User talk:xaosflux

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Comment: Valid from:	2023-04-03 12:44
Comment: Type:	4,096-bit RSA (secret key available)
Comment: Usage:	Signing, Encryption, Certifying User-IDs
Comment: Fingerprint:	34D49230690769512E0054832F0E92637366A6A9

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=Ike+
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

Hi. You may in fact not be aware of it, but mass messaging with the help of automated processes is expressly disallowed by an established guideline. I, for example, only mass inform users of RfC on highly important or sensitive issues that may broadly affect Wikipedia in general, and I do so in full observance of the rules. It's often a tedious task to do manually, but I see no reason why editors, particularly admins, should be encouraged to openly disregard an accepted convention. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to BU Rob13, I asked him to stop flooding recent changes with high speed assisted editing, MMS is much less impacting - as to the "content" of the message, I did not review it or comment on it, but BU Rob13 said he had already reviewed it against the canvassing guideline and I assumed good faith. His interpretation of that guideline to his activity may vary from other editors. Is there another specific guideline you are referring to? — xaosflux ^Talk 21:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has got me in hot water for having done the right thing again. I was severely reprimanded by Risker a while back for even manually messaging concerned users. I think it was on the early NPP RfC - which passed. Using (semi) automated mass message systems for RfC - whether the message is neutral or not - is expressly disallowed by the guideline - something I have been aware of for years and which is unambiguous in its wording.. I am now on the thin end of the wedge for having complained to BU Rob13 for his abuse of admin privilege: a) because as an admin he already has permission to use mass message bots, and b) for insisting that the guideline does not apply to him. This all rather disappoints me, especially as on more than one occasion, his behaviour has nearly caused me to retire. I don't think that those of us who toe the line and act like reasonable admins for years should have to suffer these indignities. Perhaps someone should start yet another RfC (::sigh::) to get a consensus for that guideline - either to change it, or to maintain the status quo. The saddest thing is that Rob is indeed an enthusiastic editor and new admin (whose RfA I supported), works hard and in good faith, and genuinely believes he's doing the right thing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - and it may be time to update that guideline (and it is just a "guideline") - the arbcom mention is over 10 years old and was not directly tied to a finding, just a principal. As far as "what need to be done now" - see my last line on BU Rob13's talk page - if you think this has impacted the RfC from being able to run properly that concern needs to be addressed before it goes much further. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: I've explicitly stated I will not make such notifications again. I'm quite confused how that's been interpreted as "insisting that the guideline does not apply to [me]"? I made these types of mass notifications on your request. There is no winning for me here. If I did not make the notifications, you would have accused me of attempting to sneak through a change, as you've loudly done before in similar situations. If I do make the notifications, you claim they're spamming due to the number of editors who commented at the most recent RfC. Obviously, I cannot cherry pick which editors to notify, because that would be a blatant violation of the letter and intent of WP:CANVASS. The list of editors I notified was the list of editors who had edited the previous RfC page in full. At this point, I've fulfilled WP:ADMINACCT, as I've explained my logic behind sending out the message in the first place and promised not to do so again. It's obvious that notifying the entire group of editors who've participated in a past related RfC does not place any influence on the ongoing RfC except to increase participation, so there aren't any outstanding issues there. I will be archiving the thread on my talk page. If you wish to pursue your apparent vendetta against me in other venues, WP:ANI and WP:ArbCom are that way. I've never had any interest in escalating your dislike of me into anything more than that, and I still don't. Your email today labeling your own actions harassment and egging me on to open an ArbCom case haven't changed that. Your email was the first time the "H" word has ever been used in our correspondence on- or off-wiki, and I hope this to be the last time. I'll forward on your off-wiki correspondence with me to the Arbitration Committee in case you decide to go that route, but I certainly hope you decide to work together productively instead. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xaosflux, I do not believe for a moment that the action has impacted the possible outcome of the RfC, nor have I at any time even hinted that it would or that it were not neutral. My concern is for the blatant disregard of another aspect of WP:CANVASS which I do not understand why recently promoted admins are allowed to ignore to their convenience, while others rigorusly abide by the somewhat ridiculous rules of Wikipedia whether we agree with them or not. I have never, ever, compromised my integrity as an admin by suggesting hat someone flagrantly break the rules by using any mass message systems to canvass for a RfC, and I defy Rob to scour my edits and provide a diff. Not for the first time has Rob misinterpreted what I say on Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, so:

