User talk:ProcrastinatingReader/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions with User:ProcrastinatingReader. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, BilledMammal (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for making User:ProcBot/PurgeList available. Are you happy for me to advertise it at WT:WikiProject Portals? Several portals implement anniversary sections etc. by transcluding /Subpage/{{#time:M j}} or similar, and this looks like exactly what we need for keeping them current. Does /purge|Foo|1|day mean shortly after midnight UTC, or some random time (in which case we might want to purge more often)? Certes (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure. |1|day will be shortly after midnight UTC. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

	The Half Million Award
	For your contributions to bring United Airlines Flight 175 (estimated annual readership: 500,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again for closing my BRFAs. Sorry, I was away from WP when you followed up at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DaxServerBot I 2 and thus wasn't able to answer. I unfortunately did not have the time as I presumed to work on the bots. — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 10:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.

The topics proposed for revocation are:

• Senkaku islands
• Waldorf education
• Ancient Egyptian race controversy
• Scientology
• Landmark worldwide

The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:

• India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
• Armenia/Azerbaijan

Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.

Community feedback is invited and welcome at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. --Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The talk od the page tells me that you are behind the bot. No history was written yesterday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Which day do you mean? Wikipedia:Main Page history/2022 January 14 seems to exist. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

? When I say yesterday on 15 Jan I mean 14 Jan, no? Seriously: I saw (and still see) 14 as a red link on Wikipedia:Main Page history#2022, but now see that the page is there. So fine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Depends on your timezone; since the page for the 14th exists I thought you might’ve meant something else. The redlink is probably because the main history page needs a purge/null edit. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining further but I already said it's fine ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I told tlc to revert striking their acceptance including the date. Now that you closed the RfC, you may be the one to do that. I at least don't dare to touch a closed discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the {{finaltally}} template also needs to be substituted, but it includes a signature and it would look strange for that signature to be a non-crat. I added the header template since it seemed appropriate for an RfA to not continue after the candidate requests withdrawal, but I'm going to leave the rest of the cleanup to the responding crat. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

always learning, ping 28bytes: theleekycauldron would like to have the strikethrough-part of their withdrawal reverted (see their talk), - who can do that how at this point? - The statement about no paid editing should not be struck, nor the signature, nor - if you ask me - even the acceptance at the time of the signature. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader I've inserted the {{finaltally}}, if a crat wants to they can reclose but given the multiple !votes after your close I found it prudent to properly close it, lest we get more accidental votes, as a crat closure is only required for successful request per the procedures (One could argue I'm technically slightly outside policy as an INVOLVED editor who isn't closing their own withdrawal, but given the fact leeky clearly withdrew I'm just going to IAR on that part) -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 13:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

17:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Bots Newsletter, January 2022

