Misplaced Pages

User talk:ProcrastinatingReader: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:08, 3 January 2022 editBilledMammal (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users49,325 edits →January 2022: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 06:20, 5 January 2025 edit undoSDZeroBot (talk | contribs)Bots704,846 edits →ProcBot II: Update edit filter failure: new section 
(307 intermediate revisions by 80 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{busy}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 500K |maxarchivesize = 500K
|counter = 2 |counter = 3
|minthreadsleft = 5 |minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 4 |minthreadstoarchive = 4
Line 8: Line 9:
}} }}


<p style="display: inline;">Archives:</p> {{hlist|class=inline|
== Happy St. Patrick's Day ==
* ]

* ]
{|style="border-top:4px #417d2c solid;border-bottom:4px #417d2c solid;border-left:31px #417d2c solid;border-right:31px #417d2c solid;background-color:#d9ffcf;padding:.5em;"
* ]
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle;padding-left:.7em;line-height:140%;"|<big>'''Happy St. Patrick's Day!'''</big><br><small>I hope your St. Patrick's Day is enjoyable and safe. Hopefully next year there will be more festive celebrations.<br>Best wishes from Los Angeles. <span style="font-family:Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><strong>&nbsp;&nbsp;//&nbsp;]&nbsp;::&nbsp;</strong>]&nbsp;</span></small>
|}

== YGM ==
{{You've got mail}}

Thank you multiple times!

== ''The Signpost'': 29 November 2021 ==

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2021-11-29}} </div><!--Volume , Issue --> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 00:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1057467942 -->

== ] ==

<section begin="technews-2021-W48"/><div class="plainlinks">
Latest ''']''' from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. ] are available.

'''Changes later this week'''
* ] The ] of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from {{#time:j xg|2021-11-30|en}}. It will be on non-Misplaced Pages wikis and some Wikipedias from {{#time:j xg|2021-12-01|en}}. It will be on all wikis from {{#time:j xg|2021-12-02|en}} (]).

''''']''' prepared by ] and posted by ]&nbsp;• ]&nbsp;• ]&nbsp;• ]&nbsp;• ]&nbsp;• ].''
</div><section end="technews-2021-W48"/>

21:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Quiddity (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=22375666 -->

== ] ==

<section begin="technews-2021-W49"/><div class="plainlinks">
Latest ''']''' from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. ] are available.

'''Problems'''
* MediaWiki 1.38-wmf.11 was scheduled to be deployed on some wikis last week. The deployment was delayed because of unexpected problems.

'''Changes later this week'''
* ] The ] of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from {{#time:j xg|2021-12-07|en}}. It will be on non-Misplaced Pages wikis and some Wikipedias from {{#time:j xg|2021-12-08|en}}. It will be on all wikis from {{#time:j xg|2021-12-09|en}} (]).
* At all Wikipedias, a Mentor Dashboard is now available at <bdi lang="zxx" dir="ltr"><code><nowiki>Special:MentorDashboard</nowiki></code></bdi>. It allows registered mentors, who take care of newcomers' first steps, to monitor their assigned newcomers' activity. It is part of the ]. You can learn more about ] on your wiki and about ].
* ] The predecessor to the current ] (which was created in 2008), <bdi lang="zxx" dir="ltr"><code><nowiki>action=ajax</nowiki></code></bdi>, will be removed this week. Any scripts or bots using it will need to switch to the corresponding API module.
* ] An old ResourceLoader module, <bdi lang="zxx" dir="ltr"><code><nowiki>jquery.jStorage</nowiki></code></bdi>, which was deprecated in 2016, will be removed this week. Any scripts or bots using it will need to switch to <bdi lang="zxx" dir="ltr"><code><nowiki>mediawiki.storage</nowiki></code></bdi> instead.