1. The RfC is OK - it can continue on its way
2. There are a few active threads open on Wikipedia talk:Canvassing that may impact or reinforce the current guidelines - up to the community where this goes
3. BU Rob13's activity has stopped and he has said he will "not do it again"
4. I don't see Arbcom taking this occurrence up as a "admin action" issue - there is a lack of demonstrated "harm"
5. I've explained my own comments - it was only that MMS is preferable to unflagged highspeed manual editing, I assumed good faith that the canvass guideline issues were already taken care of
6. If there is outstanding "conduct" or "behavior" tension between the two of you - I hope you can both move past it - this is a big place and there is plenty of work for us all to do

— xaosflux ^Talk 03:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to better explain my actions per WP:ADMINACCT, I thoroughly reviewed WP:CANVASS to guarantee that my mass notification was allowed prior to bots being involved. I believe I made it very clear on my user talk page that I am not experienced with mass message sending and was uncomfortable using it. I was unaware of the one sentence about using a bot deep in WP:CANVASS, and even if I had been aware of it, I was unaware that mass message sending was even carried out by a bot. I've watched the new page reviewer newsletters #1 and 2 be sent out by Kudpung in the recent past, and they featured a call to action to !vote a particular way at the community wishlist. Based on those experiences, I had little reason to believe this was an issue, and I'm still not quite sure how that call-to-action using MMS is allowable while mine is "abuse of admin privilege".

I made a good-faith attempt to follow Kudpung's wishes, expressed at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right, where he stated "In my opinion this current RfC as originally proposed is flawed. Firstly, all those who supported and opposed the the previous two RfC have been denied the right to be properly informed of this new RfC. They must be informed, neutrally and individually of this RfC and there should be a watchlist notice. This should not be allowed to be a back-door overturn by a minor quorum of a major new policy that reached consensus on not one, but two consecutive RfC." He later went on to state that were I to launch more RfCs relating to substantial issues, "it stands to reason that everyone will be notified in order to have a fair representation by the people who previously turned out to support or oppose the previous RfCs". I erred in my method of following Kudpung's wishes. That error is mine, although I think it's a reasonable error to make given this whole history. Even an administrator is allowed to make an occasional error, so long as they respond to criticism appropriately and work to undo any damage caused. Here, no damage was caused at all, as all parties note that the end result is exactly what should have occurred. Still, in my first response to the criticism, I stated definitively that I will not make such notifications in the future. I also noted that I believe WP:IAR could have provided a policy basis for my action in hindsight, but it certainly was not my original intention to invoke IAR. I generally find it distasteful to intentionally make IAR actions when dealing with advanced permissions.

This all could have been handled with a lot more grace. Throwing around terms like "abuse of administrator privilege" is unhelpful when dealing with a simple mistake that caused no damage. Hopefully, this complete explanation puts this well to rest. I have absolutely no desire to have an internet slap-fight over trivial matters when both our time can be better spent improving the encyclopedia. As Xaosflux said, it's a big project. I remain interested in working together productively, as I hope I've made clear in my many comments on-wiki and our private correspondence, Kudpung. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for creating this.

I expect that sooner or later, there will be a legitimate request to hide a particular log entry from public view, probably for something like this. Without your work, it would've been relatively easy: The offending edit would just be revision-deleted or suppressed. If hiding specific log entries from public view without making the entire log private, then we are set. If not, consider working on making it so, and/or be prepared to hide this log's entries from public view should the need arise. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidwr: currently abuse-filter logs do not have a admin-only revdel type mode per-log entry (only for ALL logs from a filter), however individual log entries may be suppressed by an oversighter - so if you see one just file an oversight request. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It will be extremely rare that something MUST be hidden from non-admins without meeting the requirements for being WP:OVERSIGHTed. In fact, I can't think of any such situation off the top of my head. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that the original issue I raised with genfixes is getting lost under a tidal wave of discussion of Yobot. Do you think that it would be sensible to open a formal RfC or would it be better to wait till the Yobot issues are resolved, or at least settle down? SpinningSpark 19:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spinningspark it depends - if your concern is with only the one bot keep addressing it - if it is with genfixes for all bots (and possibly all editors?): can you summarize in one or two sentences what type of outcome you would like to see? — xaosflux ^Talk 19:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the reason I raised it at BAG was precisely because I thought this was more general than one bot, otherwise my block of the bot would have sufficed. My concern is that items that are added to genfixes have the effect of creating a crowd-sourced bot (as well as being used by actual bots) but there is no formal control of these contents. The outcome I would like to see is BAG take on that formal control, or, failing that, that community approval is sought for some form of control. SpinningSpark 20:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There a few venues:

1. If you want an approvals process for AWB genfixes: I think the place for this is WT:AWB. I don't see BAG being charge of the genfix lists, as it is used by non-bots as well. - May need to be an RfC.
2. If you don't want bots using genfixes at all anymore - start a thread at WP:BOWN, will need to be an RfC. If it passes, BAG would need to coordinate informing existing AWB bot's to stop using this, and would honor the community result for future requests.

