User talk:Primefac

This is Primefac's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47Auto-archiving period: 15 days

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

Guideline and policy news

• Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

• Additionally, consensus for proposal 6C of the 2021 RfA review has led to the creation of an administrative action review process. The purpose of this process will be to review individual administrator actions and individual actions taken by users holding advanced permissions.

Arbitration

• Following the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Cabayi, Donald Albury, Enterprisey, Izno, Opabinia regalis, Worm That Turned, Wugapodes.

Miscellaneous

• The functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.

---

Just wondering, how do you handle these, and what criteria do you assess them by? I usually just check if they seem sound enough, let them have a trial and give a period for input (sometimes with a recommendation to post on a WikiProject talk). A recent one was Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Qwerfjkl (bot) 5 (although it's currently at CfD). I guess yours (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 37) was another. I'm just wary of approving a task that ends up making a couple thousand edits and then has to be reversed by a future CfD, especially when the category is created recently and the category creator makes a bot request to populate it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly can't say I've dealt with many of them, but in general I would say that maintenance category changes are good (PrimeBOT 2 and 37 come to mind) and article-related categorisation is likely to be context-dependent. A user making a cat and then wanting to populate thousands of pages is actually one of the reasons I will often decline AWB access requests, now that I think about it, and should be a red flag for pretty much any bot task. Just like CSDs, the bot operator should ideally not be the one asking for the task to be run (unless it really is an "I found a problem and it needs fixing" situation). Primefac (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey Primefac, just saw your edit to my page. I've emailed you as requested. Thanks, Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've noticed that a lot of the Malaysian political party shading templates are not used for shading but rather for colors like the standard set. Is this something your bot can replace and leave only the actual shading usages? Gonnym (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think there would be some context issues with just blindly going through the list, but if you can think of a good way to split them out into shading/colouring, then the latter would technically still fall under the TFD and could be replaced/deleted. Primefac (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. Looking at Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, maybe checking if the cell has only a color, so in a table having cells that are like this - |{{Party shading/Alliance Party (Malaysia)}} |? Gonnym (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your help on the track listing!Parrotlovers (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, always happy to be of service. Primefac (talk) 12:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can I clear my talk page ??? as the IP spamming on my talk page . Vexedsmug (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to do pretty much whatever you want to your talk page, per WP:OWNTALK. Primefac (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for posting and tagging admins. I did not knew the rules. Sockpuppetry query is already filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blogs19 and requested a global lock at meta based on all evidences. 2402:3A80:1C42:2225:807C:F8C:2DAD:7952 (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Vexedsmug (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	Cowboy hat
	Fit for "the fastest OS in the West" DanCherek (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! Thanks! Primefac (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I assumed that your edit to the indenting conflicted with my removal. If you'd like I can restore the section, but the user is already blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Likely an ec. No point in restoring, but thanks for checking. Primefac (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible? special:diff/1065272550. Courtesy ping to Xaosflux. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So "sorta" - AWB is just client software the uses the writeapi; the AWB source code is open source, so it is possible to fork it to remove the authentication check. It is also possible that someone logged in to AWB lost their session token while it was running - as I don't know if AWB checks for "am i logged in" on each edit or not. Notable, the "AWB" change tag is missing, as IP users are not able to add change tags to edits. Examining that edit with the abuse filter (Special:AbuseFilter/examine/1462471053) doesn't reveal much else, other than that it was not via a mobile interface. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks the same as Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Anon IP edits tagged AWB. Nardog (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this IP has been making edits like this for a while, so it is more likely a patched/forked AWB client, also their edits don't seem to match their summaries (example - that isn't "tidying" up). — xaosflux ^Talk 18:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AWB has added tags rather than "using AWB" in the summary for some time now, so I doubt the IP was using an AWB mod. (If so, why declare so and bring attention to yourself?) Nardog (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; per the other discussion (and I believe one in my archives as well) this is an IP simply copy/pasting an "AWB" summary - I highly doubt they're using the tool. Primefac (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now he's got someone else to be angry at. 1/2 :) I've been trying to communicate with him, so I haven't pulled the "your name needs to represent an individual"...Naraht (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Always happy to take the heat for someone who actually exists in real life :-) Primefac (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, I completely disagree with removal of the list of the founding members of a GLO. It is a key part of the history. Now whether founding such a GLO makes the people notable, is a completely different question.Naraht (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give an honest think about it, but most lists on Wikipedia require that the entrants in said lists be notable (at least so far as having Wikipedia articles). "Here are 20 random names" doesn't fit the bill to me, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. Primefac (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A list of Alumni sure. The people that a GLO treats as founders aren't random. Look at it this way, Alpha Phi Alpha went to FA with the list of founders as a referenced part of their history.Naraht (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Referenced and bluelinked (or at least, most of them), though. I do realise it's not technically "20 random dudes" but for the purposes of "can I find out more information about them" they pretty much are. Primefac (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Participating nations has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I should have just dropped a note here instead, but Twinkle is so temptingly easy and I'm just moving down the list in order, doing the same thing to a bunch of templates. Feel free to speedy it or otherwise do something intelligent with it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, you're not the first and probably not the last. Primefac (talk) 08:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Could you block this user? It is a new account of Mmoreno25. Before you blocked AldoOMartinez. Thanks. Pichu VI (talk) 10:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Genuinely out of curiosity, what sort of evidence is there that they are related? Primefac (talk) 10:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He was followed on Twitter, where he has registered under various names, and in (Redacted) he wrote to be a co-author of the article Pristimantis gretathunbergae. Other evidence is his erratic edits always requesting to reverse vandalism in Spanish pages here, here or here. Why does he do it in the English version if not because he is forbidden to edit in the former?. It's one of the tentacles of Mmoreno25 in Spanish Wikipedia. Pichu VI (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That works, and yes they are a sock, but I needed enough for a check. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Alpha Psi Lambda § Section blanking. — Marchjuly (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Primefac. Maybe you could clarify why you revdeleted content from this article. The conversation is starting to move in a nasty direction with all kinds of combative buzz-words and accusations already being thrown about. — Marchjuly (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As has been mentioned at the talk and ANI, there were copyright issues going back quite a ways, which is why it was RD'd. I'm pretty much headed out the door but I'll make an attempt to explain further at the various other locations when I get back. Primefac (talk) 09:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. My original post was made before things ended up at ANI. I think things have been fairly well explained there by the others who ended up commenting. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry with what I did to all of you in 2020. I disruptively edited talk pages, made toxic messages, continously wrote in caps lock, etc,etc.... I am sorry. Please forgive me, for I truly regret what I did.--The Space Enthusiast (talk) 03:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Water under the bridge, mate. I quite honestly can say that it was long enough ago that I don't even remember it. Primefac (talk) 09:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay but I usually think about the past and my past actions, which may be good or not.--The Space Enthusiast (talk) 09:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a plan for these? They are on the latest unused template report.