''''']''' prepared by ] and posted by ]&nbsp;• ]&nbsp;• ]&nbsp;• ]&nbsp;• ]&nbsp;• ].''
</div><section end="technews-2021-W49"/>

21:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Quiddity (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=22413926 -->

== TFD thought ==

Just a thought for the future, if you ] with the intention of adding in extra templates, you should add those templates to the nomination (via {{t|tfd links}}) as well as tagging them. Right now, technically speaking, neither of them are actually nominated. ] (]) 11:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

:Good shout. Forgot some of the manual steps; somewhat spoilt by Twinkle and XfDCloser. Thanks for taking care of that for this discussion. ] (]) 13:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

== ''Bots Newsletter'', December 2021 ==

{|style="box-sizing:border-box;background:#f0f8ff; border:1px solid #7Cb9e8; margin:0.5em; padding:0.5em;border-radius:8px;" role="presentation"
|-
!colspan=2 style="font-size:150%; padding: .4em;"|''Bots Newsletter'', December 2021
|-
| style="padding-left: .6em;" | ]
{{Image frame
| caption = BRFA activity by month
| content =
{{Graph:Chart
| type = stackedarea
| width = 200
| height = 100
| xAxisAngle = -70
| colors =
#98fb98,
#fb9898,
#9898fb,
#a0a6b0
| x = Sep 19,Oct 19,Nov 19,Dec 19
| y1 = 5,10,3,7
| y2 = 2,0,0,1
| y3 = 2,0,1,0
| y4 = 0,0,0,2
}}
}} }}
Welcome to the eighth issue of the English Misplaced Pages's ''Bots Newsletter'', your source for all things ]. 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 Misplaced Pages's most distinguished newsletter about bots.


== Request for global bot flag for CommonsDelinker ==
Our ] 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.


Hello!
<span style="font-size:125%">'''Overall'''</span><br />
* Between September and December 2019, there were 33 ]s. Of these, {{yeac}} 25 were approved, and 8 were unsuccessful ({{nayd}} 3 denied, {{idkc}} 3 withdrawn, and ] 2 expired).


This is a notification to let you know that a new request for the ] flag for ] has been started.
<span style="font-size:125%">'''September 2019'''</span>
]
* {{yeac}} ], ], ], ], ] · {{nayd}} ], ] · {{idkc}} ], ]
*'''TParis goes away, UTRSBot goes kaput''': ] ] that ] for maintaining on-wiki records of ] appeals stopped working a while ago. ], the semi-retired user who had previously run it, said they were "unlikely to return to actively editing Misplaced Pages", and the bot had been vanquished by trolls submitting bogus UTRS requests on behalf of real blocked users. While ] 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, ] 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 ], which had lain dead for several years, was triumphantly resurrected by ] following a ].


Please note that the request will remain open for 14 days starting today. You can leave a comment or opinion on ]!
<span style="font-size:125%">'''October 2019'''</span>
* {{yeac}} ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]
*'''Curb Safe Charmer adopts reFill''': ] ] that ]'s bug reports were going unanswered; creator ] had retired from Misplaced Pages, and a maintainer was needed. As of June 2021, ] had ], saying: "Not that I have all the skills needed but better me than nobody! 'Maintainer' might be too strong a term though. Volunteers welcome!" <br />


Best regards --] (])
<span style="font-size:125%">'''November 2019'''</span>
<!-- Message sent by User:Superpes15@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=Bot_policy/New_global_bot_discussion&oldid=25384075 -->
]
* {{yeac}} ], ], ] · {{idkc}} ]
*'''Old bots do new tricks''': ] prowled redirects, ] archived ] requests, and ] removed links to ] deleted at ] (until its authorization was revoked in January at operator ]'s ]).


== Question at TFD about the COVID-19 edit notices ==
<span style="font-size:125%">'''December 2019'''</span>
* {{yeac}} ], ], ], ], ], ], ] · {{nayd}} ] ·] ], ]
*'''Redirects to be autopatrolled''': A ] at ], closing with unanimous consensus that new ] should be ] by bot. ] wasted no time, and submitted ] the next day; it passed two days after that.
*'''200,000 bios get short descs''': Along a similar vein, ] was approved to remove disambiguation pages from ] and a new bot (]) changed lots of ] links to ] using ]. One particularly neat task, ], automatically generated ] for more than 200,000 biographies.