This graph was using the legacy Graph extension, which is no longer supported. It needs to be converted to the new Chart extension. BRFA activity by month Welcome to the ninth issue of the English Wikipedia's Bots Newsletter, your source for all things bot. Vicious bot-on-bot edit warring... superseded tasks... policy proposals... these stories, and more, are brought to you by Wikipedia's most distinguished newsletter about bots. After a long hiatus between August 2019 and December 2021, there's quite a bit of ground to cover. Due to the vastness, I decided in December to split the coverage up into a few installments that covered six months each. Some people thought this was a good idea, since covering an entire year in a single issue would make it unmanageably large. Others thought this was stupid, since they were getting talk page messages about crap from almost three years ago. Ultimately, the question of whether each issue covers six months or a year is only relevant for a couple more of them, and then the problem will be behind us forever. Of course, you can also look on the bright side – we are making progress, and this issue will only be about crap from almost two years ago. Today we will pick up where we left off in December, and go through the first half of 2020. Overall In the first half of 2020, there were 71 BRFAs. Of these, Y 59 were approved, and 12 were unsuccessful (with N2 8 denied, ? 2 withdrawn, and 2 expired). January 2020 Yeah, you're not gonna be able to get away with this anymore. Y ST47Bot, Seppi333Bot, Qbugbot 4 · N2 PkbwcgsBot 25, PkbwcgsBot 26 A new Pywikibot release dropped support for Python 3.4, and it was expected that support for Python 2.7 would be removed in coming updates. Toolforge itself planned to drop Python 2 support in 2022. Two new bots dropped in January 2020: ST47Bot, the successor to STBot, and Seppi333Bot, whose task was to perform a weekly update of four "massive" wikitables for WikiProject Molecular Biology. Cydebot, an adminbot operated by Cyde since 2006, was blocked after going berserk on categories that hadn't yet been CfD'd. February 2020 Y AnomieBOT 78, Cewbot 2, DannyS712 bot 67, DannyS712 bot III 63, PearBOT 6, DemonDays64 Bot 2 · N2 PearBOT On February 1, some concerns were raised about ListeriaBot performing "nonsense" edits. Semi-active operator Magnus Manske (who originally coded the Phase II software|precursor of MediaWiki) was pinged. Meanwhile, the bot was temporarily blocked for several hours until the issue was diagnosed and resolved. On February 18, ST47Bot got into a tussle with Amalthea (bot), and had to be partially-blocked from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cases/Overview. March 2020 Y MajavahBot, SDZeroBot, TheSandBot 6, TheSandBot 7, Bitbotje, FACBot 6, TheSandBot 8, Qbugbot 5, Cewbot 3, SDZeroBot 2, PrimeBOT 31, WikiCleanerBot 12 · AntiCompositeBot In March, a long discussion was started at Wikipedia talk:Bot policy by Skdb about the troubling trend of bots "expiring" without explanation after their owners became inactive. This can happen for a variety of reasons -- API changes break code, hosting providers' software updates break code, hosting accounts lapse, software changes make bots' edits unnecessary, and policy changes make bots' edits unwanted. The most promising solution seemed to be Toolforge hosting (although it has some problems of its own, like the occasional necessity of refactoring code). Some of the twelve bot tasks approved this month were TheSandBot 6 (removing blocked users from Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues), and TheSandBot 7 (removing unblocked users from Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for promotional user names). SDZeroBot 2 was approved to refine geographic stub tags. New bots approved this month were MajavahBot (to patrol WP:EFFPR), SDZeroBot (to merge stub tags), and Bitbotje (fixing DISPLAYTITLE modifications, DEFAULTSORT errors and broken behavior switches in draftspace). April 2020 Y TheSandBot 9, BHGbot 5, DannyS712 bot 69, SDZeroBot 3, ST47ProxyBot, WugBot 4, SDZeroBot 4, DatBot 10, WikiCleanerBot 11, WikiCleanerBot 13, WikiCleanerBot 14, AntiCompositeBot 2, Cewbot 4 · N2 DaedanBot 1 · Creffbot A discussion on the bot noticeboard, "Re-examination of ListeriaBot", was started by Barkeep49, who pointed out repeated operation outside the scope of its BRFA (i.e. editing pages in mainspace, and adding non-free images to others). Some said it was doing good work, and others said it was operating beyond its remit. It was blocked on April 10; the next day it was unblocked, reblocked from article space, reblocked "for specified non-editing actions", unblocked, and indeffed. The next week, several safeguards were implemented in its code by Magnus; the bot was allowed to roam free once more on April 18. ST47ProxyBot joined the stable in April, after a BRFA started in December was finally completed. As an adminbot, it was authorized to block IP addresses belonging to open proxies, public VPN services, and web hosts. New tasks approved for existing bots included BHGbot 5 (diffusing categories), TheSandBot 9 (taking over some tasks from the inactive RonBot), and WugBot 4 (updating data at {{Interactive COVID-19 maps}}). Also, DatBot 10 was approved to scale down non-free SVGs — I didn't even know that was a thing. A discussion at Wikipedia talk:Bot policy was started by Thryduulf about whether WP:BOTCOMM should explicitly specify that bot operators must be responsive to concerns raised on English Wikipedia specifically (as opposed to Phabricator, SourceForge, Toolforge, et cetera). Eventually, the policy was amended to its current form: Issues and enquiries are typically expected to be handled on the English Wikipedia. Pages reachable via unified login, like a talk page at Commons or at Italian Wikipedia could also be acceptable [...] External sites like Phabricator or GitHub (which require separate registration or do not allow for IP comments) and email (which can compromise anonymity) can supplement on-wiki communication, but do not replace it. May 2020 Y MajavahBot 3, DannyS712 bot 70, CitationCleanerBot 5, Dreamy Jazz Bot 4, QEDKbot, William Avery Bot 2, DannyS712 bot 68, PrimeBOT 32, TheSandBot 10, Bot1058 7, BHGbot 6, EaglesBot 2, Cewbot 5, WikiCleanerBot 17 · N2 MDanielsBot, PhuzBot 3, Gedimon · ? PearBOT 7 MajavahBot 3, an impressively meta bot task, was approved this month for maintaining a list of bots running on the English Wikipedia. The page, located at User:MajavahBot/Bot status report, is updated every 24 hours; it contains a list of all accounts with the bot flag, as well as their operator, edit count, last activity date, last edit date, last logged action date, user groups and block status. Other approvals for this month were William Avery Bot 2 (processing redirects in {{R from scientific name}}), DannyS712 bot 68 (allowing users to schedule bot reminders for themselves), TheSandBot 10 (removing blocked/locked users from Category:User talk pages with conflict of interest notices), Bot1058 7 (updating Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests/Permalink), Dreamy Jazz Bot 4 (adding {{WikiProject Biography|living=no}} to talk pages where their associated article is in a year of death category), and QEDKbot (deleting and nominating empty categories). General syntax fixing tasks were approved for DannyS712 bot 70, CitationCleanerBot 5, PrimeBOT 32, BHGbot 6, Cewbot 5, and EaglesBot 2, as well as WikiCleanerBot 15, 16, and 17. Seven bots who fell below activity requirements (with neither the bots nor their operators having any edits or logged actions in two years) had their bot flags removed. They were NekoBot, Robert SkyBot, DASHBotAV, VoxelBot, JackieBot, ReferenceBot, and CensusBot. On May 12, EmausBot was blocked. June 2020 Y QEDKbot 2, AnomieBOT 79, WOSlinkerBot 6, Yapperbot 2, Yapperbot, AnomieBOT 80, Dreamy Jazz Bot 5, WikiCleanerBot 18, HasteurBot 15, MusikBot II 4, NoSandboxesHere · N2 RedWarn · ? Seppi333Bot 2 In July 2017, Headbomb made a proposal that a section of the Wikipedia:Dashboard be devoted to bots and technical issues. In November 2019, Lua code was written superseding Legobot's tasks on that page, and operator Legoktm was asked to stop them so that the new code could be deployed. After no response to pings, a partial-block of Legobot for the dashboard was proposed. Some months later, on June 16, Headbomb said: "A full block serves nothing. A partial block solves all current issues [...] Just fucking do it. It's been 3 years now." The next day, however, Legoktm disabled the task, and the dashboard was successfully refactored. On June 7, RexxS blocked Citation bot for disruptive editing, saying it was "still removing links after request to stop". A couple weeks later, a discussion on the bots noticeboard was opened, saying "it is a widely-used and useful bot, but it has one of the longest block logs for any recently-operating bot on Wikipedia". While its last BRFA approval was in 2011, its code and functionality had changed dramatically since then, and AntiCompositeNumber requested that BAG require a new BRFA. Maintainer AManWithNoPlan responded that most blocks were from years ago (when it lacked a proper test suite), and problems since then had mostly been one-off errors (like a June 2019 incident in which a LTA had "weaponized" the bot to harass editors). David Tornheim opened a discussion about whether bots based on closed-source code should be permitted, and proposed that they not. He cited a recent case in which a maintainer had said "I can only suppose that the code that is available on GitHub is not the actual code that was running on [the bot]". Some disagreed: Naypta said that "I like free software as much as the next person, and I strongly believe that bot operators should make their bot code public, but I don't think it should be that they must do so". Two new bots had their first BRFAs approved: Yapperbot, to replace Legobot for handling the Feedback Request Service, and NoSandboxesHere, to remove {{user sandbox}} from articles in draftspace using Category:Non-userspace pages using User sandbox. Conclusion What's next for our intrepid band of coders, maintainers and approvers? Will Citation bot ever be set free to roam the project? What's the deal with all those book links that InternetArchiveBot is adding to articles? Should we keep using Gerrit for MediaWiki? What if we had a day for bots to make cosmetic edits? These questions will be answered — and new questions raised — by the February 2022 Bots Newsletter. Tune in, or miss out! Signing off... jp×g 23:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC) (You can subscribe or unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding or removing your name from this list.)

21:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Does [[User:ProcBot/PurgeList] work for non-enwiki pages, e.g. on Meta? 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 04:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Not currently, no. It will only work for enwiki. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for approving the tennis mover bot (TolBot 13A). You're the only approver I know of, so I can suggest you look at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Case_cleanup_task_for_nearly_17000_tennis_articles and the associated BRFA for the corresponding cleanup edits? Dicklyon (talk) 01:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I don't have the time, in the immediate future, to take on more BRFAs. I'm sure another BAG member (list) will respond to the request shortly, though note it isn't always a quick process. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

19:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

No, not really. I was reading ===What information should be included in the infobox=== regarding Peter Sellars when I recalled something you wrote at a previous RfC which I meant to explore further because as times go by and the number of infobox RfC's grows, it will be increasingly relevant?

I'd also note that having a collapsed infobox is even more rare than having no infobox at all, on a developed article..."

One thing and another, never did get around to checking it out. Where can I see data re this? I couldnt find it. Cheers Moriori (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey Moriori, good to hear from you. Can't remember what data I used to make that comment (t'was in 2020) but if I were going to find data on the issue today: infobox collapsing is usually done with Template:Collapsed infobox section begin (that's how it was done on Frank Sinatra too). You can see the number of usages of that template here (currently 1060) and a list of pages here. It's possible to collapse without that template but more effort, so it seems safe to say 1060 is an upper bound. A lot of those articles are partial collapses, like Aung San Suu Kyi where only the ministerial offices from 2016–2021 are collapsed, so really the true number of collapsed infoboxes is a lot lower. Indeed, I checked a sample of 10 pages on the 'What links here' list and the only 'true' collapsed infobox was at Rufford Old Hall. Say the true number of collapsed IBs is 500 to be conservative (probably also too large) (aside: that's about 0.01% of all infoboxes).

