User talk:Cyberpower678/Archive 53

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

→

Archive 60

Senior Editor II

Incorrect work of InternetArchiveBot

Hello, Cyberpower678.

Your InternetArchiveBot does incorrect edits [1].

In this article hyperlinks are needed just to some different old copies of page version in Internet Archive, but not neded hyperlinks to original page. Just present version of the page contents no usefulul information. Hyperlinks to the current version of the page have no sense in the text of the article. Do not do such edits, please. G2ii2g (talk) 13:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@G2ii2g: Hi there. What the bot is doing is an intentional maintenance function of enforcing correct template usage. In most cases archive URLs in the URL field are there when they shouldn't be. In rare cases there is a good reason to keep the URL there. In those cases you can add {{cbignore}} right after the citation template to keep the bot away from those references. The template may not exist yet on your local wiki, but should be easy to create since it is an empty template. If you need further assistance, let me know.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Exсuse me, Cyberpower678. I do not understand your logic. If a human insert correct Internet Archive hyperlink into the URL field, why the bot changes it? Who decide this shouldn't be (Internet Archive hyperlink in the URL field)? It is bad bot. G2ii2g (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The template is {{cite web}} [2] which requires the archive be in |archiveurl= and the |url= contain the original URL. This is done for a number of reasons and it is documented in the documentation. See the examples of template usage at [3]. The bot is doing the correct action. -- GreenC 19:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I have read documentation of template {{cite web}} in russian and in english. I have found no reasons, why Internet Archive hyperlink cannot be used in the URL field, if the original hyperlink has no sense (for example, if old page version only, not current version is needed). Only human, but not bot, can decide, that the original hyperlink has any sense or not. G2ii2g (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

G2ii2g, please use |deadurl=yes |dead-url=unfit. Cyberpower678, please reflect on how bug reports are responded to. —Sladen (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC) G2ii2g, apologies, example should have been |dead-url=unfit.

In 99% of cases, the archive URL is in the wrong field for the wrong reasons. This is why IABot enforces proper places. It does that for the more than one dozen wikis it runs on, including enwiki. I am more than happy to adjust it, but I want to see a discussion first that the Russian Wikipedia doesn’t welcome this maintenance function. This is to ensure changes I make the bot are backed by a consensus from the community. In the meantime, i would recommend following my advice to keep the bot away. The bot has plenty of opt-out methods at your disposal.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 22:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am not refusing your request to disable this maintenance function, just that I would like to see more than one person having a problem with it before I do. As it is, it seems to be a welcome feature at the moment.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 23:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm no clerk but clearly CUs are not going to connect an account to an IP.)

Not publicly, I should think, but to simply not look? Huh. Anmccaff (talk) 03:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Please do not endorse or decline CheckUser requests. I know it's not your intent, but doing so kind of misrepresents you as an SPI clerk. After all, the status banner for a declined request reads "An SPI clerk has declined a request for CheckUser". In this case, your rationale is also incorrect. While CU's obviously won't comment on the IP, this case involves two registered accounts, which can be checked if the evidence warrants it. Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Never saw the registered account. In any event, I felt bold tonight.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 03:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Setting up IABot in Galician Wikipedia

Hi Cyberpower! I was doing some translations in Translatewiki when I came across the InternetArchiveBot tool, and I think it would be a great help for us at Galician Wikipedia. I'd like to know what would be needed to set it up so that it can be run in our wikipedia. I'm currently working in the translations as mentioned, I can also start a bot flag request if required. We have several templates like cite web, cite book, etc. redirected to our local template names, that might be of help. Let me know what you think of this and what else would be needed for this set up, I'll be glad to help in whatever is required for it. I will continue with the translations meanwhile. Thank you! Banjo (talk) 11:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Banjo: I need a link to a discussion that shows the bot is welcome to the community.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I've opened a community discussion on our local bot approval page. We usually wait a minimum of 7 days for these kind of debates, I will get back to you after everyone has had a chance to review it and will confirm you whether we have consensus for it. Thanks! Banjo (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Undefined

I notice you've been replacing content on this page periodically, and I'm kind of wondering if these were unintended mistakes? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 04:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks like one of my scripts is broken.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 00:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Now what?