• {{See also Asian Beach Games}}
• {{See also Asian Games}}
• {{See also Commonwealth Games}}
• {{See also Deaflympics}}
• {{See also European Athletics Championships}}
• {{See also European Youth Olympic Festival}}
• {{See also Intercalated Games}}
• {{See also Mediterranean Games}}
• {{See also Pan American Games}}
• {{See also Paralympics}}
• {{See also Winter Paralympics}}

I remembered to ask first this time. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! They actually were in use until about six months ago when I revamped {{infobox country at games}} to not be so reliant on "other" templates. That being said, I don't think they're actually needed any more so I will do away with them! Primefac (talk) 08:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Primefac, I hope you are doing well. I have some mental disorders at the moment and the doctor advised me not to use electronic devices for than 1 hour a day. As an AfC reviewer and new page reviewer, I sometimes need to answer complex questions. The doctor advised me not to interfere with complicated things as it could cause further damage to my brain. Please revoke my access to NPR, and AfC unit i recover from this disorder. Regards. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, feel free to re-request when you're feeling up to it. Primefac (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prime, should the bot be substituting one template while leaving a second behind? -- ferret (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And an unrelated oddity: the bot has here substituted two consecutive uses of the template (each now in its own section), but it has left it signature in the second section twice, and not at all in the first one. – Uanfala (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the first question, yes, it should, but I forgot to increase the "how many times to run this regex" above one, so until about half an hour ago it was only running the check once.