Hi {{u|ProcrastinatingReader}}, please see for a question – you haven't edited for 4 days, so I was afraid you might not notice the ping. Thanks! ] (]) 21:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
<span style="font-size:150%">'''In the next issue of ''Bots Newsletter'':'''</span><br />
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 ], 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!


:Hey. I think you found 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 😅 ] (]) 22:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Signing off... ''']'''×''']''' 04:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
----


== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==
<small>(You can subscribe or unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding or removing your name from ].)</small>
|}
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Bots/Spam&oldid=1059552212 -->


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
== Editor retention ==
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
The editor retention project doesn't like to discuss purely speculative conjectures, either—well, at least I don't. ] (]) 15:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
== Keep or delete the Monarch ==


</div>
Howdy. Just letting you know I've opened up an RFC at ], for all the ''Year in constituent country'' articles. ] (]) 17:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/06&oldid=1258243641 -->


== ProcBot: Move editnotices following underlying page move failure ==
== Nomination for deletion of ] ==
]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> ] (]) 16:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


]'s task "Move editnotices following underlying page move" failed to run per the configuration specified at ]. 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. <small>If your bot is behaving as expected, then you may want to modify the ] instead. Or to unsubscribe from bot failure notifications, remove the {{para|notify}} parameter from the {{tlx|/task|nolink=y}} template.</small> Thanks! – '']'' (]) 00:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
== ] ==


== ProcBot: Main Page snapshots failure ==
<section begin="technews-2021-W50"/><div class="plainlinks">
Latest ''']''' from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. ] are available.

'''Recent changes'''
* There are now default ] for the "Project:" namespace on most wikis. E.g. On Wikibooks wikis, <bdi lang="zxx" dir="ltr"><code><nowiki>]</nowiki></code></bdi> will go to the local language default for the <bdi lang="zxx" dir="ltr"><code><nowiki>]</nowiki></code></bdi> namespace. This change is intended to help the smaller communities have easy access to this feature. Additional local aliases can still be requested via ].

'''Changes later this week'''
* ] The ] of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from {{#time:j xg|2021-12-14|en}}. It will be on non-Misplaced Pages wikis and some Wikipedias from {{#time:j xg|2021-12-15|en}}. It will be on all wikis from {{#time:j xg|2021-12-16|en}} (]).

''''']''' prepared by ] and posted by ]&nbsp;• ]&nbsp;• ]&nbsp;• ]&nbsp;• ]&nbsp;• ].''
</div><section end="technews-2021-W50"/>

22:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Quiddity (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=22441074 -->

== AFD's ==

First off, I want to thank you for your works at Template editing, having said, I stumbled across some of the AFD's you have opened recently and it seems they are inundated with keep !votes, I do not necessarily see this as a failure on your part to do a proper ] as even the best of new page reviewers sometimes encounter such experiences, but rather, i see this as a gradual decay of the AFD process itself. This is a rather sad reality that {{u|Scope_creep}} noted a long time ago, when they stated “AFD's no longer works except it’s a slam-dunk AFD” In-fact, I myself (if it is not a promotional article) I too do not bother to nominate some non notable articles for deletion, rather I adopt the philosophy of {{u|John B123}} where I just tag the article and move to the next article. My thinking is, if in the future you want to nominate an article for deletion, asking for feedback from would prove very helpful. ''']''' (]) 00:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

