User talk:Nixeagle/Archive/2009/June

Your bot request
Hi Nixeagle I wanted to let you know that Bots/Requests for approval/SPCUClerkbot 3 is labeled as needing your comment. Please visit the above link to reply to the requests. Thanks! --BAGBot Talk 22:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Minor bugs with DYKadminBot
The DYKadminBot put the wrong DYK message at the top of a page for today. Also, it didn't give me credit, even though it I listed on the credits page as needing a credit. (I wouldn't complain about the latter, but it's my first DYK!) Posting here instead of emailing because they are minor issues; feel free to mv to the bot talk page if you wish. tedder (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Both should be fixed... we shall see... and sorry about the bug. Good job on your first DYK :) ——  nix eagle email me 18:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Double credits with DYKadminbot
Synergy recently had a double-article hook (Harvey A. Carr and kerplunk experiment). The bot gave him a double-credit for Carr, and didn't account for the kerplunk experiment article. Just so you know.  Jamie ☆ S93  23:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How recent is this? Is it the last update? ——  nix eagle email me 00:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This was one update ago (this revision), about 9 hours ago. It started the crediting momentarily afterwards, like normal. As far as I know, it looks like the bot did the other credits fine, just slipped up with this double.  Jamie ☆ S93  00:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Made a change, should stop the double posting... ——  nix eagle email me 18:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

More bugs
I've got good news and bad news. The bad news: I found two more bugs with DYKadminBot. The good news: I'm fairly sure I know how to fix both.
 * 1) Occasionally the bot doesn't put the hook in the dyktalk template
 * 2) If there's discussion in "section 0" (before the first section header), DYKadminBot puts the tag after the discussion
 * 1) The first bug looks like it happens when the article title isn't capitalized in the hook. In this case, the bot (I presume) looks for the capitalized article title, and doesn't detect the hook. You could use regex, or search twice for the hook with and without capitalization.
 * 2) I tackled this one with DYKHousekeepingBot . The code's below in java. To make a long story short, it finds the index of the first nontemplate line after the template cluster at the top of a talk page. Technically, it returns the String index of the first line where there aren't any opening or closing template brackets, and the number of opening brackets equals the number of closing brackets up to that point in the text. For the function below, "text" is meant to be the wikitext of the "zero" section (would also work for the whole talk page's wikitext).

Let me know if this helps. Shubinator (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I forgot to add that the bot doesn't seem to be following redirects, judging by the "plane of ecliptic" link above (second in the first set). Should be another easy fix...if text.toLowerCase contains "#redirect", interpret the string between "" and "" as the target. Or you could ask the api. Shubinator (talk) 03:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I will likely fix the lot of these tomorrow. The problem is not fixing them, but finding out where in the code is generating the errors. (I did not write the bot). Some of the errors I fixed today were simply a result of poor coding practice :(. As long as you guys can tell me what it is not doing I can fix it to make it do what its supposed to do, that is not the problem. :) ——  nix eagle email me 03:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand. No rush on these minor bugs. (But please fix the crediting issue raised at WT:DYK soon.) Oh, and you might want to change this message so it says it's operated by you. Shubinator (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Your first bug is fixed, it was as you suspected. Strangely the code was originally using regex, and just forgot to put /i >.>. Author probably assumed that folks would not change case from the DYKmake templates to the mp templates.. Anyway its fixed :). The other two will be fixed soonish. ——  nix eagle email me 18:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! We appreciate the work you put into this. Shubinator (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