What is wrong with the external link http://www.ekf-karate.net/ in the norwegian article nb:Spydeberg karateklubb ? And why on earth substitute a funktioning link with archieved "news" from 2010? Hebue (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Hebue: Nothing apparently. For some reason the bot thought this site was dead at one point. You reverted an edit of it back in October, the bot saw it as alive, then it found it to be dead again, though now it sees it as alive. I've gone ahead an whitelisted the entire domain. You shouldn't have any more problems with it.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 00:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Since the revert was detected when the bot was seeing the link as alive, it did not report the false positive but instead reset the data of the entire domain back to the live state. Then the URL was eventually found dead again for some reason, and since no prior false positive was reported, it made the edit again. I'm not sure what exactly happened here, but since the additional validation routines didn't catch on, I can only suspect the site failed intermittently at some point long enough to make the bot think it was dead, and then came back up when the bot gave up checking the site. As I mentioned above, I have whitelisted the entire domain, so the bot will assume its alive from now on. If my suspicions about what happened here are correct, then this is an exceedingly rare case here and is very unlikely to crop up elsewhere.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 03:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

InternetArchiveBot - Verbose talk page

My impression, and it is only an impression, that the creation of a relatively large section on the talk page for what may arguably be a minor edit may be excessive and it may be that information on the talk page would be better placed once on the bot's user page. If someone is upset with the edit that's probably the place to look as was they'd get that from view history. (I'll admit I should research more, e.g. WP policies wrt minor edits) and I've only looked at the Hugo Broch article in forming this impression). Thanks.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Upon review of WP:MINOR I now minded it would be inappropriate to mark this bot's changes as minor as the bots work may be subject to review. I still remain concerned as to the verbosity on the talk page. I will certainly say the tool looks useful. thanks. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

  @Djm-leighpark: There is no consensus to change the current implementation at this time.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

  • @Cyberpower678: Thankyou.  I can now see there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#InternetArchiveBot_notices_about_nothing_but_archive-url_additions at which point there is no current concensus and it seems that is the appropriate place to comment.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @Cyberpower678: I guess its likely you may have manually ran v1.6.1 of your bot on Inchicore railway works where to my embarrassment it improved one of my previous imperfections. I believe it set dead-url=bot: unknown, and just wondered if that was what you intended? I assume it was in which case ignore me. I have been mulling over about how the bot+sourcecheck reports but have become critically busy elsewhere and have had to suspend my thinking. Thanks.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Inline_icon_templates_by_shape_and_color

Hello, Cyberbot is insisting that at least one (or more) of the templates listed here at WP:RFPP remain(s) unprotected. Is there any way of identifying which template(s) are unprotected? Cheers. fish&karate 14:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

They need to all be template protected if you use the {{RFPP|tp}} response. I see that at least Template:Accepted is fully protected. It does this to make sure you have the correct level of protection applied to the list.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

That makes sense. Some of the templates were already fully protected so I just skipped over those. I'll try a different closure response to see if that sorts it. Thank you! fish&karate 14:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification

Sorry for disrespecting your bot. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It's just a sanity check for admins to make sure the page(s) have the correct protection to them.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

No violations wanted

Please take a look through both my Talk and Sandbox to ensure that the content as it stands does not violate the TBAN or anything less for that matter, and if you could kindly give suggestions regarding the disposition of the content. Thanks

P.S. I need to wait for the Two-Way Ban to take effect and for other editors to lose interest in the page in question before I can appeal. This interactive ban, I believe will take away any need for a topical ban as the issue was in the interaction, not the topic; but this may take months or even years. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The ban is already in effect.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 01:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, what I meant is there are still talking pages where our comments overlap or there were recent barbs [4] and it may take time for these close interactions to clear out of the system; as well as it taking time for the other editor to move away from certain topics and on to something else. While other editors are yet heavily engaged on the article of my TBAN, I will want to stay away and will not file an appeal of the TBAN until the other editors are done with the page and well clear of it, just to be safe. Thanks for checking for me. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I see no issue with your sandbox, it seems to only list the stuff in regards to the scope of your ban, unless I'm looking at the wrong one. There is no issue mentioning to others that you are topic banned from Patriot Prayer. It becomes an issue when you mention it for other purposes, such as claiming what state the article is in, how to improve it, or suggesting edits.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 01:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

A shot across the bows please

This is pushing the bounds, obviously still following me edits. Please warn him. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm missing context. Can you provide details?—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

History here will be enough Darkness Shines (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It's also possible he's following the other user. I'm not sure if I can warn him on circumstantial behavior.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Sure, no doubt he's following a new user. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I can't do anything. I see no obvious violation here, and it looks he actually helped you out by telling the user to go elsewhere.