:I think you're referring to the following three (currently unclosed) AfDs?
:* ]
:* ]
:* ]
:I would say in the first two the keep vote is false; both in the assertion of GNG and the supplied source(s) (to which I've now responded), and in trying to sell an essay as an SNG. In the third AfD, it seems the first keep editor agrees NCORP isn't met but feels the article should be kept anyway, and the second makes an argument based on the encyclopaedic-ness of the content. I don't really check an AfD after I nominate an article, though now that you've reminded me of them I've replied in the first two AfDs, but regardless of what the end result ends up being I do think they're all valid AfDs and the articles in question should be deleted as they fail ], though I respect those who feel otherwise. ] (]) 00:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
::You aren’t necessarily incorrect to sometimes nominate an article for deletion and then un-watch the article, in-fact, under {{u|Barkeep49}}, I learnt to open AFD's make a few comments and then walk away. AFD's or (NPP) in general are sometimes so tiring it has led to the retirement and vexation of {{u|Onel5969}} who was one of my mentors(still is). You aren’t also wrong when you say some !votes are false, for example take a look at I opened, note how both editors (from WikiProject Ghana) are both !voting keeps without actually giving a salient reason. The decay in AFD's are so because knowledgeable editors who should participate in AFD’s aren’t participating anymore, hereby giving leeway to editors who aren’t grounded in policy to “play around” and yes you are correct all three named AFD's are valid, Later in the day I shall do a BEFORE and weigh in on them and cast my !vote objectively. Thank you for your time PR, do enjoy the rest of your day. ''']''' (]) 10:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
:::Software is an interesting area at AfD. There are indeed many software articles that are lacking in RS coverage but I haven't nominated (and wouldn't) because I think they're encyclopaedic, which is why I respect the comments of those who are voting based on their view of the encyclopaedic-ness of the content. There are software packages that are used throughout the industry but don't really get coverage in mainstream RS and their articles are mostly sourced to changelogs etc. For example, ] probably didn't have amazing coverage in RS (although perhaps still enough for GNG) until recently when there was a major vulnerability that affected millions of users (see ]), also leading to a flurry of reliable source coverage.
:::Though I do think these particular ones don't meet the bar, of sourcing or encyclopaedic-ness. It's just cookie-cutter commercial software sourced to basically a singular review, and Macworld (given its scope) will review almost any Mac app that isn't completely awful. Some of the reviews are just straight promo .
:::Based on your example, I will express my view that I think AfD closers should treat comments that say {{tq|Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources}} as if they were never written. Unless a comment either explicitly links to sources, or valid links have been made earlier in the discussion, or it's blatantly obvious from looking at the sources in the article, those commenting at AfD should be providing the links to said "significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources", otherwise they're just votes. ] (]) 10:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
:::: I've lost faith in AfD. With only a handful of editors participating in any AfD, it's hardly a representative consensus of community opinion. Whilst in theory the discussions are policy based, in practice a few people, either for or against, can sway the result based on liberal interpretation on policy.
:::: As far as NPP is concerned, a new article may not seem to be notable either because it's not notable or because the notability is not shown in the article. Whilst in an ideal world you'd search to see if the subject was indeed notable, the purpose of NPP is triage, so tagging and moving on is appropriate IMHO. Regards. --] (]) 17:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

== ] ==

<section begin="technews-2021-W51"/><div class="plainlinks">
Latest ''']''' from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. ] are available.

'''Tech News'''
* Because of the ] the next issue of Tech News will be sent out on 10 January 2022.

'''Recent changes'''
* Queries made by the DynamicPageList extension (<bdi lang="zxx" dir="ltr"><code><nowiki><DynamicPageList></nowiki></code></bdi>) are now only allowed to run for 10 seconds and error if they take longer. This is in response to multiple outages where long-running queries caused an outage on all wikis.

'''Changes later this week'''
* There is no new MediaWiki version this week or next week.

'''Future changes'''
* The developers of the Misplaced Pages iOS app are looking for testers who edit in multiple languages. You can ].
* ] The Wikimedia ] hosts technical projects for the Wikimedia movement. Developers need to ] they use. This is because old and unused projects are removed once a year. Unclaimed projects can be shut down from February.

