User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2021 December

Previous · Index · Next

Nomination for deletion of Template:Update after/core

Template:Update after/core has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Q28 (talk) 07:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Rvv please

Please revert this. Worm That Turned All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC).

Looks like @Hammersoft caught it long before I noticed this message Worm^TT(talk) 09:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

In addition, I should say two things.

1. You have made about 100 edits to this page since you've been blocked, none of which have been appealing the block. Generally, this is "frowned upon", though not specifically disallowed.
2. Your talk page is ridiculously long, and takes time to load and update.

Now, I'm not one to go around removing talk page access unless necessary, but since I'm seeing your page in my watchlist almost every day, and I've waited 9 month for a discussion about an unblock, I'll be removing it by the end of the year. You will be able to ping me, but what you did above wouldn't. Worm^TT(talk) 09:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned If we're going to allow & carry out the constant requests for edits made here, is the block on this editor still preventative & beneficial to the encyclopedia? Regarding your second point, do you expect that Rich will be able to archive this page while blocked? SQL^{Query Me!} 15:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Mass editing without appropriate consensus cannot be carried out by proxy requests on this page @SQL. That is why Rich is blocked and so even with Rich stretching the limits of acceptable editing by proxy the block clearly, in my view, remains preventative. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@SQL, Rich could archive his page while blocked, by simply implementing some bot driven code at the top - equally, he could blank notifications he had read that were non-discussion based.

This is the first request that he's asked me directly, and while I would have (for exactly the reasons Hammersoft did), I haven't felt any impetus to make the other changes he's requested, and nor, do I believe has anyone else (some easy changes have been ignored for months)

The block is necessary, preventative and benefical as long as Rich is likely to not abide by his sanctions. Worm^TT(talk) 16:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not a big fan of editing by proxy. I reverted the vandalism because being aware of it, I wasn't going to let it sit there. Rich, the edits you've been effectively asking other people to do on your behalf would all be ok if you were unblocked. You obviously are still devoted to this project. Please, reconsider your stance vis-a-vis your restrictions and consider making an unblock request. I too will be eventually removing this talk page from my watchlist. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I am not a great fan either. I have not asked people to make changes with the exception of vandalism. On an average day I see half a dozen errors, whether of fact, grammar, spelling or style, simply in the course of my reading. While I also see these errors on other sites, including sites as, or more reputable than Wikipedia, they are nothing like as common.
  • Whether you or anyone else watch this page is your own decision.
  • Thanks for fixing the vandalism.
  • All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC).
    
• Like Hammersoft I am not a big fan of editing by proxy. I had originally read WTT's post above stating that Talk Page Access would be revoked if there wasn't an appeal forthcoming by the end of the year, not that Worm was going to remove this page from the watchlist and thought that a reasonable idea. So let me say, that if you continue to push our tolerance for proxy edits, and I will note that pushing community tolerance is why we're here in the first place, and there is no appeal forthcoming - an appeal I think you stand a reasonable shot of being successful with if you're willing to stop picking WILDFLOWERS - after the first of the year I will remove TPA. If that happens you would still, obviously, be allowed to appeal by means of WP:UTRS. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
• To clarify my position on one point; I don't think talk page access should be removed if Rich doesn't ping people. Whether we watch this page or not is up to us. Whether we get pinged or not is not up to us. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
• I will second Hammersoft here, the 'opening statement' for suggesting to close the talk-page access states 'Generally, this is "frowned upon", though not specifically disallowed.' ... 'about 100 edits' [in 9 months]. Frowned upon. If there were excessive pings, long heated discussions between RF and others, excessive unblock requests, or clear, regular proxy requests (which I think for the current remarks on this talkpage an extreme stretch) then yes, that should be silenced. Without that, just dewatchlist this page and go on with what you normally do, and it certainly does not warrant withdrawal of talkpage access. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I'll voice strong agreement with Beetstra here. I don't see what harm is being caused by Rich if he isn't pinging anyone. The project isn't being disrupted. If he wants to make changes to his talk page, let him. The threat of TPA removal is wrong. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

    @Dirk and @Hammersoft ultimately I don't feel strongly about this and given your objections I am willing to agree to do nothing based on Rich's current use. However, I want to underscore that the reason Rich is indefinitely blocked is because of his repeatedly violating community norms, and when those norms turn into explicit consensus for Rich (in the form of restrictions) of violating those. So I see doing something that is generally frowned upon as continuing the kind of behavior that has unfortunately led us to this situation which is why I wrote what I did above and did not immediately revoke TPA unlike with the normal editor who edits their talk page while blocked for things other than related to the block. I would like to see Rich be unblocked because I think Rich has a lot of value to offer to Wikipedia, but ultimately having some respect when others push back on your actions is necessary. My noting of all this probably enough of a "frown" at this time anyway. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

    • • I'll strongly concur that working within community norms is critically important. While Rich may be operating outside of community norms here on this talk page, the reality is that (short of pinging someone) the impact on the project is non-existent and otherwise purely voluntary for those who choose to have this page on their watchlists. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Please read carefully