@Spinningspark: is there something I'm missing? — xaosflux ^Talk 20:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really want to stop bots using genfixes. I would very much see that as the nuclear option. I'm not convinced that the folks over at AWB have the necessary skill set for this. It needs people looking at it from a community point of view rather than developer and bot operator point of view. Do you know of some similar process they are running that could be modified? At the moment it is anarchy.[1][2][3] I know AWB is used by non-bots, but that was kind of partially my point. Editors are not likely to question the fixes they are being offered (bots do it, so it must be ok, I heard one user say!). They will assume they have approval and just mechanically accept them. As I said, that amounts to a crowd-sourced bot which is what puts it in scope of BAG. SpinningSpark 21:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should start a thread at WT:AWB and advertise is elsewhere. BAG does not have very many active editors, so may not have the manpower to take care of this. Ideally, for enwiki use the software maintainers would ensure that their updates have consensus. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, understood, but it is still problematic to approve a bot to do something that is liable to change. It would be possible to approve for a specific version of genfixes. It could be made clear to operators that subsequent changes to genfixes invalidate the bot approval if anyone raises an objection with them over those subsequent changes. What do you think? Also, it is certainly within the ambit of BAG to ask operators seeking to perform generalfixes to point to a discussion, especially for changes to genfixes since the last approval. SpinningSpark 11:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That may be possible, but will require: an AWB genfix versioning, release, and review system - as well as a mechanism to tell the AWB software which genfix version to run. Please discuss these changes at WT:AWB. I'm not sure what type of genfixes you think would be OK for bots, but not for human editors in this system? Perhaps bots could run "approve version" n-1? — xaosflux ^Talk 21:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more of something that could be implemented without imposing anything at AWB (I will eventually raise something at AWB, but not yet, and it is unclear what they would be willing to do). What I had in mind was taking a snapshot diff of the genfixes page at the time of bot approval. That serves as version control for the bot. The bot then happily runs until someone raises an issue. If, and only if, the issue concerns something that has changed in genfixes since the bots approval then the bot is obliged to stop and seek new approval. I don't necessarily distinguish here between OK for bots and humans. As I said to you earlier, I kind of consider the human operators to be a crowd-sourced bot as far as genfixes are concerned, but I appreciate you are not going to take that one on board. SpinningSpark 22:34, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AWB does not currently support genfix version snapshots - the AWB developers would need to be willing to introduce this from a technical aspect - all of that is a software issue and absolutely needs to be dealt with from the AWB side. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly I have got this entirely wrong, but doesn't genfixes consist of this page of regex fixes and this page of template redirects? All of that is on-wiki and editable here (and only protected to autoconfirmed level!). Those can be snapshotted with a diff. Anything hardcoded in is captured in AWB's own version cntrol. SpinningSpark 10:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever used AWB? The only client option is "Apply general fixes" (ON/OFF). If you want some accounts (e.g. bot accounts) to use one set of genfixes, but human editors to use another - there would need to be somewhere to specify which one to use in the software. Typo fixing (ON/OFF) is a separate client option (that bots should not be using at all). I just pointed AWB at some new articles (didn't save) and with genfixes on it wanted to do things like remove trailing whitespace, add birth categories. I'm not sure of everything genfixes may include (I do not use it on my bot). — xaosflux ^Talk 12:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have much experience with AWB for general editing. I mostly use it to generate lists. My intention was not to have bots work from a different set of fixes, but rather to have the bot stop and investigate if it is brought to the operator's attention that something potentially controversial had been added to genfixes post approval. I'm going to drop this now, it is clearly not going to fly with you. SpinningSpark 12:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think some of your ideas are good - I just don't have all the right information answer each point, if you resume this at WT:AWB please ping me in. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for getting back to me. I had already gone through the approved runs of Eubot's redirects and did not find any approving this, not only in the wording but in the dates that it was run (December 2008).

From a previous Eubot run, I forget which and excuse me for paraphrasing, but the intent was to "Create redirects to prevent accidental creation of duplicate articles". That is as near as I can remember the wording off the top of my head. Now, to me that is a bit kinda weird anyway, because we WP:SALT articles after ther's a problem, not pre-emptively (I am not an admin, I do not want to be, I am just an editor, that's fine with me).