''''']''' prepared by ] and posted by ]&nbsp;• ]&nbsp;• ]&nbsp;• ]&nbsp;• ]&nbsp;• ].''
</div><section end="technews-2021-W51"/>

22:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Quiddity (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=22465395 -->

== Holiday greetings (2021) ==

ProcrastinatingReader,
<br>
I sincerely hope your holiday season goes well this year especially with what we went through last year. I'm optimistic that 2022 will be a better year for all of us: both in real life and on Misplaced Pages. Wishing you the best from, ] (]) 18:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

:Thanks! All the best to you and yours as well. ] (]) 20:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

== Books ==
Is there a residual project page for the Books: namespace and books that were userfied as a result? <span style="color:#666">&ndash;&nbsp;]]</span> 00:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

:Aha, I had to read ] again to understand it -- odd that only 15 books were undeleted, and I assumed others had been userfied without leaving a record. <span style="color:#666">&ndash;&nbsp;]]</span> 00:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
::I guess it's possible some books were undeleted and then moved to the creator's userspace? eg I know David Eppstein his books to his userspace, albeit before the namespace's deletion. FWIW I didn't take part in the implementation of the closure decision, which was handled , so {{u|Trialpears}} is probably better placed to answer implementation questions. ] (]) 13:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
:::I know a bunch of books we're moved before deletion. I have been looking to compile a list now and I believe ], David Eppstein's books, listed on hist userpage, ] and ] were all books moved before archiving. A few books have been refunded and not moved as you noticed. The following books have been moved from their archive location. ] ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]. I believe that is all moves prompted by the deletion process, but it doesn't include moves from bookspace before June 2021. --] (]) 13:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