For comparison, to get the number of developed articles with no infobox at all, I'd probably use a WP:Petscan query to find all GAs/FAs that don't contain {{Infobox}} or a derivative. But I'm currently a bit of short on time to play around with Petscan, so I guess that part is left as an exercise for the interested reader ;) (fwiw AntiCompositeNumber was usually my go-to for data gathering exercises; they might be interested in this.) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

4019 (ish) AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

19:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

22:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving a secondary review on Uganda Internet Exchange Point! I was conflicted on whether or not the article should be approved, and I'm glad to have a second pair of eyes on it. Cheers! SiliconRed (he/him) (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

No worries, and thank you for reviewing it via AfC. Will admit some of the edits after I removed the tags are a bit more concerning, though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	For your work on the Russian article, you've been doing a good job keeping it up to date. Rlink2 (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, the private filter numbered LTA 1155 blocked my citation addition to the Runge-Kutta-Fehlberg Method page. It looks like you created the filter, so I'm reaching out about the block. I reported the false positive in the usual way and got a notice from a bot that it was a private filter. I'm unsure if that's the end of the process or if there's more afterwards. Could you take a look at the edit and/or explain why it was blocked? Phlosioneer (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks like it was sorted out by Suffusion of Yellow. Sorry for bothering you! Phlosioneer (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Glad it was resolved, sorry about the issue! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, ProcrastinatingReader. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "AplexL".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

		The Current Events Barnstar
		Awarded for efforts in expanding and verifying articles related to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

You say in your close that "The question that's really being asked by the available options, and the one which is being answered in the discussion, is whether the events may be called a genocide in wikivoice." But thats clearly not the case, none of the options use genocide in wikivoice, genocide is part of the article title (Uyghur Genocide) not the sentence itself. If that was the question being asked don't you think it would have actually been asked? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Option A does say it in wikivoice, and almost all option B arguments–particularly after the debate started w.r.t. sourcing–directly argued that the reason why option A was not suitable was because the term did not meet the burden required to make the assertion in wikivoice. Indeed, many pro-option-A arguments after the debate started also made wikivoice arguments, feeling instead that the sourcing supported the statement in wikivoice, and FormalDude (an option A supporter) was the first to directly link to WP:YESPOV. The central issue in the discussion was WP:YESPOV/WP:WIKIVOICE, not a WP:AVOIDBOLD issue per se, even though that is how the RfC originally manifested itself.

If that was the question being asked don't you think it would have actually been asked? I think RfCs often go down a different path, sometimes quite quickly, and I note a lot of the latest participants did call it a bad RfC, and one explicitly said The RfC should really be about use of the term genocide in wikivoice for this topic as oppose to an RfC purely about phrasing. (which received concurrences) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Option A was "The [article name] is the series of ongoing human rights abuses committed by the government of China against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang." remember that the lead is agnostic in regards to the title of the article, in theory changing the title of an article should have zero impact on the lead as the underlying topic of the article does not change. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Many, perhaps most, option A and option B supporters felt that the prose in option A was making the statement in wikivoice. Option A supporters generally argued that the sourcing allowed this to be done, whereas option B supporters argued that the sourcing wasn't sufficient and that a serious debate existed. In fact, I think the only editor who argued in the RfC that WP:WIKIVOICE was not relevant to the selected option, or at least was not the main PAG to consider, was Compassionate727 in [15], however their position did not have support from other editors. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Pretty sure I pointed it out as well... The wikivoice argument only applies to the title, it doesn't actually apply to the discussion about the lead sentence. If editors are mistakenly applying policy their arguments are to be disregarded by the closer it doesn't matter how many there are. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: you said It most certainly does not. A says "The Uyghur genocide is the series of ongoing human rights abuses committed by the government of China against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang." not "The Uyghur genocide is the genocide committed by the government of China against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang." which is a poor argument. The second sentence is terrible writing. Most readers of Wikipedia, even procrastinating ones are not policy wonks. They're not going to think of some technical argument that technically it's the title because it's the the WP:COMMONNAME and doesn't mean we aren't saying the the Uyghur genocide is factually a genocide. When they read the first one they're going to think we're calling it a genocide since that's what we do by that sentence. If you had come up with an alternative sentence that incorporates the title while making it clear that we are not calling it a genocide perhaps your proposal would have passed. But the version A does not. Instead it incorporates the title in such a way that it calls it a genocide in wikivoice. You're entitled to your view that it doesn't, but all the editors who disagree with you are entitled to the view it does. Since there is no policy which says the title can never be considered part of wikivoice, probably because such a policy makes no sense, our view cannot be ignored or discarded. If you're struggling think of this. A lead sentence "Myanmar is the official, correct and only name for the country which some people call by other ancient names which are completely incorrect and should never be used" is terrible for many many reasons I'm sure we both agree. But are you really going to say such a lead sentence doesn't imply something about the name Myanmar because it's simply using the COMMONNAME title? No such a title clear does say something about the name Myanmar, and we say something else very different if we rename the article to Burma changing only the word Myanmar into Burma. So no, the title of the article cannot be considered independent of the lead when it is incorporated into the lead, it's part of it and the whole sentence needs to be read as one element. Nil Einne (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Changing the name from Myanmar to Burma would not change the underlying topic, it would still be a page about the country in SE Asia and any lead sentence that couldn't accommodate that change without a change in meaning (such as the one you suggest) would be a poor first sentence. Why set up a fictitious straw man? The intro sentence for Myanmar is "Myanmar,[a] officially the Republic of the Union of Myanmar (Burmese: ပြည်ထောင်စု သမ္မတ မြန်မာနိုင်ငံတော်‌, [pjìdàuɴzṵ θàɴmədaa̰ mjəmà nàiɴŋàɴdɔ̀]), also called Burma,[b] is a country in Southeast Asia." which doesn't change at all in meaning if you swap Myanmar and Burma. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Discretionary sanctions procedure page and templates and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, — Newslinger talk 04:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi ProcrastinatingReader, you made an excellent proposal at WP:DS2021 § Comments by community members (Other) and Template talk:Ds § Combine Ds/talk notice to overhaul the {{Ds/talk notice}} banner. I have just filed a request for amendment to advance this suggestion to the Arbitration Committee again. Please feel free to comment on the request if you would like the Committee to hear your thoughts. Thanks! — Newslinger talk 04:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Amendment request: Discretionary sanctions procedure page and templates has closed. 3 changes to {{ds/alert}}/{{ds/talk notice}} were approved and will be implemented by the Arbitration Committee and the clerk team.

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Good close at the Talk:Confederate States of America Rfc. Thanks for your willingness to engage in closures in some contentious topic areas, including wars, current events, media, and other areas. Your thoughtful and disinterested closures help the encyclopedia. Mathglot (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Thanks for your kind words :) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi ProcrastinatingReader, does User:ProcBot/PurgeList2 work with templates, so it'd purge all transclusions of a template? Cheers, 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 20:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@EpicPupper: The bot does, but the page is a little broken. What template do you need purged (if you still need it purged)? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader, {{Signpost/Deadline}} preferably 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 09:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I see. Yeah, it's a bit broken for this variety of template purging, but I will see if a quick variation of the current code will work. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Any updates? I saw that you added something to purge it once. Cheers! 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 20:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Read this in another language • Subscription list for the multilingual newsletter • Local subscription list

The New topic tool helps editors create new ==Sections== on discussion pages. New editors are more successful with this new tool. You can read the report. Soon, the Editing team will offer this to all editors at most WMF-hosted wikis. You can join the discussion about this tool for the English Wikipedia is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Enabling the New Topic Tool by default. You will be able to turn it off in the tool or at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion.

