User talk:Arcticocean: Difference between revisions

User:AGK/Notice

Moving this here, as WT:BAG isn't really the place for it.

Code is almost done. How does this sound?

• Bot loads all MedCom members from Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Members
• Bot goes through all transclusions of {{Accepted case}} and {{Rejected case}}:
  • If the page title doesn't start with "Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/" or is "Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected/number", skip it.
  • Bot removes the template from the page text. If it can't find it for some reason, it complains to User talk:AnomieBOT and skips the page.
  • Bot finds the most recent edit by a MedCom member (since the bot's last edit, if any). If it can't find any MedCom edit, it complains to User talk:AnomieBOT and skips the page. If the found revision isn't the current revision, the bot double-checks that the found revision contains the template and complains to User talk:AnomieBOT and skips the page if not.
  • Bot looks for "For the Mediation Committee, signature timestamp" where the signature contains the username of the found MedCom member. If it can't find that, it constructs a standard "User:Example (talk)" signature for the user. This is used when posting the message to the involved users' talk pages.
  • Bot looks for the list of involved users, by looking for the "Involved users" subheading followed by an ordered list of {{user}} templates. If it can't find the list, it complains to User talk:AnomieBOT and skips the page.
  • If the page text contains Category:Mediation Committee pending cases, Category:Mediation Committee current cases, or Category:Mediation Committee rejected cases, the bot changes it to Category:Mediation Committee current cases or Category:Mediation Committee rejected cases as appropriate for the template found.
  • The bot saves the changes to the page, and if successful and the category was found in the previous step it records to its local database the message to deliver to each of the involved users for the case. The messages are at User:AnomieBOT/MedComClerk accepted message and User:AnomieBOT/MedComClerk rejected message (both of which should be fully protected at some point), to which the bot adds "For the Mediation Committee, {{{sig+timestamp}}}
    Message delivered by ~~~ on behalf of the Mediation Committee.".
• The bot loads Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Pending and Category:Mediation Committee pending cases. It deletes everything after <!--MEDBOT-Do-Not-Remove-Or-Change-This-Line-->, replacing it with the transclusions of the members of the category whose titles begin with "Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/".
• The bot loads Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected cases and Category:Mediation Committee rejected cases. Any page from the category beginning "Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/" that isn't already linked from the Rejected cases page is added just above the <!--MEDBOT-Do-Not-Remove-Or-Change-This-Line--> comment, in the same format, using the category timestamp.
• The bot loads Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Tasks and Category:Mediation Committee current cases. Any page from the category beginning "Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/" that isn't already linked from the Tasks page is added just above the <!--MEDBOT-Do-Not-Remove-Or-Change-This-Line--> comment, in the same format, using the category timestamp.
• The bot loads its list of pending user notifications. For each, it tries to append the message to the user's talk page, and if successful it removes it from its local database. It will also remove it from the local database if the user's talk page is fully protected or contains a bot exclusion template.
• It repeats all the above an hour later.

Sound good? In particular, I don't know if you'd rather have some or all of the complaints go to somewhere instead of User talk:AnomieBOT, or if you'd want the users that couldn't be notified listed on the case page or anywhere. Anomie⚔ 04:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is almost precisely what we need. One minor adjustment is that the default MedCom member it should be signed by should not be User:Example but [[User:{{Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Chair/Username}}]]. Should I run this through my toolserver account? That's what previous chairs have done. AGK [•] 16:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would never use User:Example; right now it would use the username from the "most recent edit by a MedCom member" found in the previous step, although I could change that easily enough.

I'll run the code from my own machine, under User:AnomieBOT unless you'd really prefer I register User:MediationBot2 or something similar. Either way the code will be posted on-wiki in case anyone needs to reuse it in the future for any reason. Anomie⚔ 17:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The MedCom operated an old account: User:MediationBot (distinct from MedBot1), so that's open for use. If possible, I'd like for us to use that—just so that messages delivered in relation to formal mediation use an account that mentions mediation. Mediation is often complicated enough without adding into the fray a bot which apparently isn't involved with mediation at all :P. I'm happy to give you, as the bot operator, the password and for you to change it to something confidential, to avoid violating the role-accounts policy. AGK [•] 13:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Special:EmailUser/Anomie should get me the info. Anomie⚔ 17:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have the old account usurped but it might take some time as I need to hunt down the MedCom member who operated the first account. Should we register, say, MediationBot3 for now (leaving MediationBot2 free so that MediationBot can be usurped to that, then 3 usurped to MediationBot)? We could then do some trial runs whilst we're waiting for the usurpation to go through.