== RfA elections ==

Hi. Whether you support secure poll for RfA or not, it's not the issue - I don't give two hoots about an alternative voting method either because there will always be a section to discuss the candidate(s) just like there is at ACE, and it would not be likely to prevent toxic comments. However, I ''am'' concerned that if an RfC were to be launched, it would provide the community with ample opportunity to decide which way they want to go. One is not compelled to vote 'Support, as proposer', how would you feel about co-drafting an RfC proposal? It's something I would not hesitate to do myself if I were not semi-retired and still had all my marbles. ] (]) 08:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
:{{re|Kudpung}} I think it's fair enough that there should be a good discussion on the issue via RfC. Personally though, I'm not enthusiastic enough about the elections idea to co-draft an RfC, and also am not sure I'm the best choice since I don't have a lot of experience with RfA. Maybe {{u|Worm That Turned}} (as the original drafter) or {{u|Wugapodes}} would make better co-drafters? ] (]) 10:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
::Thanks. I didn't ask them, because they have both been very busy lately with various RfC, but of course if they feel up to it they are welcome to do so. ] (]) 10:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
::That said, of course, {{u|Wugapodes}} has been elected to the Arbcom and will probably find it such a time sink that he won't have time for much else. You have been extremely busy in governance issues since you began editing 18 months ago, and I haven't since I retired from active editing, so perhaps you have an idea who might be approachable (perhaps {{u|TonyBallioni}}?). OTOH, the issue of RfA elections might simply be left to die a natural death if the WMF ''can't'' be goaded into making the secret poll software available, so it would be back to the jolly old status quo of RfA with all its trials & tribulations. ] (]) 02:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
:::My massive policy RfC days are behind me. I will say this, the biggest hurdle to overcome if this is held as an independent RfC will be overcoming the very entrenched idea that RfAs aren't votes, even though they obviously are and always have been. Consensus can't redefine the English language. Trying to overcome the English Misplaced Pages's 20 year attempt to redefine what the word "vote" means to somehow exclude a discussion with strict numeric thresholds for succeeding will be much harder in an RfC on only one issue. Those type of things are easier to get through in omnibus RfCs when the people who would ordinarily oppose them on those ground might focus on other issues/not notice.{{pb}}On the idea itself, I agree with Risker's assessment somewhere that a secret ballot will decrease the passing percentage since the public nature of RfA actually makes people nicer than if it was private. See the one and only set functionary elections we held on en.wiki as an example. If you want to go down the election route, the way I would do it would be to have public elections held twice a year with strict numeric criteria for passing (let's say 70% and minimum 100 supports or something like that.) People would put in a statement at the beginning and then you'd vote with public comments. Anyone meeting the numeric thresholds would be elected with no maximum number being able to be promoted each election cycle.{{pb}}You'd have to work out the kinks, and I doubt it'd pass as a standalone RfC, but if anyone is interested in pursuing the elections idea, elections with public voting is significantly more likely to increase the promotion rate than elections with private voting, in my opinion. ] (]) 02:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
:::I knew ArbCom would be a time sink, and even still I underestimated how little time and energy I have left for other wiki tasks. My two cents, PR, is that your disinterest would make you a good drafter. On issues like this where there are entrenched ideological differences, it is hard to find a viable consensus if a proposal is only written by those on one side; having diverse views at drafting helps prevent surprises during consideration. My concern is that major changes be unambiguous and well thought through. Very often we only have one chance at major experiments like this, because it is hard to recover from failure. In the best case, it fails and serves as evidence against any similar proposals. At worst we're stuck with a broken process for years. Your disinterest in the actual substance means you're more likely to focus on the practical rather than philosophical aspects of an electoral system, and that's an asset. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— ]]​</span> 06:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
::::In that case sure; {{u|Kudpung}} I’d be happy to co-draft with you. Let me know how you want to organise it. It probably helps that a discussion was already had on the issue, which means it’s easier to identify the main areas of community concern, and of course there’s the analysis you’ve already done too. ] (]) 01:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::I would like to thank {{u|TonyBallioni}} and {{u|Wugapodes}} for their valuable input. They both highlight fundamental issues surrounding such an exercise. Like all well intended RfA reforms before it, although {{u|Barkeep49}}'s project identified the same most likely possible reasons for the dearth of admin candidates as all the other discussions did before it, it failed to result in any solutions directly related to it. Moreover, due to its structure, it evolved more into a reform of minor, non-RfA aspects of adminship where it did find some resonance. Much of the knowledge gaps which need to be filled are those that are still being bridged by popular conjecture. One needs to re-examine and establish what the core issues are without all the white noise, before expecting the community to join another big debate. I've emailed you. ] (]) 07:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
::::::FWIW, I agree with Tony that I think passing this as a standalone will face a lot of challenges and that if it were to pass support %s would plummet. But I wish good luck to anyone who is embarking on it - we need to make the process of appointing new admins better and this is one way that has some clear level of current community support to do so. Best, ] (]) 16:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
:::::::{{re|Barkeep49}}, FWIW I've never been fond of omnibus RfCs. I was taught many years ago that it's better to address one thing at a time, and indeed that's what ''seems'' to work best on Misplaced Pages, at least in my experience. Besides, one would have to wait another 5 years before throwing another time consuming multi-faceted RfA project at the community. They tire easily and there's also a lot of questions going to be raised this year about the other one: ACE. ] (]) 07:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

== Happy Holidays ==

<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:red; background-color:#fff; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">]


] (]) is wishing you ]! This greeting (and season) promotes ] and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user ], whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! <br />

''Spread the cheer by adding {{tls|Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.''
</div>)

== KendalAndrew Strikes Back ==

Hey, I've been reverting edits made by ] (a la ). They keep trying to add content similar to their other edits to ] like they did before. I'm worried that it's basically an edit war at this point. Would you mind helping out a bit? --] (]) 07:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
:{{re|PerpetuityGrat}} filed an AE; see ]. ] (]) 10:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

== Continued from ] ==

Continuing from ]: In revision deleting the list of accounts both from AE and the user's talk page, I needed to revision delete the ] you mention, which I'm not overly happy about as it makes your complaint less transparent - so for context if needed in the future, I quoted three words from an email I received from Encyclopædius, which I believe to be well below the threshold of potential issues mentioned in ]. You are however correct in both cases; it is not against policy, but it is somewhat frowned upon.