AF
I left some notes on the filter your recently created, in hopes that its scope could perhaps be expanded. –xeno talk 16:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

request for extended time at ADHD arb
Having never had an administrative action taken against me three weeks ago, I have now gone through 7 administrative actions within that time frame, that is if you include the reopening of a Wikiquette alert. I am tired of Wikipedia processes and would like a wiki-vacation. I am requesting a week extension so that may function at 100%. I'll need it, it is 6 against 1. I may request a few days of additional time if needed.--scuro (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to work today for 10 hours, I'll look at your request when I get home, or you can ask another arbitration clerk. I believe User:AGK offered to be the case clerk alongside me, so I would ask him first if 10 hours from now is too long for a reply. I can't promise he will reply before I get back, but that is about the only way I can help you until I get home from work. Cheers! ——  nix eagle email me 14:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, I can wait. :) --scuro (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Onlyoneanswer
With regards to user:Onlyoneanswer, (Sockpuppet investigations/Meowy/Archive) who was the puppet master? --PBS (talk) 08:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You may ask User:Dominic the checkuser that told me I was wrong. ——  nix eagle email me 17:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --PBS (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Accept
Dear Nixeagle, I fully accept your apology re my sockpuppet blocking mistake, but I wonder if part of that connection you saw was there because you assumed that, since an administrator was making the allegation, it was likely to be true. If an ordinary editor makes a sockpuppet allegation the accused is normally given the time to respond, and there would be checkuser evidence. When you do sock puppet investigations, it would b e good to make sure accused editors actually know about the allegations before giving a verdict, and try to give them enough time to reply. Meowy 17:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for accepting my apology. So you understand, I do not look at the reporter when reviewing SPI cases unless the link to the reporter's username is a red link. (we have issues with new accounts/socks trying to implicate other users... usually involving two people that prolifically sock), and very often red linked usernames imply newer accounts. Aside from that I pay no attention to the reporter... which is why my mistake here disturbed me enough to take a break from SPI. I honestly believed the two of you were related without checkuser evidence. (A checkuser is not required in all SPI cases). I think a more effective guard against issues is to check the age/activity of the "master" account, and if its an active editor (as is your case) request a checkuser to double check... but the problem with this approach is that checkusers simply don't check in WP:DUCK cases... which is what I categorized your case into. This is all stuff I'll consider when I get back into sock investigation work again.
 * I've been told by several checkusers by email that I am more effective and correct then most that have done the work in the past. This is the first time that I have been seriously wrong in over 3 months of work touching over 200 cases. The only way to do this work is to strive to ignore any influence other then the evidence and the patterns at hand. I hope this explanation makes sense to you, if it does not please do ask me questions. :Again thanks for accepting my apology. ——  nix eagle email me 17:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK "preparation areas"
Hi Nix. Based the discussion here a couple of weeks ago, I just recently moved the "next update" and "next next update" pages to new titles. Now they are located at Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1 and Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2, respectively. I think I've updated most of the primary pages that link to or provide instructions about the "next update" pages. I'm not sure if DYKadminbot would be directly impacted by this change, but there might be a couple of alterations still needed to be made, relating to the bot itself. Best,  Jamie ☆ S93  01:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, if the bot relies on Template:Did you know/Next update/Time or Template:Did you know/Next update/Hours it might get confused. We'll see... Shubinator (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It turns out the bot does rely on the Time template, it did fail to operate, and restoring (via the evil cut-and-paste method, on an emergency basis) did appear to fix the problem. On an unrelated note, there are now a lot of links to the old Next and Next Next pages that need to be cleaned up as soon as is practical. - Dravecky (talk) 08:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Editnotice-4-Non-free content criteria
Is the editnotice for Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria still relevant, or can it be deleted? Amalthea 13:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If it is not being used, it is not relevant :) ——  nix eagle email me 16:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

False accusation of sockpuppetry.
I've just come across an accusation against me being a "puppetmaster". The reprehensible editor who made the claim gets away with such an accusation and some poor dummies get blocked for no reason.

Why is it that nobody ever even told me about this accusation?? I note you apologized to this person (Gentleexit):


 * The block was made in error, I apologize. I blocked because your contribs matched fairly closely with that of a few other "new" accounts, but not directly relating you to the suspected sock master. Again this is my error and I apologize for the inconvience this caused you. If you have any questions or concerns you may drop me a note on my talk page or email me (link is in my sig). Thanks.