The Editing team plans to change the appearance of talk pages. These are separate from the changes made by the mw:Desktop improvements project and will appear in both Vector 2010 and Vector 2022. The goal is to add some information and make discussions look visibly different from encyclopedia articles. You can see some ideas at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project#Prototype Ready for Feedback.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk)

23:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a plan for {{Mobile compatibility issue}}? It looks like a template that might be useful if there is not already one that does what this one appears to intend to do, but right now it looks empty when I view it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Apparently the template doesn't like |issue=. I think the param name just needs fixing. ProcSock (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I have tidied the parameters. The template still has no transclusions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Or at least leave Template:Editnotices/Page/User:USERNAME/Signpost draft alone? It puts the edit notice on the wrong page. See Template talk:Editnotices/Page/User:USERNAME/Signpost draft. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@HaeB and Headbomb: try using {{editnotice}} with |redirect=yes. ProcSock (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Like this? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Looks like it's working now. Thank you both! Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, ProcrastinatingReader,

I was just looking at an old AN discussion, saw your name and hovered over it to see that you haven't edited with this account since May 18th although I see that you have made some edits with an alternative account. I just thought I'd check in and see if you are just busy with off-wiki life or whether this was a sign of your departure from the platform. I hope it is the former! We need you here.

I hope you have having a pleasant summer! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

The new [subscribe] button notifies people when someone replies to their comments. It helps newcomers get answers to their questions. People reply sooner. You can read the report. The Editing team is turning this tool on for everyone. You will be able to turn it off in your preferences.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

You were either a participant in WP:DS2021 (the Arbitration Committee's Discretionary Sanctions reform process) or requested to be notified about future developments regarding DS reform. The Committee now presents Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/2021-22_review/Phase_II_consultation, and invites your feedback. Your patience has been appreciated. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey ProcrastinatingReader. How are you? I hope you are doing well. Any chance you can either bring ProcBot back online, or open source your code? Since you don't currently seem to be active, we're looking into recreating one of ProcBot's tasks, and it's not very efficient to do it without a clear algorithm or source code. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Problem with G13 eligible soon category. Thanks a lot. Looking forward to your feedback. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Novem, doing well thanks. Hope things are well with yourself also. Sounds like what you have at your BRFA is correct; the essence of the category part of the task is just a forcelinkupdate, with some fancy wrapper code to deal with updates to the purge list.

        loop do
          query = {
              generator: 'categorymembers',
              gcmtitle: category_title,
              gcmtype: 'page',
              gcmlimit: '15',
              forcelinkupdate: 1,
              maxlag: '5'
          }
          query.merge!(continue)
          action = @wiki.action(:purge, query)

          break if action['continue'].nil? or (ProcBot::TEST_MODE == 1)
          continue = action['continue']
          sleep 5
        end

I'd been meaning to open source it at some point, but realistically not sure when I'll get around to it. I recall @Wbm1058 was doing some work around bot purges of categories so he might be worth reaching out to. My task will probably be back up whenever I finish the move of ProcBot to WMCS, but redundancy is good :) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I noticed that as well, but thought it would be a good excuse to start working on T12347 instead of trying to build it into the bot. Hopefully I'll have something to show in a week or two. Legoktm (talk) 21:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Template:Invalid parameters category has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Heya proc. I have absconded Special:AbuseFilter/1180 because I am working on the same problem. I hope this isn't an issue. If it is, I can fork it into a new filter. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah that's fine. Though I remember running into a lot of FPs when I tried to write up that filter, never got around to trying to optimise it; hopefully you have better luck. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Would it be possible to add Category:Wikipedia Signpost draft articles to ProcBot's purge list? It only has 102 pages in it, and the purge only needs to be run once. I am working on some template stuff right now so I will let you know when it needs to be run. It would be a big help :^) jp×g 04:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

That ProcBot task is currently disabled unfortunately, until I finish moving the bot to Wikimedia's servers.

I'll probably need to change some of the code to make it more resilient as well; no idea when I'll get around to this part. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process. The Proposed Decision phase of the discretionary sanctions review process has now opened. A five-day public review period for the proposed decision, before arbitrators cast votes on the proposed decision, is open through November 18. Any interested editors are invited to comment on the proposed decision talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Ordinarily, admins can't unilaterally impose an editing restriction on an editor for poor behaviour, if their behaviour is not sufficiently disruptive and contrary to policy to warrant a block. Experienced editors know this, and may take it into account when interacting with others. Thus making someone aware that admins have expanded powers in certain areas is an instance of letting people know what the rules are before enforcing them. Part of what makes this different than other policies is that the arbitration committee invented it, even though it's not supposed to invent policy. So it also invented a lot of safeguards and a sunset rule to limit the degree to which discretionary sanctions is overriding community-approved policy. I think the ultimate way to simplify it is to bring the policy under community approval. If it's no longer some kind of special rule, we can drop some of the safeguards like alerts. isaacl (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the above. I see re the first point, hadn't thought of that. Regarding the second: I don't know if a warning shot meaningfully makes DS less overriding of the usual processes? I guess I see why it might be perceived that way though.

It probably shouldn't be that hard to write a version which brings it under community control? 1) Let admins impose topic bans unilaterally, either wiki-wide or just in certain topic areas. 2) Potentially remove some of the other special things like 'no undoing except at AE' and rely on WP:RAAA. 3) Make logging the same as the usual WP:Editing restrictions process. 4) Create a simple process for page restrictions. 5) Then the only thing you need is a structured noticeboard similar to WP:AE -- this might be the hardest part, as IIRC the community rejected this a year or two ago. I think these cover everything WP:AC/DS offers? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Writing a version is not hard; writing a version and getting community approval is a bigger challenge. Historically, there has been a lot of distrust of admins from a significant segment of the editing community that likes to discuss these matters. Thus attaining consensus to give admins more powers has been hard. I'm not sure if this sentiment has waxed, waned, or stayed the same within the group of people who get involved in these discussions, though. Now that we have years of experience with discretionary sanctions, its track record can hopefully be used to provide useful data for a discussion. isaacl (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I feel like DS's powers are effectively admin powers, since half the encyclopaedia is under DS, and ArbCom's oversight is minimal, and very few cases reach ARCA and even fewer (none?) actually get overturned. So personally I don't see a difference between admins being able to topic ban under DS, and admins being able to topic ban. But I doubt many share my perspective :)

The first proposal may well fail but I guess having a serious discussion and revisiting the issue again may not hurt. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think literally half of Wikipedia's articles are subject to discretionary sanctions, so I think there might be pushback on giving admins new powers for all articles. (How many restrictions remain unexamined will probably be an argument for those opposing it.) That being said, I think it may be possible to get a specific list of new powers approved for problem areas (though I wouldn't bet on it). I think the blanket "invent your own restriction" authority currently provided by discretionary sanctions won't get approved, but in any case I believe most people feel that novel restrictions are more painful to communicate and enforce than they're worth. isaacl (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Is.he not made famous on the internet? Do we not hear about this guy multiple times a day? Stop the tyrannical edits AboutMeREAL (talk) 11:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

You created a section on the talk page which is the right place to discuss this. I'll respond there. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi

Apologies for moving the lab leak theory page. I did not think to check under a banner on the talk page because in most instances previous RMs are not under banners, so I was not aware of the RM, I was only aware that on August 5, 2021 the page was moved by Material scientist, but as they didn't leave a summary I assumed they moved the page of their own accord in a BOLD move. --TedEdwards 12:41, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi. No apologies necessary. I figured you hadn't seen the RM. It's also hidden non-obviously under a collapse (which I think is appropriate to prevent banner blindness but does mean sometimes the banners will get missed). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi ProcrastinatingReader, have you retired ProcBot II? Came across it on the 'inactive' edit filter managers review. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi - not retired but currently not running. I disabled it on my server to free up some resources. I'm aiming to have it migrated to WMCS (I have a cloud server setup but there are some quirks with the ProcBot II's Docker image. I'm hoping to have time over Christmas to fix it up). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process.