I should note that all of my revision deletions have little to no standing in policy, and I am relying on ] - if anyone complains, I will revert myself without challenge.

On a personal note, I really do try to give people the benefit of the doubt - I don't always get that right. I hope ] -- ] (] • she/her) 10:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
:Well, the alt accounts are out there now. And just as well since it smells like there's been ]. Probably this needs ]. ] (]) 10:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
:With emails, my view is that there's probably a reason the editor hasn't made the comments onwiki. For some reason or another, they want to have a conversation off-the-record or express something they would feel less comfortable doing onwiki, and while there's no policy obligation to respect that I still think it's good practice to do so.
:Regarding the accounts, my concern was pretty much just what I said at AE. A lot of CUs might've disclosed incidental findings off the bat, and I don't think that's good practice unless there's concern of misuse but it's common enough to be considered acceptable, but you didn't and I think you're a thoughtful functionary so I felt the need to express my concern. I think you handled the expressed concern very well, and I'm aware you were under no obligation to do it that way, so thanks. ] (]) 11:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

== ''The Signpost'': 28 December 2021 ==

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2021-12-28}} </div><!--Volume 17, Issue 11--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 21:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
<!-- Message sent by User:DannyS712@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1062392319 -->

== RFA 2021 Completed ==

<div style="border:2px solid #90C0FF; background:#eaffea; width:99%; padding:4px">
The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ] were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular {{noping|Primefac}}, {{noping|Lee Vilenski}}, and {{noping|Ymblanter}} for closing the most difficult conversations and for {{noping|TonyBallioni}} for closing the review of one of the closes.

The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:
#Revision of standard question 1 to {{tqq|Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?}} Special thanks to {{noping|xaosflux}} for help with implementation.
#A new process, ] (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of ] and ]. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
#Removal of ] from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to {{noping|Wugapodes}} and {{noping|Seddon}} for their help with implementation.

The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:
#An option for people to run for temporary adminship (<small>]</small>)
#An optional election process (<small>] and ]</small>)

Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at ] or an appropriate ].

'''A final and huge thanks''' all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.
<hr>
<small>This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.</small>
</div>
01:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Barkeep49@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/2021_review/Update_list&oldid=1058818075 -->


]'s task "Main Page snapshots" failed to run per the configuration specified at ]. 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. <small>If your bot is behaving as expected, then you may want to modify the ] instead. Or to unsubscribe from bot failure notifications, remove the {{para|notify}} parameter from the {{tlx|/task|nolink=y}} template.</small> Thanks! – '']'' (]) 12:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
== January 2022 ==


== ProcBot II: Update edit filter failure ==
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at ] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the ] may be of use.


]'s task "Update edit filter" failed to run per the configuration specified at ]. 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. <small>If your bot is behaving as expected, then you may want to modify the ] instead. Or to unsubscribe from bot failure notifications, remove the {{para|notify}} parameter from the {{tlx|/task|nolink=y}} template.</small> Thanks! – '']'' (]) 06:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbitration CA notice --> ] (]) 04:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 06:20, 5 January 2025

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives:

Request for global bot flag for CommonsDelinker

Hello!

This is a notification to let you know that a new request for the global bot flag for CommonsDelinker has been started.

Please note that the request will remain open for 14 days starting today. You can leave a comment or opinion on the relevant page!

Best regards --Superpes15 (talk)

Question at TFD about the COVID-19 edit notices

Hi ProcrastinatingReader, please see 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 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)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

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 Misplaced Pages 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: Move editnotices following underlying page move failure

ProcBot's task "Move editnotices following underlying page move" failed to run per the configuration specified at Misplaced Pages: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: Main Page snapshots failure

ProcBot's task "Main Page snapshots" failed to run per the configuration specified at Misplaced Pages: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)

ProcBot II: Update edit filter failure

ProcBot II's task "Update edit filter" failed to run per the configuration specified at Misplaced Pages: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)