@Drmies: A second opinion on this?—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Meh, I would have thought the 'stalking' part of the warning would have been enough, no worries Darkness Shines (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, "HOUNDING" requires an intent to disrupt/harass, and I don't see that here. As for any "chilling effect", this doesn't strike me as very powerful. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, if trying to help a new user is wrong.

Just as I follow your page as an Administrator, I also follow the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to learn the ropes of what to do on Wikipedia by learning what not to do. I noticed that Idel800 was having problems that Diannaa, who I also follow, telling Idel800, not to do things, but not giving guidance where those efforts should be redirected to be more constructive. This is a problem that I have faced with some editors just saying no, and not considering options where new users, or older users like myself, can fit into the Wiki World. Sorry if this caused issues. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I also follow Drmies as it is educational to learn as much as possible. Please ping me, if you have questions or issues, thanks. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Nothing actionable has been committed by you or DS, AFAIK. So there is nothing to worry about. Try not to get too close to the boundaries of the IBAN though. Some people may eventually see it as trying to game it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberpower678 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Please don't follow me. There's more exciting editors to follow if you want to learn something... Drmies (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, User talk:GreenMeansGo may not always be educational, but it's definitely good for a chuckle. Primefac (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Everyone, please remember that my computer instructor in college had learned on punch cards and personal computers were not yet. This is all educational. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

My only concern with the IBAN is that it appears my interests overlap with other editors, except for my family clan, which others show no interest. I have read the IBAN guidelines and will follow them, but from Antifa in the USA to antisemitism, there may be areas where we are on the same page. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies, I have removed you from my watchlist, per your comment. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect work of InternetArchiveBot (continuation of User talk:Cyberpower678/Archive 53#Incorrect work of InternetArchiveBot

• Thank you for information [5], Sladen. G2ii2g (talk) 11:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• Continuation is needed, Cyberpower678. If no Internet Archive hyperlink is there in the {{cite web}} template, then your bot does very useful inserting Internet Archive hyperlink. But according to information about |dead-url=unfit, if your bot changes the |url= from Internet Archive hyperlink to the original hyperlink, then your bot need to insert |dead-url=unfit automatically for correct edits in English Wikipedia. G2ii2g (talk) 11:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• The analogous parameter of {{cite web}} is named |deadlink= in Russian Wikipedia. But there is no working |deadlink=unfit parameter in Russian Wikipedia. Thus, if the |url= contents Internet Archive hyperlink, then changing such |url= is undesirable in Russian Wikipedia, while there is no working |deadlink=unfit parameter. G2ii2g (talk) 11:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• Recently you asked [6] about discussion in Russian Wikipedia [7]. In this discussion DarDar told also about analogous undesirable edits by your bot [8], [9]. G2ii2g (talk) 11:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

  I remember that discussion. It took some time to get a reasonable translation from it, but with DarDar complaining, other people are supporting the bot's actions, namely Vort. There's quite a bit of chatter to introduce a deadurl parameter to the template for the bot to use, but it seems to have fizzled out leaving me with the impression to maintain status quo. Pinging Iniquity to comment on this. On the English Wikipedia, the cite web template has 3 options for the deadurl parameter. "yes" sets the template to render an archive link on the back of the template, if the archive URL is set. "no" prevents the archive link from appearing in the output even if it is set. "unfit", or "bot: unknown" for IABot, has the template only rendering the archive URL. Adding an archive URL and not setting "deadurl" implies "deadurl=yes". Any input on this?—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 20:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

  [deadurl=]"no" prevents the archive link from appearing in the output even if it is set.