This is extremely poor behavior to allow such accusations to go on behind the back of the accused. Why wasn't I informed? --  spin control 20:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * When I review cases I presume that the person that the case is named after has been notified by the person bringing the evidence. I do hope to have the bot give talk page messages to accounts mentioned in cases, but I simply have not had time to do so. In any case, you should note that you were never confirmed of socking and this fact is noted in the case. You might want to poke the person that brought the evidence asking why they did not let you know of the case, though the folks that review the cases ought to check. ——  nix eagle email me 22:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Bot error
Looks like DYKadminBot is giving credit in the wrong places for the past two updates and with every hook.-- Giants27 (  t  |  c  |  r  |  s  ) 02:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC) ≈
 * fixed. ——  nix eagle email me 02:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Attention! Advice required!
I have a very important question to ask. Any editor who knows the answer can please contact me on my talk page.

I want to increase the protection level of my article, as I have got unnamed threats stating that the article can be deleted. Please tell me how to increase the protection level. If not possible, please increase the protection level yourself.

Urgent. Awaiting your reply,

Ankitbhatt (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You will need to tell me which article it is before I can even give a coherent reply. Do note that protection won't stop an admin from deleting an article. ——  nix eagle email me 19:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Molobo
You are a CU clerk. But, please understand that I've analyzed this case for the past 20 days. How can a clerk close this case if he doesn't have an extensive knowledge about the wiki-history of Molobo? The secret evidences are very strong. You can ask Avraham if you like. If clerks can let me handle this case, I will close the case before 6:00 UTC on 30 May. I have a clear idea about how to conclude the case. It might have been better if I was allowed to handle this case. If I could have done nothing by the time I mentioned above, you guys could have taken the case. AdjustShift (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have collapsed everything but the relevant conversation. After a CU has come back on this...secret evidence, and an admin either blocks, or says its not enough, it will be closed out.  Sy  n 17:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Two things to note, at this point I think it is best to leave this up to a checkuser to do the investigation and the closing, which I believe Avraham is doing currently. Secondly the case has gone wildly off track, with lots of drama, arguments and has dragged on for more then 3 weeks now. My advice to you as a fellow admin is to try doing a few less complex cases first, and leave this particular one to a checkuser. Most cases on WP:SPI can be done as a WP:DUCK case, and should take no more then 15 to 30 minutes of analysis. ——  nix eagle email me 17:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That is a general analysis. Do you know why the case went wildly off track, with lots of drama? Some Eastern European editors didn't discuss the case; they were busy fighting with each other. It turned into a mini Eastern European fight. I expected them to behave better than they did. For the past three weeks, I analyzed this SPI case, the off-wiki evidences; the past disputes where Molobo was involved, and the editing patterns of Molobo and Gwinndeith. I also talked with an ArbCom member and a CU. I was supposed to close the case on 29 May. Today, I would have posted the off-wiki evidences and ask the community to analyzed it. If I was allowed to handle this case, without any interference by the clerks, I would have finished this case by 29 May or before 6:00 UTC on 30 May. AdjustShift (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not advise, that you take action on this case. I feel you are a bit too involved, and we are going to let an spi admin, or another admin who is unrelated handle it.  Sy  n 18:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Bit too involved? About 20 days ago, I was a neutral admin. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just work with Avraham on the final call, your analysis isn't wasted - we just needed to get the case back in hand. Nathan  T 18:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Nathan. AdjustShift (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want to post the private evidence (provided whoever provided it is ok with it (you do need their permission to post it to the site as they will need to license it to GFDL.) you may do so.) The problem here is this case has gone on so long and yes editors got into a fight which did not involve the case (which is why some of the clerks put that stuff in collapse boxes). Please do work with the checkusers, any case closing should be clear to all why the case closed with the result it closes with, and the evidence used should be clear/easy to follow. Next time just copy the whole response over to my talk page to save trouble :). ——  nix eagle email me 19:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, editors fight. But, these Eastern European editors, they fight whenever they get a chance. See Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes. I had a headache when I read that ArbCom case. I expected them to behave properly, but they didn't. I'll work with the CUs. AdjustShift (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So you understand and for future reference on SPI, admins generally don't reserve cases, we sometimes stick a note on them saying we intend to close in a day or so, but no longer then that. Additionally all behavior evidence should end up on the case page, if there is not enough evidence for an admin to do something, but there is enough to raise suspicion, we call on checkusers. Generally if a case takes longer then 7 days to close, its probably not being handled in the best manner, or the evidence provided is not strong enough for an admin to do a WP:DUCK block. In the future if you cannot complete a case in a day or less, that usually means you should investigate, and report your findings and allow others to build on what you have found. (I have done this several times myself).
