, specifically, the RFC guideline (linked above) stating that wikistalking is unacceptable.
Your dogged persistance of editing Ryulong's images, while he was busy working on them, to the point where you're on his heels and edit-conflicting him during editing of said images, is unacceptable. Did you, for one moment, even consider that you might be part of the conflict? That perhaps by tailgating his edits, you're doing something that's unwelcome and disruptive? Did it occur to you that you're using WP:DRAMA (the noticeboard) as conflict resolution, as the block had already been lifted, regardless of the fact that this is not the use of that noticeboard? We have a dispute resolution system, you should consider using it and abiding by the decisions formed there, instead of deriding the community decision?
If you have legitimate concerns, that's fine, but if you're just here to gripe at me because your shiny block record got a spot on it, look up the dispute resolution system sometime instead. In this case, your persistence and lack of introspection on the matter has me obliged to decline to comment on your block log at all. If another administrator chooses to do so, they're welcome to, but until you've learned to at least consider that the conflict wasn't completely my and Ryulong's fault, I have no desire to do so myself. I was willing to talk, I'd already decided that the block was rather early, but an unwillingness to even consider your own faults has stripped me of any sympathy at the moment. I'm logging off WP for the night. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Forget it. I'm sorry I looked at your friend's images. Kelly hi! 06:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)