  That is not true. At en.wiki, |dead-url=no links the archive in the "Archived from the original..." static text that is part of the final rendering:

  {{cite web |title=Title |url=//example.com |archive-url=//archive.org |archive-date=2017-11-16 |dead-url=no}}

  "Title". Archived from the original on 2017-11-16. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

  —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Hello, I asked you to disable deadurl parameter because InternetArchiveBot insert "deadurl=yes" if source has a archive without reference to death. Iniquity (talk) 11:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

    It is disabled. This isn't what the topic is about though.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 12:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

    I know it. But this topic about that problem :) Iniquity (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

    @Iniquity: as it stands now IABot is moving archive URLs to the archive field of cite templates. On enwiki, it also adds |deadurl=bot: unknown. On ruwiki, it doesn't use that parameter at all. I see it was also suggested in supporting the parameter on ruwiki so the bot can use it. So my question to you is, what should be done. Disable the moving of archive URLs from the URL field to the archive URL field on cite templates, and/or add the deadurl parameter to it?—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

    Is it possible to add deadurl only for dead links? Iniquity (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

    It still wouldn't address the current problem now.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

    If it is not possible than we cant use deadurl parameter anyway. About second problem: I think we shouldn't disable the moving of archive URLs from the URL field. Iniquity (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

    It is possible to use deadurl only for dead links, and about the second, I agree.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

    Wow, it will be really cool if u do it. This parameter will will solve the problem described above. Iniquity (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

    I don't see how. The template is still going to render the original URL. Or am I missing something?—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 19:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

    I can change the template, and it will react to the parameter in the future.. Iniquity (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

    I understand that but with the parameter only being used for a dead link what will the template do if |deadurl=yes is defined?—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 19:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

    Oh, sorry, bot needs to add |deadlink= instead of |deadurl=. And I will do smth like {{#if: {{{deadlink|}}} | {{#if: {{{archiveurl}}} | {{{archiveurl}}} | {{{url}}} }} ... Iniquity (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

    Ah, so the template will not render the original URL at all when set?—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 20:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

    Yes, or original url will be rendered in the place of archive url. We need to discuss this in the community :) But |deadlink= parameter needs anyway. Iniquity (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

What exactly does Bad AFD report?

This malformed AFD was left this way for 3 days before I found it via NPP and transcluded it. A check of What Links Here indicates that it's not on the WP:BADAFD report. Is the bot intentionally not looking for such cases when it checks for untranscluded AFD's? – Train2104 (t • c) 21:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Nope, BADAFD doesn't report on pages without proper formatting. There are other pages that do, but I don't remember them off the top of my head. ansh666 19:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Another WP:BADAFD bug

Katherine K. Young and F/A-18C Mock-up MAGO have been listed for days even though the AfD tags are no longer on the articles (and in the former's case, wasn't even in the right category to begin with). I've tried purging the pages, but it hasn't worked. Not sure what's going on. ansh666 19:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it appears to be shunting some pages from the "links to closed discussion" category to the "tagged with no discussion" category when I remove the AfD tag. F/A-18C Mock-up MAGO is now a redirect so it's stayed in the "links to closed discussion" category. No idea why. ansh666 20:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

And now it's back to just Katherine K. Young .-. ansh666 20:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

And we're clear! Not sure if you were fixing it behind the scenes or if it resolved itself, but either way, thanks! ansh666 20:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Nope, I was just waiting it out. :-)—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 20:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes I think the bot has feelings...it messes up on purpose to see if anyone's paying attention to it, then feels bad when someone complains and fixes itself :D ansh666 21:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I think so too. It must be the Skynet module it runs on.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 21:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Community consensus for IABot in gl.wiki

Hi Cyberpower! We've held a quick review of the implementation of IABot in Galician Wikipedia, our community agrees in its implementation. Here is the discussion & vote for it. Please let me know whatever is required from our side or to translate, i'll be glad to help and work on whatever is needed. Thank you! Banjo (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I created a ticket. It may still be a bit before IABot is ready to run there though.—CYBERPOWER (Happy Thanksgiving) 16:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

IABot

Can you run IABot through the domain fckansascity.com please? The team folded today, and the website is probably going to be shut down soon. Thanks, --Elisfkc (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Elisfkc: I don't see any evidence that it will fail though. I have asked archive.org to go ahead and crawl the site.—CYBERPOWER (Happy Thanksgiving) 16:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Please ask the other editor to stop responding to me

I don't want to be bothered and I don't want to take this [10] any further, but I would like to be left alone and not have such direct contact. HELP C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• WP:IBAN