 * When you close the case, be sure to clearly explain all the evidence you used in forming your opinion. Try to stay away from "after private discussions with XXX". Generally the only private evidence on SPI cases is the exact technical details of the checkuser results, but the checkusers often try to shed light on what relations exist (eg "editing from 2 ranges, one mobile one home based"). ——  nix eagle email me 19:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Tothwolf /Eggdrop COI
Thanks for your note. WP:COI says: The edits have been contested, and the user in question has not been forthcoming about his conflict. The simplest way to resolve this is for him to stop editing the article. I have no opinion on the contents, but I do see he has been edit warring over the use of an open wiki as a source, which is sufficient reason for me to believe that there's a problem. He's welcome to use the talk page to express his views, but he should not edit the article.  Will Beback   talk    01:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * COI editing is strongly discouraged. When editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia through violation of policies such as neutral point of view, what Wikipedia is not, and notability, accounts may be blocked. ... Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested. 
 * Even one revert isn't really appropriate in this situation. I also see that the user rewrote the whole article a while back. He has not been helpful in my discussion with him. I don't see any reason why he should continue to edit the article on a topic in which he has a conflict of interest. The issue of the other editor's behavior is a separate matter, and is no excuse for the COI editing. Again, the simplest solution is for Tothwolf to disengage from editing the article. That he's improved other articles is  great news, and I encourage him to continue editing articles in which he has no conflict.    Will Beback    talk    02:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy for there to be nothing more to do about this editor's participation with this article. That's up to him.   Will Beback    talk    03:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Unblock and then topic ban for Aoganov
Please see and comment here. --mav (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, any particular reason I was notified :)? I assume it was because I was involved with a prior sock on the case... ——  nix eagle email me 03:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Molobo's SPI case
Today is 31 May. If clerks wouldn't have interfered, I would have finished the case yesterday (before 6:00 UTC). What is happening with the case? It is still open. AdjustShift (talk) 02:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody has told you specifically not to close (at least I have not, heck my last message to you was a suggestion on how to close as it would have been your first close), you can close it if you wish. I believe that there is an email to functionaries-l, and this has also been forwarded to arbcom (because of the existing case). I don't think a close of this case would be a good idea though without arbcom's endorsement of the result as there is an active case going and molobo has been around for quite a while. ——  nix eagle email me 03:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Mayalld wrote: This case will be closed by a clerk, after the CUs have reviewed all the evidence. Here you agreed with Mayalld. You should talk to other clerks whether I should close the case or not. I can close the case three days after your response. I don't want any interference during those three days from any clerk. I've to do things in my way. AdjustShift (talk) 03:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Unblock and then topic ban for Aoganov
Please see and comment here. --mav (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, any particular reason I was notified :)? I assume it was because I was involved with a prior sock on the case... ——  nix eagle email me 03:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You made a mistake with the Did you knows
Nick Van Exel was fined $25,000 and not ,000--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 20:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe this one has already been reported and fixed, if it is recent (eg last 18 hours or so) please give me a diff of the bot's edit to DYK with that update. ——  nix eagle email me 03:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's current: 1 2. Shubinator (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Molobo's SPI case
Today is 31 May. If clerks wouldn't have interfered, I would have finished the case yesterday (before 6:00 UTC). What is happening with the case? It is still open. AdjustShift (talk) 02:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody has told you specifically not to close (at least I have not, heck my last message to you was a suggestion on how to close as it would have been your first close), you can close it if you wish. I believe that there is an email to functionaries-l, and this has also been forwarded to arbcom (because of the existing case). I don't think a close of this case would be a good idea though without arbcom's endorsement of the result as there is an active case going and molobo has been around for quite a while. ——  nix eagle email me 03:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Mayalld wrote: This case will be closed by a clerk, after the CUs have reviewed all the evidence. Here you agreed with Mayalld. You should talk to other clerks whether I should close the case or not. I can close the case three days after your response. I don't want any interference during those three days from any clerk. I've to do things in my way. AdjustShift (talk) 03:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