Also, are you using User:MediationBot1/Rejected case and User:MediationBot1/Accepted case to notify the parties? We've always used on-wiki messages so that they can be quickly changed if more or less information is needed in the templates used for notification. AGK [•] 15:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not knowing about those, I had actually created User:AnomieBOT/MedComClerk accepted message and User:AnomieBOT/MedComClerk rejected message; the major difference in approach is that my versions don't include the signature directly so the bot can copy it from the accept/reject message in the case. Should all notifications be signed by you (or {{Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Chair/Username}}) rather than the MedCom member who actually approved or rejected? Anomie⚔ 19:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no bother; we could just copy the content over to the new pages that are in AnomieBOT's userspace.

Erm, I think it'd be best if they are signed by the MedCom member who actually processed the rejection or acceptance. It always was confusing when we had the notifications signed by the Chair but the rejection signed by another mediator, and I think we used only the Chairman's signature because nobody had bothered to change the bot to look for what signature to use. It's a nifty little improvement, on balance :). AGK [•] 23:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could exclusion-compliance prove problematic wrt messages not being delivered to parties who have {{bot}} on their page? We wouldn't know that they hadn't received the notification; the bot in effect would quietly fail, which is a breach of process that I probably wouldn't ever think to check for. Maybe it could post on User talk:{{Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Chair/Username}} if it encounters {{bot}} at all?

Should I file the BRFA or will you? Oh, and I haven't thanked you for your work on this yet. You've coded this quicker than I could have hoped and you've been very patient. It's greatly appreciated, and I'll be digging up the biggest, shiniest barnstar for your userpage when everything's settled - and one for AnomieBOT too, of course :). AGK [•] 01:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually just finished coding up code to post to the case's talk page if anyone can't be notified, either because their talk page is fully-protected or because the bot is excluded. I could change that to User talk:{{Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Chair/Username}} if you really want, but I've also just filed the BRFA, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MediationBot. Anomie⚔ 03:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Forgot to ask about Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/OpenNote. As it stands, a member of the Committee, using that template, notifies all the parties to a case as soon as the case is filed that the request exists. Could the bot notify them instead at all? Often lists of parties are poorly formatted so the bot would have to not notify anybody if the list wasn't formatted right; otherwise, we might have some parties being notified and others not (and no way of knowing that that'd happened, unless the bot reported an error to the Chair's talk page or whatnot). Could be a handy little feature, if you're able to code it. AGK [•] 15:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Also: Can I move User:MediationBot1/Rejected case to User:MediationBot/Rejected message (and ditto for the accepted variant)? We use the red/green/grey borders with all our notifications, messageboxes, and messages, and it'd be good to keep that consistency if it's all the same to the bot (which I imagine it is)? AGK [•] 15:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the moment, the bot will post complaints about most problems, including an improperly-formatted involved users list, to WT:Mediation Committee because User talk:MediationBot redirects there. OpenNote thing is  Done, note at User:MediationBot/Opened message. Since I had to make some code changes so the border would work right, I went ahead and copied over the accepted and rejected templates. I just hope no one has a signature that uses "|" outside of wikilinks. Anomie⚔ 18:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/1918 Lwow Pogrom has an improperly-formatted involved users list, "{{Not known}}" is of course not valid. Anomie⚔ 18:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the bot is down, could you do the needful for the above request? The initiating user is newer to Wikipedia and would probably have a hard time figuring out where to transclude, etc. Thanks, –xeno^talk 19:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing; I've declined the request now. AGK [•] 15:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yo! How's about we get back into it? If you don't mind, I'd appreciate it if you would read some stuff I've posted here, which I think brings every dispute into focus, and shows that both styles of solutions from the reliable sources solve the same exact problem statement, meeting all mathematic and Wikipedia requirements. The sections are very brief, so far containing only my input. I am not implying any other editor agrees, but I think this is good, understandable, and useful stuff. Glkanter (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll catch up with Sunray and then get the mediation running again. AGK [•] 19:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly reminder that we've been on an unannounced hiatus for some time. Thank you. Glkanter (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The time I do have available to spend on the MHP mediation is at the moment being used up in participating in internal MedCom discussions about this case. It is going nowhere and none of us can decide what to do about that. I would be grateful if the parties would be patient during this delay. When/if we resume, I will respond to your e-mails if I have anything constructive to add then. For now, in reply to your question about whether I find them helpful: I don't know because I haven't been reading them (other than a skim) because of the temporary pause that is in place wrt the MHP. When it is time to read them, these rules might be of help: 1) less is more, especially by e-mail; 2) if I have nothing to say to an e-mail, I won't reply - but if I find an e-mail helpful, I will always reply. Regards, AGK [•] 00:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see I made a complete b-up in adding my statement directly to the page. I'm hopeless with anmy form of official procedute. Do I need to resubmit the statement? Paul B (talk) 11:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Preliminary statements can only be made when the statement is in the requests process. The requests process has ended, and the case is now in the evidence stage, so there is little point in adding a statement. Additionally, as the addition of your statement after the statements section has ended would alter the apparent context of the case with regards to the arbitrator comments, a late statement is actually unwelcome. I would recommend that you instead focussing on contributing by adding evidence to the case evidence page and workshop proposals to the workshop. Regards, AGK [•] 21:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused too. You invited me to provide evidence on the 'case'. But what is the 'case'? On the case page, there are several statements by different people. I understand that page is now closed, and according to Lessheard, some of these statements are doing the wrong thing. There are also references to 'NewYorkBrads Request', but I can't see what that is. On the evidence page, there are various comments that seem to be addressing completely different things. In short, what exactly is the 'case' I am invited to provide evidence on? Poujeaux (talk) 09:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to submit evidence to the "Shakespeare authorship question" arbitration case, follow the evidence link that is clearly included in the notification. If you don't understand what this means, you need to read the guide to arbitration. I've no idea what "NewYorkBrad's request" means, so I can't help you with that. AGK [•] 23:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - the mediation bot earlier posted closed and rejected cases on the MedCom open tasks template. I removed the error and the bot just added it back. I don't know whether you are in charge of the bot, but I direct this to you as chair of the committee.

Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the cases you removed appear to still be open, in that they don't have the {{closed case}} template; the rest were for some reason still in Category:Mediation Committee current cases despite being closed.

AGK, should the bot take care of removing Category:Mediation Committee current cases from pages that are also in Category:Mediation Committee closed cases? Anomie⚔ 19:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roem: Thanks for noticing that. I'll take a look at the case and try to sort it.

Anomie: What cases that I removed? Do you mean when I declined the requests? Declined requests don't get {{closed case}}; only accepted requests (ie. open cases) that are resolved or closed get that template. I'm going to process all the pending requests now, so this could be considered the first part of the trial. Wish me luck :P. AGK [•] 21:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Errors found:

1. It's notified the filing party of Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Humble Indie Bundle but not the one other party; it should have been the other way around. AGK [•] 21:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
   • The bot saw that Masem's userpage already contained a link to the case page (in the section User talk:Masem#Humble Indie Bundle), so it assumed that Masem was already notified of the case. I could take that check out easily enough, if that's the way you want it. Anomie⚔ 03:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   If we put into the template a line like <!---MedComBot-Do-not-remove-this-line-Notified-{{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>1}}}---> (where {{{1}}} is the casename), could MedComBot look for that line and only skip the notification if that was found? That way we could be more sure that the party was definitely notified, because that line would only appear as part of an actual notification. AGK [•] 20:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Done to User:MediationBot/Opened message, apply something like this to any other notification template. Anomie⚔ 23:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cases Roem removed, in this edit. Anomie⚔ 04:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue: it didn't seem to notify the parties to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Exemplar that the request was rejected. AGK [•] 20:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue: the bot is removing {{rejected case}} as required, but not changing the "pending cases" category to the "rejected cases" category.[1] AGK [•] 23:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both are the same issue: there was a typo that made it not correctly find Category:Mediation Committee pending cases to change it to Category:Mediation Committee rejected cases, and when it doesn't find that it also doesn't notify anyone. Should be fixed now, please re-apply {{rejected case}} and it should work. Anomie⚔ 23:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your military history newsletter – Volume LVIII, December 2010 From the editors • "Military Historian of the Year" • Discussions • The month's new featured and A-class content • Review awards Contest results • A-class medal recipients • bahamut teaches us proper usage of "Jargon and acronyms" To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With the Arbitration Committee referring the case to the Mediation Committee, and the latter closing the case due to unavailability of mediators, where is the matter deferred to for dispute resolution now? Prime Blue (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