"Editors subject to an IBAN are not permitted to: reply to each other in discussions;"

So it appears that it is fine to respond directly to one another, just not to put the comment directly in the line of the conversation, but off to the side? If the boundaries were not crossed, it seems like someone is walking close to the line, even pushing it. Are you sure this conduct is allowed[11]? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Are you sure that someone else did not desire your words of caution, more than I: "Try not to get too close to the boundaries of the IBAN though. Some people may eventually see it as trying to game it." C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

  Those words were a suggestion, not an admonishment. I think you may be better served with a different admin as I feel I may be getting too involved in this. I don’t really want to see either of you blocked. IBAN is a tricky thing. It is pushing it but if someone asks a general question to get consensus then he should be allowed to respond, as long as he only discusses the content, which he has. Like I said, I may be getting too involved here. A new set of admin eyes may be warranted here.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 04:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

How is this [12] not a 'reply to each other in discussions' as is not permitted in the IBAN? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I see two viewpoints here. The first one is that it is a violation. The second one is a simple response to a question posed to the general public. He commented only on the content of the question, and then left it at that. The question was asked to ascertain consensus. He should still be allowed to contribute to consensus. However, like I said, a fresh set of eyes may be appropriate. I do not like to block established users.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 12:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

"...a simple response to a question posed to the general public." Note, IBAN: "Editors subject to an IBAN are not permitted to: reply to each other in discussions;" This is too direct and too close to any boundary line[13]. As you can see, I did not ask a question, but I received a response' none the less. I bring it here and not to AN/I, so no one is block, only that boundaries are not crossed and other editors step back from the line. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Well you did ask a general question on an article's talk page regarding the inclusion content, and DS responded to said question, and then left it at that. However, I left him the same advice I gave you to not push the boundaries of the IBAN.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

First off, the other had already responded to the question of inclusion[14]. My comment was a statement on consensus and not a question which was then responded to directly [15] in direct conflict with the WP:IBAN on directly responding to each other. I made a statement about there being consensus and the other editor responded to me saying, 'there was no consensus'. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Editors subject to an IBAN are not permitted to:

   *edit each other's user and user talk pages;
   *reply to each other in discussions;
   *make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly;
   *undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;
   *use the thanks extension to respond to each other's edits.

I had hope that you might bring this up with someone in specific terms, I had hoped to be left alone; but you are in charge. I will not raise the issue with you again, sorry to take up any of your time. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: Pinging you for another set of eyes. DS did mention an ongoing RfC he was going to see to its conclusion, which appears to be this one.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 02:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

That is regarding anti-Semitism in the UK and not part of this discussion. I have not commented directly to the other editors on that page either. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

This is taking the piss now, in have not, in any way shape or form interacted with Gilmore, I did not respond to him in that thread, please read WP:INDENT. Now copypasting my name so I get a ping probably is a vio, as this probably is, but I let the first slide cos I figure it's a mistake, others can decide on the second Darkness Shines (talk) 12:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Darkness Shines and C. W. Gilmore: I've been consulting with another admin on IRC over this. I don't like to see both of you blocked, so here's my official admin action for the both of you. Clarifying IBAN, both of you should follow this directive. Don't respond, AT ALL, to discussions started by the other. DS, you are receiving a warning for the diff mentioned by CWG, and CWG you are receiving a warning for commenting at the AFD started by DS. The next step will either be a complete topic ban of all articles you have both been involved in regarding American Politcs, or a block, depending on the situation.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Really? I'm threatened with a TBAN for having done nothing? Yet Gilmore continues to follow my edits, I know you did not ask for this so I'm taking it to ANI Darkness Shines (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

It really depends on the situation. I'm doing what I can to keep this from escalating further.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• @cyberpower678, I want everyone to know that I was not following anyone, as I said on Drmies' TP on the 20th, I wanted all this to be over so I could "create a new Rose City Antifa page"[16]. This was a full day others published their new page. And there is the matter of the AfD, which I started following, Nov. 9th, when [17] and the continued relisting of [18], which brought back time and again to the list of articles, those selected for AfD that I had knowledge on, I gave my voice to the Admin. I did not follow anyone and I want to make this clear, though it will matter not in regards to the current AN/I to which I was reported as it appears many Admin. to be disinclined to do anything more than skim the surface of issue before them, and then they seem to see guilty first that must be disproven. Thank you, and sorry for taking up your time. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Interaction ban

The purpose of an interaction ban (IBAN) is to stop a conflict between individuals. A one-way interaction ban prevents user X from interacting with user Y. A two-way ban prevents both parties from interacting with each other. Although the parties are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other.