To answer the unrelated oddity (somewhat touched on in the now-subsection below): I have no clue why that happened. If you look at the diff before that (at both Linguistic Typology and Mad Men) there was only one template. To make a wild-ass-guess, I think it was a server lag issue, because there is literally nothing in my code (which is a glorified "find/replace") that could add something as complex and complicated as a full-on, fully-formatted, wikiedu template (also note the timestamps are disjointed as well). I am hoping that I haven't discovered some sort of weird wormhole/tunnelling bug in AWB that allows me to move text from one article to another via a series of tubes, so when I get a chance I'll double-back on the related pages edited at the same time and see if the servers just happened to drag along some information. Primefac (talk) 08:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! Found one of them, Special:Diff/1066156221 somehow got copied into the Talk:Linuistic Typology edit. Definitely not a bot-related issue, but likely a server-side glitch. Honestly not really sure how to find (or fix) the issue, but honestly? I don't think anyone is even going to notice (or care) much past fixing the sig thing. Primefac (talk) 08:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there's a small possibility this glitch got copied on to about 800 pages.......... wtf. Primefac (talk) 08:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC) petscan[reply]

I guess as soon as the bot run completes I'll run through and remove all of those duplicates. At least they all have the same message. Primefac (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NOT A GLITCH. Well, a human-made glitch, but most definitely not my fault. SandyGeorgia, pinging you as a courtesy, as I was planning on handling the excess removal myself, but... any chance you want to do it? Primefac (talk) 10:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for unearthing the cause of that. What a funny situation, though. I'm wondering if similar stuff can be avoided by a mechanism that pauses any bot-run template substing the moment an edit is made to the template. – Uanfala (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the short answer to that is "no"; it's the primary reason we auto-protect any template with more than about 50 transclusions, because it's just too easy for someone to slip in vandalism and then have a bot subst or otherwise proliferate the vandalism, requiring a ton of cleanup. Primefac (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Two questions.

1. Shouldn't the bot be signing its work?
2. Shouldn't new threads go at the bottom of the talk page, not at the top?

It's not doing either one at Talk:Mad Men and at several other talk pages I monitor. I believe it should be doing both to conform to talk page guidelines. GA-RT-22 (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To both of those questions, I'll give a vague "yes and no". The bot is signing its work, as far as I can tell, and I know that because I've programmed in ~~~~ into the replacement options. If there is a page where it's not signing (at all), please let me know. Based on my regex logic, I'm honestly not sure why a double-use such as at Mad Men is causing the signatures to stack like that - it should put putting each signature right after each substed dashboard call. (there's something weird about this, see the thread above, I need to run but I'll be back on in an hour or so to hopefully figure it out)

As to "new threads at the bottom" - this template is years old, and often placed years ago. Unfortunately the template itself doesn't have any sort of indication of when it was added, as it was originally a banner, so I had the choice to a) substitute it as an unsigned section (which would then likely be auto-signed by Sinebot anyway) or b) add an artificial date from the bot. I chose the latter because I wanted the notice to eventually get archived (as this was one of the concerns in the TFD. Before the subst the dashboard note was listed at the top of the page (again, as a banner), so keeping it at the top isn't really "adding a new conversation" but more "signing an old unsigned conversation". It just happens to be that the timestamp doesn't match the placement. Primefac (talk) 07:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC) merged into the preceding section as the same topic[reply]

Thanks. 1: The first section wasn't signed, and my concern (like yours) was the archiving. But I see now what's going on. 2: I would still call it a new conversation, but I understand the technical issue and I guess that's the best we can do, so ok. GA-RT-22 (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]