The Arbitration Committee has concluded the 2021-22 review of the contentious topics system (formerly known as discretionary sanctions), and its final decision is viewable at the revision process page. As part of the review process, the Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

This motion initiates a one-month implementation period for the updates to the contentious topics system. The Arbitration Committee will announce when the initial implementation of the Committee's decision has concluded and the amendments made by the drafting arbitrators in accordance with the Committee's decision take effect. Any editors interested in the implementation process are invited to assist at the implementation talk page, and editors interested in updates may subscribe to the update list.

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure adopted

		Happy Holidays
		Hello, I wish you the very best during the holidays. And I hope you have a very happy 2023! Bruxton (talk) 20:31, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's contentious topics procedure revision process.

In December, the Arbitration Committee adopted the contentious topics procedure, which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period.

• For a detailed summary of the changes from the discretionary sanctions system, see WP:DSVSCT.
• A brief guide for administrators may be found at Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Administrator instructions.
• Updated templates may be found at Template:Contentious topics.
• Suggestions and concerns may be directed to the arbitration clerk team at WT:AC/C.

The drafting arbitrators warmly thank all those who have worked to implement the new procedure during this implementation period and beyond. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure now in effect

Hello. I want to strongly request that you and ScottishFinnishRadish's dress your incorrect reading of the consensus in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Deployment_of_Vector_(2022)#Discussion. The RFC did not show a clear support in favor of the proposal at all, but rather strongly divided opinion. Likewise your closure's claim that deployment had consensus from the community if concerns were addressed is just not true. The vast majority of the opposers never indicated a conditional support. They opposed entirely. Your incorrect closure already had a serious negative impact on this project and you should now take this step in the chain of setting things straight.Tvx1 17:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

We didn't say that it showed clear support in favor at the time. What we said was The most substantial concern, and the only clear blocker, was the issue of fixed-width. The idea of using a community-maintained gadget is deemed insufficient. It should be possible to achieve a full-width experience using a WMF-maintained toggle, which is clearly visible and available to both logged-out and logged-in users. There were also notable concerns about non-intuitive icons in the sticky header and the behaviour of the language selector, which we believe need to be addressed to achieve a firm consensus. If all the concerns outlined above are satisfactorily addressed then we see community support to roll out the change

Looking back at the discussions PR and myself had via email, and rereading parts of the RFC, I still feel very comfortable with the close. A quick gander at the first third of opposes shows at least 15 responses where their opposition was based specifically on the fixed width issue. Looking at just those, not even the full number that exist in the opposes, or the opposes that have some concerns other than fixed width, that brings the support/oppose ratio to 169 to 150.

If all the concerns outlined above [were] satisfactorily addressed, then there would have been a firm consensus. That the concerns were not satisfactorily addressed and the Web team wishes to roll out without addressing one of the above issues without either a specific discussion on that issue or a second RfC as they originally planned is not an issue with the close. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Looking at just those, not even the full number that exist in the opposes, or the opposes that have some concerns other than fixed width, that brings the support/oppose ratio to 169 to 150.

I have great respect for you both PR and SFR, as excellent wikipedians whose judgment I trust.

But in this instance, I do have to ask: do you think there is any other discussion with this wide-ranging of an impact, without WMF involvement, where 169 to 150 would have come out realistically as anything other than no-consensus? A lot of those Opp votes had individual and important concerns which were not addressed with these remedies. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

As I said, that was looking at the first third of opposes, not the whole list. That is also why we included the language that we did about addressing the other concerns, and if not addressing them to conduct further discussions or RFCs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I respect your closures in general and here, even if I disagree with the result. More than anything, I appreciate the difficulty of the position you're in. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

As Dumuzid always says, reasonable people can disagree. I appreciate you, and Tvx reaching out, and trust me that an incredible amount of consideration went into the close, and into the current situation. For example, perhaps stronger wording than "encourage" could have prevented this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you actually mocking us now? The very first sentence of your closure reads "Overall, there is a positive reception to the changes.", yet you genuinely claim here that you didn't state that their was a clear support??? The only correct reading here is that overall there was a strongly divided reaction to the proposed new skin. And how can you genuinely claim that an incredible amount of consideration went into this close shortly after you admitted having only looked at a third of the opposes. Moreover you are morphing numbers by personally numbers by assuming that people would have automatically supported if some concerns were addressed. That's literally make decision in place of other people. If you have any respect for the community you would correct the clear errors in your close as soon as possible.Tvx1 20:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm assuming you didn't fully read my above comments, which is the only reason I can think why you would believe that I only read a third of the comments when closing the RFC. Looking back at the discussions PR and myself had via email, and rereading parts of the RFC, I still feel very comfortable with the close. A quick gander at the first third of opposes shows at least 15 responses where their opposition was based specifically on the fixed width issue. parses, to me, that I took a quick gander of the first third of opposes while rereading parts of the RFC. Two months ago, when closing the RFC, I read the entire discussion, including the discussions below the survey multiple times. That is likely why I read the positive reception included in many of the opposes.

Much like not reading my statement above fully, not reading the entirety of the RFC close might leave you with the impression that we said there was clear support. Luckily, we had access to more words than we used in the first sentence, and went on to explain what the main blockers to consensus were, and that they would need to be addressed satisfactorily to achieve consensus. We then elaborated We encourage the Web team to be sure they have addressed the community’s concerns on these issues before moving forward. If the Web team wishes to roll out without addressing one of the above issues then we would encourage either a specific discussion on that issue or a second RfC as they originally planned.

Considering and weighing responses and arguments is part of closing RFCs, which is why they're WP:NOTAVOTE. If concerns causing editors to disagree are satisfactorily addressed, that would lead to consensus.

If a group is trying to decide on what to eat, half say pepperoni pizza is fine, a quarter say pizza is fine but they don't want pepperoni, and a quarter either don't want pizza or want different toppings, that does not mean there is a consensus against pizza. In fact, one might even say that if the pepperoni issue was resolved to the satisfaction of a number of the group, that there would be a consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Now matter how you keep spinning it, there never was an "overall positive reception to the changes". The reception was strongly divided and thus your closure's first sentence is blatantly wrong. And the opposers did not generaly state that they would support if the issues were fixed. These characterizations are patently false and therefore I will again insist that you change these patently incorrect conclusions in your close as soon as possible. Tvx1 22:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