• I created a new section on the TP to avoid other editors and did not interact with other editors in expressing my opinions on the TP, per the IBAN guidelines. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Cyberpower, I don't understand--I asked where that iBan was, but it wasn't there? Drmies (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: is here Darkness Shines (talk) 23:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Drmies (talk) 23:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• OK, this is always the problem with iBans, always. Darkness Shines, you are definitely seeking out the edge of the policy, and many an admin would say that you crossed the line. iBans are meant to prevent problems, not create new ones, and living on the edge creates more problems, as seen here in this very thread which is taking up valuable time--in fact, I was just matching up my new black sweater, a Thanksgiving present, with my old balaclava, on my way to the park where I was going to yell at the stars. So please don't--there's plenty of other discussions you can have on other pages with other people. (It might be argued that your response here is a violation too, but for me it's helpful, and usually admin talk page, but not article talk pages, are regarded as neutral ground, esp. when it concerns a discussion about a ban etc.) Gilmore, please don't start writing up articles on individual Antifa chapters, if those even exist. We don't need a repeat of the Occupy debacle. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies thanks, but Rose City Antifa now exists and not by my hand. The only reason I thought this continually morphing group of anarchists from the Portland area of note, was there longevity. In one form or another, they have been around since before 1999 Seattle WTO protests, and in fact, were a key local contingent of that 'mess.' Thanks again, but I will take no more action of Rose City Antifa. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• Would both of you mind not copy-editing on my talk page, CWG and DS, as every time you do, I get an email.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 01:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Cyberpower678/StandardLayout

Is there a reason to leave two unclosed <div> tags in User:Cyberpower678/StandardLayout? —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, look at this talk page, or my entire user space for that matter, and what it looks like when you close it. Your edit broke my entire userspace's formatting. They are left open so the page border surrounds the talk page.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Increase IABot Job Queue Limits

Hello! First off, thanks for creating IABot; it is so useful for fixing dead links. Would it be an option to increase either the number of pages allowed in a job queue, or increase the overall number of jobs allowed to be submitted and queued in the same time period? I understand there could be some complications with such increases, but see it as a potential option for regular users. I find myself consistently running into the 5-job limit (and 2,500 pages total), and would like to be able to submit more pages at once for review, rather than waiting for a 500-page job to clear up. My apologies if I do not understand all of the processes in running IABot, but it appears that it is largely underutilized based upon how few jobs are run from day to day. Thanks! -- Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Experienced users automatically have their limits raised to 5000 pages per job. Check out the interface information page on the tool to see how to become a regular user. You currently are a basicuser.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Is the Edit count referring to overall edits on Wikipedia, or the number of edits/jobs run on IABot? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Overall edits.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Internet Archive Bot’s tag - my experience, and some thoughts and suggestions

Greetings! I have removed the tag placed on my reference on the article The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) by the Internet Archive Bot. On Nov. 10, 2016, the bot tagged my ref to SF Gate as a “permanently dead link” and the coding indicated a repair was attempted but failed. When I clicked the link to SF Gate, it indeed was nonfunctional, so I googled the SF Gate article title, which took me to the originally intended article. I copied the link, deleted the older non-working link, and pasted the newly copied link into my Wikipedia reference. It now works as intended, so I removed the bot tag.

I tell you this for your information, and to call to your attention the bots’s questionable terminology. Technically, calling a link “permanently dead” is an invitation to delete the reference link altogether. Fortunately the tag appeared in the reference section, and not the body of the article, and my repair, though a year after the bot’s tag, solved the issue. But in actuality, the link just needed to be reset, which then led back to the originally intended SF Gate reference article. I imagine the bot goes through a great many articles a day, so manually checking them is probably not possible. I wonder if the solution might not be a follow-up bot, that is specifically designed to examine links the Internet Archive Bot has tagged, then google the ref’s title, and repair the link? This would eliminate issues like mine.