1. I don't believe I have excessively pinged people. I can see two explicit pings, one providing a useful reference to another editor, and one in reply to a message left here. If anyone has time to audit the page and it turns out that I have pinged anyone enough to cause a reasonable person annoyance, I will apologise unreservedly.
2. I have, I believe, not asked anyone to make an edit on my behalf before the anti-vandalism request. I asked the blocking admin, because if they decide to do it, it is as unimpeachable as it can be.
3. In my "to do" list above I have generally, and more so as time progressed, listed just the article title, occasionally with a cryptic note to myself, precisely because I don't want anyone to be troubled by receiving accusations of proxying.
4. I have defended the Wikipedia community against accusations of being toxic. I think, however, it is in some ways dysfunctional. This thread is a good, if minor, example. No one is trying to do anything other than their best, however an attempt to have vandalism removed has become a rather threatening encounter.
5. I have a busy talk page, largely due to the amount of stuff I have done or projects I am involved with. I can clear it down if that's helpful.
6. As far as imposing a deadline on an appeal, this seems unreasonable. It will not help the project. If the consensus is that vandalism should not be reported, then I will stop reporting it.
7. This thread has taken a little over two hours to deal with. When I was a more or less full time editor, I had more time for this sort of thing, and people were, by and large, more relaxed. I rarely have time for more than minor editing these days, and little inclination to deal with bureaucratic hurdles, especially when every word is subject to misinterpretation and misrepresentation for the lifetime of the project.
8. I shan't be following this discussion closely, but will catch up before making any other changes to this page.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 09:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC).

I'll point to the statement I made above in reply to Dirk and Hammersoft for much of my response. I do want to correct one thing: As far as imposing a deadline on an appeal, this seems unreasonable. It will not help the project. If the consensus is that vandalism should not be reported, then I will stop reporting it. is not correct. From what I said one of three things would happen:

1. You would apply to be unblocked now. As I stated in the original message I think there's a clear path towards a successful appeal when you're ready.
2. You do nothing at this time. In which case the talk page would have been there when you were ready to ask for an unblock.
3. You keep using your talk page to ask for proxy editing. In this case your talk page access would have been revoked, but you would have been able to appeal, whenever you wished, using UTRS which I also noted in the original message.

I write all this just to be clear that I was not imposing a deadline and so you are clear that if talk page access were to be revoked in the future you would still be able to appeal on whatever timeline you wished. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:you keep repeating the ‘keep using your talk page for proxy editing’. Except for a request to revert vandalism, that is not the case IMHO. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Fair point; I could have been more precise in my language. Bottomline I count 81 edits since he was blocked having nothing to do with the block. During that same time period I count 46 edits you've made to your user talk. Granted this isn't quite apples to apples for reasons we can all name, but I do think it speaks to the larger truth that his use of this talk page while blocked falls outside the norms. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

And what harm is that causing, exactly? So long as he doesn't ping people outside of an unblock request, I don't see the issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Bots Newsletter, December 2021

Bots Newsletter, December 2021

BRFA activity by month

Welcome to the eighth issue of the English Wikipedia's Bots Newsletter, your source for all things bot. Maintainers disappeared to parts unknown... bots awakening from the slumber of æons... hundreds of thousands of short descriptions... these stories, and more, are brought to you by Wikipedia's most distinguished newsletter about bots.

Our last issue was in August 2019, so there's quite a bit of catching up to do. Due to the vast quantity of things that have happened, the next few issues will only cover a few months at a time. This month, we'll go from September 2019 through the end of the year. I won't bore you with further introductions — instead, I'll bore you with a newsletter about bots.

Overall

• Between September and December 2019, there were 33 BRFAs. Of these, Y 25 were approved, and 8 were unsuccessful (N2 3 denied, ? 3 withdrawn, and 2 expired).

September 2019

Look! It's moving. It's alive. It's alive... It's alive, it's moving, it's alive, it's alive, it's alive, it's alive, IT'S ALIVE!

• Y Monkbot 16, DannyS712 bot 60, Ahechtbot 6, PearBOT 3, Qbugbot 3 · N2 DannyS712 bot 5, PkbwcgsBot 24 · ? DannyS712 bot 61, TheSandBot 4
• TParis goes away, UTRSBot goes kaput: Beeblebrox noted that the bot for maintaining on-wiki records of UTRS appeals stopped working a while ago. TParis, the semi-retired user who had previously run it, said they were "unlikely to return to actively editing Wikipedia", and the bot had been vanquished by trolls submitting bogus UTRS requests on behalf of real blocked users. While OAuth was a potential fix, neither maintainer had time to implement it. TParis offered to access to the UTRS WMFLabs account to any admin identified with the WMF: "I miss you guys a whole lot [...] but I've also moved on with my life. Good luck, let me know how I can help". Ultimately, SQL ended up in charge. Some progress was made, and the bot continued to work another couple months — but as of press time, UTRSBot has not edited since November 2019.
• Article-measuring contest resumed: The list of Wikipedians by article count, which had lain dead for several years, was triumphantly resurrected by GreenC following a bot request.