If a group is trying to decide on what to eat, half say pepperoni pizza is fine, a quarter say pizza is fine but they don't want pepperoni, and a quarter either don't want pizza or want different toppings, that does not mean there is a consensus against pizza. In fact, one might even say that if the pepperoni issue was resolved to the satisfaction of a number of the group, that there would be a consensus no there would not, you would either get everyone what they wanted (which we cant do here due to technical issues) or find something else that more people would like, either way, this would mean that you shouldn't hold a pizza party Transcleanupgal (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Respectfully, based on some of your comments above and on the rollback RfC, I am not sure you have understood our close correctly. There are a few other comments on the rollback RfC, by other editors, which seem like partial readings of the close. We spent a lot of time reading all the comments in that RfC, and in wordsmithing the close, and it does need to be read in its entirety to avoid misunderstandings. I will say that Sunrise has correctly summarised the close and its implications here, if you're looking for an alternate formulation of it. I'll further add that IMO the issues we said had to be satisfactorily addressed were not, and on some of the issues it doesn't appear like any attempt was made to make any further changes in response to RfC feedback. I recently asked the team what changes they made w.r.t. icons, for example, and the response seemed to have largely been a justification of their original position; no changes noted in their response were done after the RfC started. Further, (paraphrasing Sunrise) I'd expected the team [to have] discussions with editors about whether any changes they made were sufficient, ergo the specific wording we used. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Good day PR,

Would you be interested in turning this link blue? Taking Out The Trash (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

+   – SJ + 14:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, the main reason I hadn't started one is because I'm not sure I pass. [It's quite difficult to imagine, in advance, what opinion the wider community has of you.] In any case I have less time these days, so if I did run I wouldn't really be able to monitor the page continuously, assuming that's even required. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#WikiMedia Foundation involvement in software deployment on the English Wikipedia and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, TomStar81 (Talk) 01:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

This newsletter includes two key updates about the Editing team's work:

1. The Editing team will finish adding new features to the Talk pages project and deploy it.
2. They are beginning a new project, Edit check.

Talk pages project

The Editing team is nearly finished with this first phase of the Talk pages project. Nearly all new features are available now in the Beta Feature for Discussion tools.

It will show information about how active a discussion is, such as the date of the most recent comment. There will soon be a new "Add topic" button. You will be able to turn them off at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion. Please tell them what you think.

An A/B test for Discussion tools on the mobile site has finished. Editors were more successful with Discussion tools. The Editing team is enabling these features for all editors on the mobile site.

New Project: Edit Check

The Editing team is beginning a project to help new editors of Wikipedia. It will help people identify some problems before they click "Publish changes". The first tool will encourage people to add references when they add new content. Please watch that page for more information. You can join a conference call on 3 March 2023 to learn more.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello ProcrastinatingReader,

The case request about WikiMedia Foundation involvement in software deployment on the English Wikipedia has been declined by a majority of Wikipedia's arbitrators.

The request had been explicitly created as an "Ignore All Rules" request, but the Arbitration Committee disagrees about a need for ignoring its policies, which exclude "official actions of the Wikimedia Foundation or its staff" from its jurisdiction and define it as "as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve" in the "Scope and responsibilities" section. Its procedures describe an "expectation of prior dispute resolution" that hasn't been fulfilled yet.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Is Category:Proposed legislation merge tracking still needed? Gonnym (talk) 14:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Not sure (long time ago - I don't really remember what it was for). Probably safe to assume it isn't? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello ProcrastinatingReader! Per your comments in Talk:Criticism of Facebook#Article should be split up, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind reviewing and leaving comments in the section I added to the talk page on 4 March 2023 to facilitate a new discussion about a potential move review and splits, merges, and retitle proposals for Meta Platforms family of articles. Thanks! -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I see you closed an RFC on race and intelligence that determined that racial hederitarianism is fringe. I would like to ask you, independent of a vote among established Wikipedia editors, what kind of evidence, if you could imagine it, would persuade you that racial hederitarianism is not fringe, is that even a possibility? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:581:C180:1980:998A:2971:EF34:F150 (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, ProcrastinatingReader. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Galobtter (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, ProcrastinatingReader. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Celia Díaz-Laurel, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I noticed you were a major editor in the United Airlines Flight 175 and was wondering if you could help submit it to be a featured article, it is the only 9/11 flight that is not. Thank you and please respond. Darth-Wiki-Man - (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Template:Mobile compatibility issue has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi ProcrastinatingReader. A page you have edited was mentioned at:

• WT:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War#Module:Sanctions/data specifies that discretionary sanctions has been authorized though they have not.

Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Fyi, the question I raised is not a technical point about discretionary sanctions versus contentious topics. It's about an authorization for discretionary sanctions being configured in Module:Sanctions/data for the Russo-Ukrainian war, although as far as I can tell, the associated discussion only reached a consensus to apply extended-confirmed protection to related pages. isaacl (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@EdJohnston and Isaacl: I don't think I added the lines in question to Module:Sanctions/data, seems to have been an edit request. In technical terms, I think removing the ds part from the config for this GS should resolve the problem isaacl mentions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @Gerda Arendt pointed out that the bot archiving the Main Page has stopped working. Please advise. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I've sent this user an email regarding the bot problem (they haven't edited since before the problem occurred). – Reidgreg (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks both. I killed some infrastructure which also happened to run ProcBot. I've set it up again on WMCS, so should be running again. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

It's working again! Thank you!! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey, can your bot purge all transclusions of Template:Attached KML? I've modified some code and I need the pages that use the template to register transclusions of the actual sub-page used. Gonnym (talk) 09:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, the main issue with ProcBot's one-time template purge IIRC is that each run of the bot is stateless (other instances of job don't know another execution is running and/or has completed the request), which makes 'one time purges' sort of difficult. I'll ask some BAG if they wouldn't mind giving the bot edit perms to the work page, so it can track state on that to fix this bug. If that happens and I can get around to patching it, this should be doable. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not quite following why the bot needs TPE. (please do not ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

This request is not needed anymore. Gonnym (talk) 05:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

It's so that the bot can edit User:ProcBot/PurgeList2 (that page is template-editor protected). Alternatively, I'm not personally opposed to lowering the protection on that page.

IIRC the reason for the TPE protection of the page was to guard against the possibility of issuing unnecessary purges on the transclusions of a highly-used template and causing unnecessary server load. I don't know whether that's a real concern though tbh. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

If you're fine dropping protection, take responsibility, etc etc, happy to drop to ECP. Primefac (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Primefac: how about leaving the protection as-is on that, and adding ECP to User:ProcBot/PurgeList - I'll use that for template purges as well. Will resolve the issue, and it's a simpler UX to have a single page for everything. I can't envision a non-ECP user wanting to use the bot anyway. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Sure. Primefac (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Murder of Louise Smith is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Louise Smith until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Unknown Temptation (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

ProcBot's task "Move editnotices following underlying page move" failed to run per the configuration specified at Wikipedia:Bot activity monitor/Configurations. Detected only 0 "move" actions in the last 14 days, whereas at least 1 was expected. If/when the issue is fixed, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. When that is done, this notice will be reposted if the bot task is still broken or is re-broken. If your bot is behaving as expected, then you may want to modify the task configuration instead. Or to unsubscribe from bot failure notifications, remove the |notify= parameter from the {{/task}} template. Thanks! – SDZeroBot (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

ProcBot's task "Main Page snapshots" failed to run per the configuration specified at Wikipedia:Bot activity monitor/Configurations. Detected only 0 edits in the last 1 day, whereas at least 1 was expected. If/when the issue is fixed, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. When that is done, this notice will be reposted if the bot task is still broken or is re-broken. If your bot is behaving as expected, then you may want to modify the task configuration instead. Or to unsubscribe from bot failure notifications, remove the |notify= parameter from the {{/task}} template. Thanks! – SDZeroBot (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Statue of Edward Colston - Retrieved.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

... was written for 5 November, but is missing for yesterday and today. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi - investigating. It seems like there's an issue with network connectivity on the WMCS cluster ProcBot is hosted on. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining, but what does it mean for the missing ones? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The bot wouldn't be able to create them, as it takes snapshots of the main page as a whole. It's a bit more tricky to retroactively construct the main page for a previous date, at least this bot isn't capable of doing that. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

It would have to be done by hand, I understand, and you seem to be closest to the recipe. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm currently doing them manually, once a day. Please ping me when the bot is ready to operate again. Thanks. — Voice of Clam (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Will do, apologies for delay. WMCS sysadmins said I'll need to recreate the cluster. I then needed more storage space to be able to do so, which has been given now, but now my API credentials don't work... To be honest, it's a bit of a busy period for me so I may not be able to deal with this all for a couple of weeks. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Should be operating again. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

❄️ Happy holidays! ❄️

Hi ProcrastinatingReader! I'd like to wish you a splendid solstice season as we wrap up the year. Here is an artwork, made individually for you, to celebrate. I always appreciate your work in both technical and non-technical spaces! Take care, and thanks for all you do to make Wikipedia better!