A less-time intensive solution would be to replace or delete the term “permanent” in the IAB’s tagging. Another solution might be a Talk page notification to the WP writer of the ref, which would allow them to attempt repair work. I do appreciate the existence of IAB, which did in fact alert me to the problem, if indirectly, but I feel IAB’s current protocol could use a tweak or backup system.

Thanks for your time, and best wishes. Jusdafax 19:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

InterArchivebot question

Apparently, all IMDB character pages (www.imdb.com/character/...) will be deleted or repurposed in about 9 days. I don't know if IAB is the appropriate bot, and I certainly don't know how to set up the job if it is, as there are over 2000 pages with links of that form. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I requested it to be crawled and archived.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Cyberpower678. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I notice that you have the "administrator someday" userbox. Reviewing new pages is one of the best ways to develop experience needed to successfully wield the mop in the more gnomish areas of the wiki. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 09:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: Cyberpower is already an admin. Nihlus 09:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Lol... I should have known this, as I remember reading the RfA. I've been going through the list of people with the "wanna be an admin" userbox on their page. Was checking the user-rights but just... didn't... for some reason with this one. Still could use his/her help over at NPP though! — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 10:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm too busy to patrol sorry. I also don't have a said user box.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Archive

On the Talk:Royal National Lifeboat Institution page there were 12 archive messages listed together. If not all are true or false, how is the checked= to be completed? Would it be better to list each archiving separately? It's not a great problem, and the system is very useful, but would like to know! Cheers, Tony Holkham (Talk) 15:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

You either fix the problems and set checked=true, or you set checked=failed and let someone else deal with it.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

IBAN and EDR

Hi Cyberpower, just wanted to check with you if this IBAN is still active? I couldn't find it at WP:EDR. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes it is. I just couldn't remember where to list it. :p—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Broken links for www.gov.si/arhiv/kataster

Hello. I see you work a lot on interrupt urls. I have some problems with this italian page and other similars that use notes with an url http://www.gov.si/arhiv/kataster/... Are you able to find a new link for [19] and similars, because they don't work anymore? - -Gi87 (talk) 12:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

You can have the bot run over the article. Goto https://tools.wmflabs.org/iabot?wiki=itwiki —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

crazy url

Check out this URL I found (source/cause unknown):

https://web.archive.org/web/20131112010101/http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3AfXPxpjgOjpwJ%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fen-gb.facebook.com%2FTranscendentalMeditationCalgary%20Deborra-lee%20Furness%20transcendental%20meditation&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ukarchiveurl%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.webcitation.org%2F6L4xREbjN%3Furl%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwebcache.googleusercontent.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dcache%3AfXPxpjgOjpwJ%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fen-gb.facebook.com%2FTranscendentalMeditationCalgary%20Deborra-lee%20Furness%20transcendental%20meditation&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

wayback->google cache->facebook->webcite->google cache->facebook :)

-- GreenC 15:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if IABot can resolve the original URL. Though, I didn't Facebook supported archiving?—CYBERPOWER (Merry Christmas) 16:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Probably couldn't because the URL is invalid, notice the "gl=ukarchiveurl" .. somehow a template argument was sucked into the vortex. -- GreenC 16:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

How the heck did that site get fed into so many archiving services like that?

Found in the wild at List of people who have learned Transcendental Meditation -- GreenC 16:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Cyberpower678. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

At Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#User talk:Daniel/Archive/54, I posted a somewhat long request for edits to the protected page User talk:Daniel/Archive/54, and I began by explaining why I posted there and why the request is important.

Notably, Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for edits to a protected page says,

• If the discussion page and the article are both protected preventing you from making an edit request, this page is the right place to make that request. Please see the top of this page for instructions on how to post requests.

But, I searched the top of that page for many minutes and I could not find instructions on how to post request to edit protected pages. If those instructions are there, but not obvious in some way, could they please be made more obvious? And if those instructions are not there, then either they need to be put there, or at least the bullet point I just quoted shouldn't say that the instructions are there when they aren't there.

My somewhat-long request included an excerpt from User talk:Daniel/Archive/54 that included, nested inside <nowiki> ... </nowiki>,

[[User:Bless sins|Bless sins]]

and below that I signed my request.