October 2019

• Y OAbot 3, DannyS712 bot 47, Pathbot 2, PearBOT 2, DannyS712 bot 59, DannyS712 bot 62, HasteurBot 14, PearBOT 4, WOSlinkerBot 4, MilHistBot 5
• Curb Safe Charmer adopts reFill: TAnthony pointed out that reFill 2's bug reports were going unanswered; creator Zhaofeng Li had retired from Wikipedia, and a maintainer was needed. As of June 2021, Curb Safe Charmer had taken up the mantle, saying: "Not that I have all the skills needed but better me than nobody! 'Maintainer' might be too strong a term though. Volunteers welcome!"
  

November 2019

Now you're thinking with portals.

• Y BHGbot 4, YiFeiBot 2, DannyS712 bot III 64 · ? PearBOT
• Old bots do new tricks: DannyS712 bot III 64 prowled redirects, YiFeiBot 2 archived GoCE requests, and BHGbot 4 removed links to portals deleted at MfD (until its authorization was revoked in January at operator BrownHairedGirl's request).

December 2019

• Y DemonDays64 Bot, DannyS712 bot III 66, Bot1058 6, Monkbot 15, MilHistBot 6, PearBOT 5, DannyS712 bot IV 65 · N2 SportsStatsBot · Xinbenlv bot, SteveBot 8
• Redirects to be autopatrolled: A RfC took place at WP:NPP, closing with unanimous consensus that new redirects should be automatically marked as patrolled by bot. DannyS712 wasted no time, and submitted DannyS712 bot III 66 the next day; it passed two days after that.
• 200,000 bios get short descs: Along a similar vein, Bot1058 6 was approved to remove disambiguation pages from Category:Monitored short pages and a new bot (DemonDays64 Bot) changed lots of http links to https using JavaScript Wiki Browser. One particularly neat task, PearBOT 5, automatically generated short descriptions for more than 200,000 biographies.

In the next issue of Bots Newsletter:
What's next for our intrepid band of coders, maintainers and approvers?

• What happens when two bots want to clerk the same page?
• What happens when an adminbot goes hog wild?
• Will reFill ever get fixed?
• What's up with ListeriaBot, anyway?
• Python 3.4 deprecation? In my PyWikiBot? (It's more likely than you think!)

These questions will be answered — and new questions raised — by the January 2022 Bots Newsletter. Tune in, or miss out!

Signing off... jp×g 04:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

---

(You can subscribe or unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Short description/long

Template:Short description/long has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:RANJFS

Template:RANJFS has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Red link only

Template:Red link only has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Category cancer survivors

Template:Category cancer survivors has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:ISO 639 code from name templates has been nominated for merging

Category:ISO 639 code from name templates has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 09:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Usbk limited

Template:Usbk limited has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Q28 (talk) 10:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Rich farm bur and mid evil Greenwich

Typo già 2600:8805:8086:1200:C5A7:71D:366B:8AE (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Wiki missing

Template:Wiki missing has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy Christmas!

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Kings (Bramantino) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Listing of Template:Citation/book quick at templates for discussion

Template:Citation/book quick has been listed at templates for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. User:GKFX^talk 21:56, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Listing of Template:Disestablishment category by year by country at templates for discussion

Template:Disestablishment category by year by country has been listed at templates for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 16:15, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Listing of Template:Establishment category by year by country at templates for discussion

Template:Establishment category by year by country has been listed at templates for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 16:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Albums category/outer core

Template:Albums category/outer core has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Q28 (talk) 13:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

January 2022 Women in Red

Happy New Year from Women in Red Jan 2022, Vol 8, Issue 1, Nos 214, 216, 217, 218, 219 Online events: New: Climate (year-long initiative) | Women in business | US territories Continuing: #1day1woman | Women who died in 2021 Other ways to participate: Encourage someone to become a WiR member this month. Go to Women in RedJoin WikiProject Women in Red Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The Signpost: 28 December 2021

• From the editor: Here is the news

• News and notes: Jimbo's NFT, new arbs, fixing RfA, and financial statements

• Serendipity: Born three months before her brother?

• In the media: The past is not even past

• Recent research: STEM articles judged unsuitable for undergraduates below the first paragraph

• Arbitration report: A new crew for '22

• By the numbers: Four billion words and a few numbers

• Deletion report: We laughed, we cried, we closed as "no consensus"

• Gallery: Wikicommons presents: 2021

• Traffic report: Spider-Man, football and the departed

• Crossword: Another Wiki crossword for one and all

• Humour: Buying Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hola megustaria comunicarme contigo, si me puedes pasar tu correo te lo agradeceria Wendyjosefinamartinez (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Indio (musician) albums

A tag has been placed on Category:Indio (musician) albums indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Qwerfjkltalk 17:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Progress line 1

Template:Progress line 1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Progress line 2

Template:Progress line 2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Progress line 3

Template:Progress line 3 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Progress line 4

Template:Progress line 4 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Progress line 5

Template:Progress line 5 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)