Hi, please and request at request username change page by yourself. Copy the following text and fill in a reason where indicated.
=== [[User:Cool Cat]] ===
- Requested name:[[User:White Cat]], Reason:(Reason for requested renaming.) --~~~~
In jawp, need a week to confirm that no one object your request. Thank you.--Ks aka 98 2007年5月24日 (木) 14:48 (UTC)[返信]
Hi, again. Bureaucrat cannot grant the request before a sysop gives you approval for the bot. According to the discussion at 「GFDL」, there is no consensus on the matter. --Ks aka 98 2007年8月29日 (水) 17:57 (UTC)[返信]
Mind re-reviewing this? :) -- 猫 ちぃ？ 2007年9月3日 (月) 13:30 (UTC)
- Don't worry. I usually examine contributions logs of the requested bots once or twice a week. You seem to be tuning the script after a test run for two days. Feel free to restart your test run whenever your script will be ready. --Kanjy 2007年9月4日 (火) 12:04 (UTC)[返信]
Hi, The code is ready but I don't want my bot to get blocked due to an unauthorized run. When do you recommend I run it? -- 猫 ちぃ？ 2007年9月5日 (水) 09:23 (UTC)
- Hello! While you are demonstrating your test run, I won't block it even if you use AWB as fast as flagged bots. I wrote my idea to your request subpage. --Kanjy 2007年9月5日 (水) 13:43 (UTC)[返信]
OK, I engaged the bot to preform fewer than 50 bot edits. -- 猫 ちぃ？ 2007年9月5日 (水) 19:56 (UTC)
Hi, White Cat. Your bot, User:タチコマ robot mulfunctioned, so I blocked it. See its edit history.--miya 2008年8月1日 (金) 13:54 (UTC)[返信]
- Could you please clarify? An example would help. -- 猫 ちぃ？ 2008年8月2日 (土) 08:50 (UTC)
- See edit wars such as [1].--miya 2008年8月2日 (土) 08:53 (UTC)[返信]
- Why is that a broken edit? Why is it reverted? That entry registers on Special:Brokenredirects and is such a broken redirect (redirect that leads to a non existent page). -- 猫 ちぃ？ 2008年8月2日 (土) 10:05 (UTC)
- Because they are userpages whose name were changed. If you cannot understand why its edits were reverted again and again, I think you should not operate a bot in jawp other than linking.--miya 2008年8月2日 (土) 10:12 (UTC)[返信]
- Redirects that lead to non existent pages are reported on Special:Brokenredirects are to be deleted. 利用者:RioDJNR does NOT exist. The option is to either create 利用者:RioDJNR page or delete 利用者:EcMax. This is standard practice. The bot is doing nothing wrong. -- 猫 ちぃ？ 2008年8月2日 (土) 10:18 (UTC)[返信]
- In addition another bot also made an identical change. Your block is completely unwarranted. -- 猫 ちぃ？ 2008年8月2日 (土) 10:37 (UTC)
Hello, White Cat. Alexbot has never repeated it. The operator, Alexsh, has understood the problem, and will never do it again. As you know, bots should not be used for controversial edits. So I think that operators should prevent the bot from repeating edits that someone reverted, or the bot may be blocked. Our speedy-deletion poilcy explicitly excludes a redirect to a redlink. And, redirects between userpages are useful for tracing username changes. That is why our bureaucrats create a redirect manually when the renamed user has no userpage. Thanks in advance for your understanding. --Kanjy 2008年8月2日 (土) 17:05 (UTC)[返信]
- Firstly unless I am explicitly told of a problematic edit by my bot there is no way for me to know about it. I do not follow each and every edit of my bot nor am I required nor expected to do so. The bots code did not malfunction (from a technical point of view).
- Secondly what you say is problematic. Ja.wikipedia's speedy deletion policy at the moment is not compatible with Mediawiki's Special:Brokenredirects. To make the matter worse... Special:Brokenredirects only reports the first 1000 broken links. Eventually the number of red links would pile on rendering Special:Brokenredirects useless. I would advise an urgent revision of the policy or procedure. Bcrats can for example also create an empty page to avoid the red link problem.
- Thirdly edits of the bot were not controversial. Classifying a bots edits as "controversial" is a very serious allegation. I do not believe a controversy is the case. I am not trying to destroy ja.wikiepdia. I am only trying to help.