There was a prompt reply

*'''Automated comment:''' {{yo|Bless sins}} This request cannot be parsed. Please ensure it follows formatting consistent with the current or previous methods of submission.—[[User:Cyberbot I|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot I</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-13.5ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot I|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 09:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

and about that I have four comments:

1. The automated bot pinged the wrong user. It should ignore user names nested inside <nowiki> ... </nowiki>, as those are obviously offered as part of the discussion and not the signature.
2. The automated bot referred to current or previous methods of submission, without saying what these are, or where the instructions are.
3. There are no other submissions of this type on this page, so there was nothing for me to format consistently with.
4. As I said above, if this page has instructions for submitting edit requests for protected pages, I cannot find them.

Even if my request was not formatted properly, I believe it is (1) correct (2) unambiguous and (3) understandable to a competent Wikipedia editor. It would great if a competent Wikipedia editor with administrator rights would make the requested changes.

Respectfully submitted, Anomalocaris (talk) 10:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Follow up: I removed Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#User talk:Daniel/Archive/54, including your reply. I re-posted the request, with an edit request template, at User talk:Daniel#Edit request: User talk:Daniel/Archive/54. I am not sure if you want to do anything about the issue of pinging the wrong user. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Requests for unblock

says we should contact you as the Table is out of date. Cheers, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

??—CYBERPOWER (Merry Christmas) 00:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Clarification on IBAN, please!

I wish to gain some clarification on "...explicit clarification on your IBAN that both of you are not to respond at all to discussions started by the other." In short what do you mean by 'discussions', is it just a discussion on a page; or is it more such as an entire article/complaint started by another, or does it go even further to mean anything that the other may have commented on in the past. I ask only so I do not get dragged again to AN/I. Can I edit or comment on these articles/talking pages/complaint(s), Yes or NO? :

• Example 1. [20]
• Example 2. [21]
• Example 3. [22]
• Example 4. [23]
• Example 5. [24]
• Example 6. [25]

This will give me the clarification of the LINE so I do not cross it, and what you mean by 'discussion'. Thanks for your help and these issues should be decreasing in the future as the particulars of this IBAN are sorted out, with your gracious help. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

So there is a bright line that can be crossed to get immediately blocked and then there is a grey area which is left to the discretion of the reviewing admin to decide on based on the context. The bright line in regards to your question is that you are not to comment on any thread started by Darkness Shines be it an AfD, a discussion or RFC, on a talk page, or any discussion or complaint. The only exception to this is if he is reporting you for something, in which case you should be allowed to defend yourself. Then there is the grey area. If you keep showing up on articles he is editing, you may be accused of stalking him and the context, whether your intention or not, will be seen as that and it will be considered a violation of your ban. So I would suggest you stay away from articles he created. So I don’t see why examples 1 and 2 are something to be concerned about. I don’t see him on those articles. At least actively anyways. Likewise for number 4. I would stay away from 3, 5, and 6, but you are not required to. You would be stepping into hat grey area I mentioned, though. This also applies to Darkness Shines as well. Now that clarified, if I see a clear violation, I will from here on out issue a block accordingly.—CYBERPOWER (Merry Christmas) 01:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, though your inclusion of #3 and exclusion of #4 leaves me a bit perplexed. You are showing that #5 and #6 go into grey areas, and that is very helpful. Thanks again C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah ha, so you do know what are the grey areas you would be stepping in. Number 4 is a grey area. I excluded it by mistake since I was using a mobile phone and didn't see that DS was recently editing there. I was actually checking for if he created the article or not. It's not a technical violation of your IBAN to edit articles he also edits, nor is it a violation to edit articles he created, but it seriously makes your actions/motif questionable if you keep showing up in the same places he usually edits, let alone creates. So my advice for the both of you is to stay away from the grey area.—CYBERPOWER (Merry Christmas) 01:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

My guess would be to stay clear of any article or page that other parties to the IBAN has posted to in the past week and even then to not touch their recent edit(s). This way, there is no overlap of interest and no possibility of conflict with the IBAN. What do you think about that general rule; would that help to keep down the shades of grey?

• • If you can't wait a week to make an edit, then you are caring TOO much about your input and not enough about the quality of Wiki, this is my thought. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)