Cheers,
{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk

Solstice Celebration for ProcrastinatingReader, 2023, DALL·E 3.

(View full series)

Note: The vibes are winter solsticey. If you're in the southern hemisphere, oops, apologies.

{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! And to you too, Sdkb :) (nice DALL-E art by the way!) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

ProcBot's task "Move editnotices following underlying page move" failed to run per the configuration specified at Wikipedia:Bot activity monitor/Configurations. Detected only 0 "move" actions in the last 14 days, whereas at least 1 was expected. If/when the issue is fixed, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. When that is done, this notice will be reposted if the bot task is still broken or is re-broken. If your bot is behaving as expected, then you may want to modify the task configuration instead. Or to unsubscribe from bot failure notifications, remove the |notify= parameter from the {{/task}} template. Thanks! – SDZeroBot (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I noticed in your recent closure of the RFC on the Gaza war page that you indicated that no consensus in that context meant that the status quo prevailed. I'm not 100% on certain ground here, but just as a technical matter, considering that this was an RFC specifically related to the inclusion of material, wouldn't that mean that per WP:ONUS and the lack of a consensus for inclusion that policy weighs in favour of exclusion. (NB: I haven't checked the pre-RFC version for what was there, but am purely raising this point on its technical merits.) Iskandar323 (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding this close, I'm not sure you're correct that In this discussion, opinion is more or less evenly divided. As far as I can tell, opinion is strongly in favor of inclusion in one form or another; 35 editors supported inclusion, while only 23 opposed it (and one editor had no preference between B and C). BilledMammal (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe that "inclusion of material" clause only applies for some content on BLPs, according to the WP:NOCON policy anyway. (The exact wording of NOCON would suggest you apply it for all disputes involving BLPs, but in practice, I've only seen it applied to certain types of contentious material on BLPs.) Admittedly, WP:NOCON is inconsistently applied, and often what we do is subject-matter-dependent. I don't see a good reason for anything other than the standard 'revert to status quo' in this case, as the material is not unsourced or anything like that. It's a purely editorial decision to include/remove. Worth noting, WP:ONUS v WP:NOCON has came up at the village pumps a few times that I recall, and IIRC it is a bit contentious and a matter that many have an opinion on. I don't care too much myself. My personal understanding is: if the content was only in the lead for a day pre-RFC I'd say the status quo is to have it removed rather than keep it in. If the content was in there and stable pre-RFC, I'd say the status quo is to keep it.

@BilledMammal: I have a similar count, but that still comes to exactly 60% in favour of inclusion. I would not consider 60% a consensus, on a matter that is purely about editorial discretion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. That was informative. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I would not consider 60% more or less evenly divided. Characterizing it like that is misleading. You can argue it's short of consensus, but it's not evenly divided. Nemov (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

ProcBot's task "Main Page snapshots" failed to run per the configuration specified at Wikipedia:Bot activity monitor/Configurations. Detected only 0 edits in the last 1 day, whereas at least 1 was expected. If/when the issue is fixed, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. When that is done, this notice will be reposted if the bot task is still broken or is re-broken. If your bot is behaving as expected, then you may want to modify the task configuration instead. Or to unsubscribe from bot failure notifications, remove the |notify= parameter from the {{/task}} template. Thanks! – SDZeroBot (talk) 00:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Seems to be an infrastructure issue on WMCS's ProcBot instance. Will contact sysadmins. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Resolved. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

This move by ProcBot was undesirable. Any way to stop moves of that type? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

It's persistent! I think I was able to exclude the bot from that one page, but I'm guessing the bot treats all redirect editnotices as problematic? Is there a way to only target ones that have been recently moved? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Firefangledfeathers: if an editnotice is intended to be targeted at the redirect, rather than the article the redirect points to, Template:Editnotice suggests adding the |redirect=yes param to the template call. That would also stop ProcBot from moving the editnotice. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I've done that here :) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted to see if you're fine with CopyPatrolBot, since you put it on hold and there is some debate about the wording of your message. I'm headed out but I'll see any replies in the morning. Primefac (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

ProcBot's task "Move editnotices following underlying page move" failed to run per the configuration specified at Wikipedia:Bot activity monitor/Configurations. Detected only 0 "move" actions in the last 14 days, whereas at least 1 was expected. If/when the issue is fixed, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. When that is done, this notice will be reposted if the bot task is still broken or is re-broken. If your bot is behaving as expected, then you may want to modify the task configuration instead. Or to unsubscribe from bot failure notifications, remove the |notify= parameter from the {{/task}} template. Thanks! – SDZeroBot (talk) 13:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

The proposal at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BsoykaBot 3 has been open for nearly 4 weeks, and has been calling for a the attention of a BAG member for over 2 weeks, but so far has no comment from a BAG member. Can you take a look, or advise? Dicklyon (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

• 1163 (hist · log)

Hey proc, hope all is well. Any chance you remember why you wrote [^\s|] in filter 1163 instead of \S? This effectively prevents detecting repeats that contain a | character. I'm guessing this has something to do with preventing ${\displaystyle O(n^{2})}$ run-times, so I'm hesitant to remove it. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey. I think it was a broad attempt to reduce FPs, by better supporting tables. \S would match against |, whereas [^\s|] does not. There is probably a better way to deal with tables, to be fair. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

• Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
• Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
• Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
• Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
• Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
• Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
• Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

ProcBot's task "Main Page snapshots" failed to run per the configuration specified at Wikipedia:Bot activity monitor/Configurations. Detected only 0 edits in the last 1 day, whereas at least 1 was expected. If/when the issue is fixed, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. When that is done, this notice will be reposted if the bot task is still broken or is re-broken. If your bot is behaving as expected, then you may want to modify the task configuration instead. Or to unsubscribe from bot failure notifications, remove the |notify= parameter from the {{/task}} template. Thanks! – SDZeroBot (talk) 11:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I've manually created snapshots for yesterday and today. — Voice of Clam (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It's been a while since our paths crossed and it seems you've largely been away from Wikipedia for a while. Welcome back. Is there a reason you wrote about plural closers for the Telegraph RfC when it was closed by a single person (S Marshall)? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey Barkeep. Thanks! Things have been busy recently but I try to pop my head in when I can. No, that particular instance was a poorly placed apostrophe. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Normally I wouldn't ask but given the previous close for that discussion I was just curious if you were lumping Compassionate in with S Marshall. Glad that wasn't the case. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello ProcrastinatingReader, thank you for your close of the close review. It must have taken significant effort. Appreciate it! starship.paint (RUN) 10:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

same as the rest, thanks for closing such a contentious discussion, which had already eaten two other closers alive, in a way that seems to me completely unobjectionable!--Licks-rocks (talk) 11:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