- -- 猫 ちぃ？ 2008年8月2日 (土) 17:55 (UTC)
- Are we at a mutual agreement or understanding? -- 猫 ちぃ？ 2008年8月5日 (火) 11:49 (UTC)
Hello White Cat. It's hot, isn't it? (the Northern Hemisphere POV) Now I am writing the explanation report and talking with admin miya about the issue.
I consider that your arguments in miya's talk page have important suggestions. For example, to keep the special page and so on. But I also believe an aspect of administrator is to stop ongoing disruption on this site, so the blocking was unavoidable administration.
Bot-operator has an accountability about running his/her bot. And the running should be under compliance (regardless of operator's language skill!). So one of your argument about understanding ja's CSD policy is a little ungood.
- There is one of jawp's original principle, "enforcement reading again policies/guidelines carefully". This principle will apply to editor repeating misbehavior. Of course, you are established and good editor, but to assert "unreading the policies yet"[2] at administrator, is not a good idea. :P
I am sorry to wander from the subject. I and miya have already made a consensus unblocking your bot under two terms.[3]
- Not to use redirect.py with "broken" option.
- Because it does not have compatibility with ja's policy/management. Its "double" mode is no problem.
- You check your bot's history, and if someone revert the edits, you should stop the bot and investigate cause by contacting to other editor.
- I also check my bot's history, and I do so every day. In this issue, You might notice it on July 26.[4] Especially, please make it careful at the time of trying a new feature and version.
The above 2 terms are acceptable for bot-operator, so I hope you can also agree them. If you agree them, I will file unblocking-request for your bot-account. Thanks. --Tatsujin28 2008年8月9日 (土) 12:52 (UTC)[返信]
- I already agreed to this.
- Had I been given the courtesy of a proper notification I would have gladly stopped the script. So there was no reason to block the bot for this in the first place.
- In general edits by a bot should not be reverted until the bot operator is notified. That way the bot operator would not only stop the unwanted script but also fix the damage caused by the bot as that is the bot operators responsibility (in this case me). If Miya and other ja.wikipedia admins follow this it would make bot operations on this wiki smoother for everybody.
- I do check my bots contribution from time to time.
- I do not believe I can do that on a daily basis for every edit. I edit a lot of wikis and I make tens of thousands of edits per day. No human can completely review that many edits.
- For any reason if the bot does something improper feel free to block it again and notify me. It is vital for me to receive a proper notification. I cannot be awake 24/7. I am not a bot myself. Also it may be very hard to notice a problem unless I load the page history of every page my bot edits on every wiki. That kind of workload would not fit in 24 hours.
- I will of course fix any damage caused by the bot. That is my responsibility and I should be the person to do it.
- Contacting me is very easy. I can be reached via my talk page here on ja.wikipedia, en.wikipedia, commons.wikimedia, meta.wikimedia. In addition I can be reached via email. My wiki-email works.
- So I agree with the conditions on a general basis.
- -- 猫 ちぃ？ 2008年8月10日 (日) 03:39 (UTC)
- I am glad about accepting the term #1.
- I would explain ja's blocking policy. According to the policy, any admins may block bot to be looked like out-of-control. Of course, although you might have been controling the bot at the console, it was repeating wrong edits. And CSD category is very important for contents management, so the admin decided to block it as an emergency. In short, the bot was running in important domain. The reason blocked without passing through a gentler step is just it.
- However, a non-admin user who noticed your bot behavior first might not be familiar with communication by non-Japanese language. After this issue finishes, let us consider preparing a template or something.
- I am feeling sincere attitude from your above-comment, especially, about responsibility of bot-operation. It will greatly reassure other users. :)
- Hmmm... In fact, to check all-edits including interlinking is waste of energy. Okay. I apply the focus to prevent the issue, so I would rewrite #2 fully with reflected your opinion. "You check especially edits by the bot at trying a new feature." This is practical and more realistic and you will accept easily.
- I will tell necessity of proper notification to admins. However, any Wiki admins have a responsibility to stop disruption on the site by any way. So the way will be chosen by importance and/or urgency. (Probably, this is limit of general user's comment at present.)
- Can you agree new #2? --Tatsujin28 2008年8月10日 (日) 15:39 (UTC)[返信]
- Sure. I can easily agree with that.
- I do want to emphasize that it is okay to block the bot if it gets out of control for whatever the reason. However:
- It is vital to notify me on exactly what has broken down so I work on figuring out how to fix it and continue running the bot. This notification can be done in Japanese. I can use machine translation to get an idea in the meanwhile. A Japanese to English translator can translate it later.
- In the notification I should be told,
- What is broken (if it is a policy issue a short summary of it would help).
- An example edit where the bot makes an improper edit.