here it is. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked him if he was interested; he didn't approach us, really :P. AGK [•] 16:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AGK, I was surprised to see a post by Smatprt on the Shakespeare Authorship Question workshop, that's why I'm writing. I see you sent Smatprt the usual template about opening the case, i. e. you told him he could add evidence, contribute to the workshop, etc. Are you aware that he's topic banned from the Authorship articles? See his userpage. Has he got some sort of dispensation to take part in this case? Bishonen | talk 00:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, please check my talk page.[2] My banning admin, LessHeard, specifically said I may participate. Since you and I have a history on these pages going back 3 years, and you actively persued my banning, I understand why you would wish to silence me, but is that really kosher? Don't you think it best for the encyclopedia that all parties be heard once and for all? By the way, as an involved editor on these pages, do you think it kosher that you threatened NinaGreen with use of your administrative powers? Also, locking a page when you are an (extremely) involved editor, as you did here?[3] As an involved editor, I thought administrators were not supposed to use their powers in this way. Smatprt (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to draw this squabbling to your page, AGK. Smatprt, thank you for your kind interest in my admin conduct. I'll reply on User talk:Smatprt. Bishonen | talk 18:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I didn't realise when sending out the notifications that Smartprt was topic-banned; but a topic-ban, as defined at WP:TBAN, does not I think prohibit somebody from participating in an arbitration case that involves the concerned topic area. My understanding of standard practice is this: just as editors who are blocked or banned can still submit evidence (usually by proxy, such as via e-mail to a clerk) to an arbitration case, so too can topic-banned editors give evidence in an arbitration case relating to the topic they are banned from. Am I mistaken, Bishonen?

Smartprt: Most of your comments above have no relevance to this thread (and I am pleased to see they have been moved to a more appropriate page), but the question about Bishonen's question not being proper is. To answer that point: I don't think the question was improper. Involved users questioning one another is part and parcel of the arbitration process. AGK [•] 20:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I want to have Vandalsniper. I completed the application. If you need to tell me anything or something, can we continue the conversation on my page please?S.V.Taylor (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Help:Talk page#Sections for information on how to properly leave a message on another user's talk page. You should also leave a space before typing the four tildes (~~~~), so that your signature doesn't squash against the rest of your message. I'll process your application at some point soon. Regards, AGK [•] 22:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I may have been a bit bold in already removing him from the application list. I actually had to remove Twinkle from him just tonight, so I would obviously also recommend against granting him sniper rifles. But it's up to you, obviously. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really have to block him? You seemed to do it not because of what he was doing (you were initially satisfied with a final warning) but because of what he said (you blocked after he questioned your reasoning). I will defer to you regarding the vandalsniper application, but this is still an administrator challenge. AGK [•] 00:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I blocked him because, after being warned not to pester good-faith users with frivolous vandal warnings, and after promising to behave, he then turned towards the opposite disruption pattern, of "welcoming" actual vandals, an obvious POINT move. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I might have the timeline wrong, but didn't he stop doing everything you complained about as soon as you asked? The user may need a few clue jabs but he seems well-intentioned and I wonder whether a block was - and still is - needed. AGK [•] 00:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he had displayed a repeated pattern of doing one disruptive thing, getting told not to do it, wasting people's time asking why he shouldn't do it, promising not to do it, and then immediately doing a different disruptive thing instead. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He has a history of trying his hand in a new area, messing up, being told how to do it properly, and slowly learning. To me it seems that you are demonising what is essentially incompetence and mistaking a lack of clue for malicious intent. The block is a good thing at the moment because it's stopping him from doing more stupid things, but the right thing to do now would be to educate him on the purpose of Wikipedia (to improve the namespace, not try to beat the RC-bots) and work with him to find what topics he can start off in. No? AGK [•] 00:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must say there were moments when I felt pretty certain it was actually not just immaturity but deliberate trolling. I may have been wrong about that, or not. But in any case, I'm afraid right now the only right thing for me to do is to be off to bed at last. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]