+1 -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

ProcBot's task "Move editnotices following underlying page move" failed to run per the configuration specified at Wikipedia:Bot activity monitor/Configurations. Detected only 0 "move" actions in the last 14 days, whereas at least 1 was expected. If/when the issue is fixed, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. When that is done, this notice will be reposted if the bot task is still broken or is re-broken. If your bot is behaving as expected, then you may want to modify the task configuration instead. Or to unsubscribe from bot failure notifications, remove the |notify= parameter from the {{/task}} template. Thanks! – SDZeroBot (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey, can you reactive the purge task? I've added a category to the one off list at User:ProcBot/PurgeList. Gonnym (talk) 11:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Forgot to reply here, but this should be done. (Let me know if you think it didn't work properly?) In future, it should automatically respond to one-time category purge requests on that page. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, it finished. Gonnym (talk) 06:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey @ProcrastinatingReader, can the bot can purge modules and can it purge deleted modules? Gonnym (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Deleted ones I don't think would work.

For non-deleted, let's see... I used to have old code which purged transclusions of templates. It's disabled (and I'd have written the code for it differently today), but I can re-enable it, and it might work mostly as-is for modules. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it's not immediately going to work, so I've disabled template transclusion purges for now. I'll need to look into it a bit more, but not sure when I'll have time in the immediate future. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. Gonnym (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello!

I apologize for sending this message in English. Please help translate to other languages..

In accordance to the policy, this message is to notify you that there is a new approval request for a global bot.

The discussion is available at Steward requests/Bot status#Global bot status for Leaderbot on Meta.

Thank you for your time.

Best regards, EPIC (talk) 09:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello friend. I hope you're well. In your recent RFC close at WT:AELECT, you wrote any voter guides will not be linked to from this page. I'm wondering if you'd be willing to amend it to be clearer about what this page applies to? Does it apply to subpages? (I assume yes.) Does it apply to AELECT talk pages? (Completely unsure on this one, "this page" is technically the talk page.) Does it apply to any non AELECT pages? (I assume no.) Thanks for your consideration. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Better clarify subpages too. I assumed that voter guides can't be mentioned there, but another editor assumed they can. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd say disallowing a mention on any sub page falls under the discouraged category personally. "I saw on josh's non existent guide about xyz..." would then be disallowed. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey, "this page" was supposed to mean Wikipedia:Administrator elections. The close is not supposed to be a gag order, but it tries to toe the line between an effective prohibition (where voter guides are discentivised to the point where if anyone writes one in userspace, it may as well not exist), and the open way voter guides at ACE exist and are promoted/encouraged. I appreciate it's an awkward balance, and likely will be revisited after this election, but I think a balance should be workable for this election.

With respect to the specific scenarions queried; for subpages of WP:AELECT and talk pages: linking to voter guides in a signed comment by editors is not prohibited, and thus a user may link to them as naturally arises in the course of discussion, or in a question if they wish to cross-reference against something on another page (such as in Hey man im josh's example here, which would be within the spirit of the close). But this shouldn't be used to take the mick, e.g. a {{mbox}} at the top of every discussion page with a list of voter guides referencing the candidate, which would be tantamount to option 2. The close doesn't extend to non-AELECT pages, which are outside the scope of the process. Does this help? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that. As one of the involved editors, I find that quite helpful. As a follow-up, does the close permit anything on Wikipedia:Administrator elections saying that voter guides are not to be linked from there, or should any edits attempting to make such links just be reverted when and if they happen? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The latter - revert if links are added to that page ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to link to this at the talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi ProcrastinatingReader, please see [16] for a question – you haven't edited for 4 days, so I was afraid you might not notice the ping. Thanks! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey. I think you found[17] the answer to your particular question? I don't really want to get involved in the broader question of whether COVID articles still need CT editnotices 😅 ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

ProcBot's task "Move editnotices following underlying page move" failed to run per the configuration specified at Wikipedia:Bot activity monitor/Configurations. Detected only 0 "move" actions in the last 14 days, whereas at least 1 was expected. If/when the issue is fixed, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. When that is done, this notice will be reposted if the bot task is still broken or is re-broken. If your bot is behaving as expected, then you may want to modify the task configuration instead. Or to unsubscribe from bot failure notifications, remove the |notify= parameter from the {{/task}} template. Thanks! – SDZeroBot (talk) 00:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

ProcBot II's task "Update edit filter" failed to run per the configuration specified at Wikipedia:Bot activity monitor/Configurations. Detected only 0 "abusefilter/modify" actions in the last 1 day, whereas at least 1 was expected. If/when the issue is fixed, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. When that is done, this notice will be reposted if the bot task is still broken or is re-broken. If your bot is behaving as expected, then you may want to modify the task configuration instead. Or to unsubscribe from bot failure notifications, remove the |notify= parameter from the {{/task}} template. Thanks! – SDZeroBot (talk) 06:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

ProcBot's task "Main Page snapshots" failed to run per the configuration specified at Wikipedia:Bot activity monitor/Configurations. Detected only 0 edits in the last 1 day, whereas at least 1 was expected. If/when the issue is fixed, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. When that is done, this notice will be reposted if the bot task is still broken or is re-broken. If your bot is behaving as expected, then you may want to modify the task configuration instead. Or to unsubscribe from bot failure notifications, remove the |notify= parameter from the {{/task}} template. Thanks! – SDZeroBot (talk) 12:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Investigating; T383560. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

ProcBot's task "Move editnotices following underlying page move" failed to run per the configuration specified at Wikipedia:Bot activity monitor/Configurations. Detected only 0 "move" actions in the last 14 days, whereas at least 1 was expected. If/when the issue is fixed, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. When that is done, this notice will be reposted if the bot task is still broken or is re-broken. If your bot is behaving as expected, then you may want to modify the task configuration instead. Or to unsubscribe from bot failure notifications, remove the |notify= parameter from the {{/task}} template. Thanks! – SDZeroBot (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

ProcBot II's task "Update edit filter" failed to run per the configuration specified at Wikipedia:Bot activity monitor/Configurations. Detected only 0 "abusefilter/modify" actions in the last 1 day, whereas at least 1 was expected. If/when the issue is fixed, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. When that is done, this notice will be reposted if the bot task is still broken or is re-broken. If your bot is behaving as expected, then you may want to modify the task configuration instead. Or to unsubscribe from bot failure notifications, remove the |notify= parameter from the {{/task}} template. Thanks! – SDZeroBot (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

ProcBot's task "Main Page snapshots" failed to run per the configuration specified at Wikipedia:Bot activity monitor/Configurations. Detected only 0 edits in the last 1 day, whereas at least 1 was expected. If/when the issue is fixed, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. When that is done, this notice will be reposted if the bot task is still broken or is re-broken. If your bot is behaving as expected, then you may want to modify the task configuration instead. Or to unsubscribe from bot failure notifications, remove the |notify= parameter from the {{/task}} template. Thanks! – SDZeroBot (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

.. is this. Or maybe AELECT. Whichever one is better now that we have two options ;) but seriously, I think you've got a pretty good chance, whether or not the period is quiet. (only if you are interested with wielding the mop though, even if just a little) 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)