DYKadminBot
Hello, Nixeagle. The last few days, the DYKadminBot has been using UpdatedDYK when it should be using UpdatedDYKNom. I've already reported this to Wikipedia talk:Did you know, so this is just an fyi. I hope your bot gets well soon. Thank you for your attention. Happy editing. --PFHLai (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Your bot request
Hi Nixeagle I wanted to let you know that Bots/Requests for approval/SPCUClerkbot 3 is labeled as needing your comment. Please visit the above link to reply to the requests. Thanks! --BAGBot Talk 10:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Grammar
I could've sworn I already asked you about this. For the sake of evil grammarians, could you please change "Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue…" to "…updated; however, the next queue…"? Thanks. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK Credit
It shows in the edit summary that I was given credit for the DYK for 11-06-2009 for the Overseas Absentee Voting Act, I think it ha something to do with me changing my name quite recently from Maverx to TitanOne. I've tagged the article because it never showed but anything I can do on my end to get the credit? Also I have 3 more pending, it might happen again. Thanks.--TitanOne (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've fixed it. Nix, please program the bot to follow redirects. Shubinator (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks Sub, I never noticed that you run this bot. Appreciate it! --TitanOne (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't run the bot, but I try to keep track of everything DYK :) Shubinator (talk) 00:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK credits
I'm not sure why, but Talk:Nouvelles Extraordinaires de Divers Endroits didn't get the DYK credit from your bot. I manually added it however. Just wanted to leave you a note to let you know. Other DYKs on the same queue (on the main page currently) got the credits. Killiondude (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Facepalm. I know what happened now. The DYK was a redirect, so your bot put the credits on the redirect's talk page. I guess there's no harm in leaving it there too...? Killiondude (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

ADHD and Scuro
Will be away for the coming 4 weeks. Therefore will not be around to field comments until July 18th.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Still getting harrassed by Mwalla
Hello Eagle, sorry to trouble you. After you blocked Mwalla, Sockpuppet_investigations/Mwalla/Archive I have still been getting harassed. he never went away but created sockpuppets to cause me grief. They are filing admin noticeboard complaints against me after I revert their vandalism. I have to defend myself on admin noticeboard and they claim that I am "persecuting" the stalking ban evading sockpuppets of Mwalla. It is crazy ANI never investigate anything and just jump to conclusions. I think that we either need an arbcom or another Checkuser on these sockpuppets that continue to follow me around and cause me arguments. What woud you recommend?-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  18:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I recommend opening another SPI case under the same name. Tiptoety  talk 04:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, shall do that but involved in an arbcom at the moment, will do that after that is finished. :)-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  23:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

SPCUclerkbot is malfunctioning
Just dropping a line to let you know that the bot has been malfunctioning. Instead of adding cases it does this. It's also not responsive to the clerk tags (ie: closing cases, endorsing cases, etc.) Thanks, Icestorm815  •  Talk  23:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)