- Blocking a bot and unblocking a bot should be trivial edits.
- If it breaks block it on sight. No big deal there.
- Once the bot operator acknowledges the issue is fixed: unblock the bot and let it resume its edits.
- It shouldn't be necesary to go though an entire formal process each time a bot breaks.
- -- 猫 ちぃ？ 2008年8月10日 (日) 18:14 (UTC)
- I am very glad about accepting the two terms. Well, I focus to the point of arguments which remains. That is, "proper notification before blocking" and "blocking and unblocking lightly".
- But there is a little problem. I do not have a power of imposing the rule to admins immediately because I am not a dictator. I therefore have been saying till now that I would suggest better enforcement of management after the issue, to admins and other users. Kanjy is "developping" new bot policy now and I am also carrying the flag of ja's Wikiproject Bot. So, this issue will be reflected in future management.
- In fact, the cleanup cost of this issue is (was) actually fairly large. I think that parties (of course, they include you) will do better way next time. ;)
- I have already written the explanation report, I will file the request after commenting a few thing to Kanjy's. --Tatsujin28 2008年8月11日 (月) 17:01 (UTC)[返信]
- I am glad something good came out of all this. -- 猫 ちぃ？ 2008年8月11日 (月) 17:29 (UTC)
- It seems that talking with you and Kanjy has been already resolved. And filed.[5] --Tatsujin28 2008年8月13日 (水) 12:53 (UTC)[返信]
- Sorry I was offline. Thanks for explanation, Tatsujin28. And thanks for understanding, White Cat. Not only admins but anyone may revert in the wiki process. Such a reversion may indicate that the bot edited something wrong or controversial. I'd appreciate if you will try to avoid edit wars of your bot. How about writing to the bot userpage about notification? --Kanjy 2008年8月10日 (日) 10:43 (UTC)[返信]
- I am NOT revert waring. Please stop making these accusations against me. An automated bot will respond to the same input in an identical manner all the time. This is the very basics of automated bot operation. If someone is revert waring with a bot without notifying its operator, it is that persons responsibility if the bot makes identical edits again and again.
- If someone notifies me and I deliberately insist on making the same edits then you can talk about me revert waring/making controversial edits. What you are requesting is a human response from a bot. Human technology has a limit. Please do not request anything that cannot be done with todays technology. Lets be reasonable please.
- Contacting me is easy! If the bot breaks you should be at least willing to click on the bots talk page and at least positing a notification on my own talk page prior to blocking the bot (unless the bot is making a large scale mess).
- Userpage: Has the relevant links to the bot operator (White Cat(会話)).
- Talk page: If you click to the bots talkpage you go directly to my talk page where all the relevant links are available. It takes 5 seconds to post something on my talk page.
- Email: I may not be always watching my talk pages. There are days where I am busy IRL (Not being a bot I do sleep, work, study, eat). In such cases you can always email me via the email link on this very talk page. It takes 5 seconds to send me an email.
- Block: Blocking a bot that doesn't preform by the local wikis norms (weather the bots code broke or the bot does something wrong policy wise) until it's operator is contacted is no big deal. Unlike people bots dont have feelings so you can block them to simply turn them off. I'd have thought this would be the standard practice on every wiki. It takes 5 seconds to block a bot. It may take another 5 seconds to unblock a bot. 10 seconds isn't that big of a time gap.
- I cannot understand why there is this over exaggeration of a few errors (12 edits) by the bot. The errors were due to obsolete poorly drafted ja.wikipedia policy not because of a programmatic error. The bot only did what Mediawiki directed it.
- -- 猫 ちぃ？ 2008年8月10日 (日) 11:34 (UTC)
- I apologize that you are offended. I intended to help you getting your bot unblocked. However, it seems that I made nothing but unuseful officiousness. --Kanjy 2008年8月11日 (月) 18:31 (UTC)[返信]
- I guess it is the language barrier at play. No harm done. I was told you are working on a redraft bot policy. I'd be happy to provide input to that should you require it. -- 猫 ちぃ？ 2008年8月12日 (火) 15:32 (UTC)
Er, "Bureaucrat reminded the operator (you) about conditions of original approval. If the conditions do not match for tasks, request its re-approval."... So if you write a word "okay" below here, I will kick to activate request page. (and admins can unblock the account) --Tatsujin28 2008年8月24日 (日) 10:10 (UTC)[返信]
- Do you think you can prod the right people to process the request? -- 猫 ちぃ？ 2008年8月30日 (土) 00:52 (UTC)