What I would kinda like is a definitive statement from an admin that "Nope, this never got approved, nor even discussion". The thing is, everything I'm whacking into WP:RFD is "Delete". Of course it is, but actually about 90% of Eubot's redirects were sensible (even though nowaday not useful with improvements to the search engine, but that's a battle for another day, they're harmless but not useful.) The 10% are mostly where Eubot created redirects from redirects, in bizarre ways. It has managed, which I listed tonight, to create an {{R from title without diacritics}} from a {{R from title with diacritics}} to a target which, mirabile dictu, has no diacritics. That kind of nonsense we can do without. Backwards run my sentences now until reels my mind. Si Trew (talk) 23:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These go far back in to wiki-history, creating a redirect was once the preferred method of salting a page, then there was a cludgy method using embedding an empty page to a cascading page (individual admins had these too e.g. User:Xaosflux/JUPE). — xaosflux ^Talk 00:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is it you want to achieve? (e.g. an X3 CSD?) — xaosflux ^Talk 00:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you did half the page editing that needed to be done to close the Ivanvector RfA. Thanks for the help! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had them all open - but you beat me to the most important one :D — xaosflux ^Talk 00:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it was something like that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xaosflux, I mentioned you in the arbitration case request (don't worry it's not about you :P), hoping that you might be able to provide some input (I think it was you) paraphrased you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, replied there - will watch for pings. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a summary of the current problem and the solutions I tried seeking for advice: I am willing to give away all tasks that are related to talk pages. Still the only real problem is that Yobot runs unconditionally with CHECKWIKI errors (task 16). All other tasks have very tight skip conditions. Task 16 goes off hand everytime there are changes in CHECKWIKI's code. For error number have been been repurposed. One idea is that I abandon completely task 16 apart from 2-3 errors I have skip conditions. I tried to find other bot operators willing to take over the tasks but this is not easy. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magioladitis if it is not working the way you want in certain namespaces, suspend it. I don't think it will impact readers to be suspended, or any significant wikiprocesses? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of being very alphabet soup-y, how does the BAG feel about non-BAG BRFA involvement? Is it helpful to you? I likely can never be a BAG member, because I lack technical skills outside of AWB regex, but I'd be happy to occasionally help with patrolling if that saves you time. For instance, I could read through the discussions leading to the bot and note whether consensus appears sufficient or not, endorse/oppose a trial/approval, etc. I'm just not sure if that's actually helpful or whether you'd have to do the same stuff you already do before making a decision. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All editors are welcome to comment on BRFA's. The format doesn't lead to "NAC" type closures. One area I think is most useful would be in reviewing the "linked discussions" and comments related to if the community consensus that the task "should be done" exists. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Cold War. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Xaosflux,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 06:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 17, 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes.

You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis/Workshop.

For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

If you no longer wish to receive case notifications for this case you can remove yourself from the notifications list here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 22:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a peak at my nascent scratch pad of AE/DS reform ideas. It's intended to be a constructive effort, not a bitch session. Can you offer any suggestions or pointers to other venues I should maybe check out? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox country at games. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Catholic lay societies, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ANI#BrownHairedGirl and categories; this is in respect to the recreation of the categories you mass-deleted because of the WP:AN#Bulk delete request, round 1 thread. Nyttend (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: thank you for the note, I made a statement at the case request. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. Nyttend (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, strange problem. I'm trying to add some additional content to this page and it says "Invalid Content" but the content is fine. The page is suspiciously close to 5k in size, do you think there is a page size limit? Trying to add

"{{Website}},

"{{Internet}}

..to the end of the "ignore_tags" record. I made other edits a few minutes earlier no problem, and backed those out and was able to add back in, but can't get past 5k. -- GreenC 04:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Green Cardamom  Done from above, you are missing closing "'s. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI they can be much larger, see MediaWiki:Gadget-Twinkle.js for example. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, time to call it a night :) thanks. -- GreenC 05:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

23:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
109		Gender neutrality in genderless languages (talk)	Add sources
402		Royal Jordanian (talk)	Add sources
9,326		Teen Wolf (2011 TV series) (talk)	Add sources
76		Zuzana Růžičková (talk)	Add sources
890		Airbus A310 (talk)	Add sources
16		LNER Thompson Class A2/1 (talk)	Add sources
546		Professional certification (talk)	Cleanup
377		Jet airliner (talk)	Cleanup
219		Energy efficiency in transportation (talk)	Cleanup
6		Holy Rosary College (talk)	Expand
47		Deckchair (talk)	Expand
8		Flag of the Balearic Islands (talk)	Expand
25		Industrial shredder (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
1,534		Iraqi Kurdistan (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
747		Low-cost carrier (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
33		Gender roles in childhood (talk)	Merge
31		Web community (talk)	Merge
275		Comparison of wiki software (talk)	Merge
35		One-way travel (talk)	Wikify
99		National Basketball Association criticisms and controversies (talk)	Wikify
145		National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (talk)	Wikify
10		Peer-to-peer transaction (talk)	Orphan
5		Uday Ali Pabrai (talk)	Orphan
3		Defunct North American collegiate sororities (talk)	Orphan
13		Traverse City State Park (talk)	Stub
13		Administrator of Tristan da Cunha (talk)	Stub
17		Swapnam (talk)	Stub
626		HP Inc. (talk)	Stub
17		Only That Real (talk)	Stub
158		Value Alliance (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xaosflux, you and Kudpung had assisted me in placing links to the page curation and special new pages feed scripts on the above pages. I had a suggestion. Instead of giving the direct link to the script, I would recommend that the links be changed to the script documentation pages, which are better in explaining how to install the script, than the script page itself. In others words:

1. In MediaWiki:Pagetriage-welcome, the line "[[User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js|Use the Page Curation script]]." may be changed to "[[User:Lourdes/PageCuration|Use the Page Curation script]]."
2. In MediaWiki:Newpages-summary, the line "An alternative [[User:Lourdes/SpecialNewPages.js|script]] is available for the same." may be changed to "An alternative [[User:Lourdes/SpecialNewPages|script]] is available for the same."

Thanks and cheers. Lourdes 08:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lourdes I think that is fine - would you leave these as edit requests on those associated talk pages in case anyone else wants to comment? Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 12:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Will do that. Thanks. Lourdes 14:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Xaosflux, I don't think anyone has replied on those two talk pages till now. Thanks. Lourdes 07:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdes I added the edit request templates to attract attention (via a report and a category) if they go uncontested for a few days I'll do them if someone else doesn't do it first. (Several admins patrol Category:Wikipedia fully-protected edit requests and keep it low). — xaosflux ^Talk 15:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Lourdes 17:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that Jo-Jo Eumerus has done the requested change. Thanks, ciao Lourdes 18:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xaosflux. I would like to ask for your opinion. I'm planning to propose the creation of an interface-editor right, and I've drafted an RfC at User:Fastily/IE Sandbox. Could you review, give me some feedback, and/or comment on the feasibility of said proposal? Thanks in advance, FASTILY 01:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastily: see User talk:Fastily/IE Sandbox. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is fantastic! :D I'll definitely incorporate these suggestions into the proposal. Thanks! -FASTILY 06:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:New York Daily News. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi kan you add in the awards section the list of winners during the Miss Universe Mindanao tapestry? Phoenix Best Smile - Indonesia, Pearl of Phoenix - Philippines & Miss Phoenix Petroleum - Venezuela. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ph awesome (talk • contribs) 14:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I activated an edit request here: Talk:Miss_Universe_2016#Awards, someone will attend to it soon. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Xaosflux, thought I'd consult you first on this issue.

User space has been noindexed (that's to say, not findable by internet search engines) by default since November 2015.

However, it is still possible to override this by using the magic word or its templated equivalent on a user page. Category:Indexed pages shows nearly 1,000 cases where this has been done. Just looking at the 13 cases listed under K, we find three formatted as articles (Krupa Vara Prasad, Ktv ch, and James 1997/sandbox (sorted to "Koibana Onsen")). There are two pages of javascript to do with WikEd International, that seem to relate to Cacycle; these pages may or may not have a reason to be indexed. The others I would classify as typical unproblematic userpages: one belongs to an arb (Ks0stm) and two others to established users (Kiore and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga) who might want to comment.

New page patrol does have a queue for user pages (Special:NewPagesFeed) which may prevent indexing while unreviewed, as it does for mainspace. In practice though the majority of user pages seem to be going without review and dropping off the back of the queue at the 30-day mark.

Question: should the magic word be disabled in userspace? or are there reasons to continue to allow users, intentionally or not, to have their user pages or draft articles indexed by search engines?: Noyster (talk), 14:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Noyster: to be intentionally, manually tagged for indexing: I think we should continue to allow this in general. Some people host user scripts, user essays, even their own user page that may want to be found by people on other wiki projects. Now: if someone is using their userspace as an inapproriate webhost (possibly even more easily identified because of manual index tags), MFD or CSD can be swiftly applied. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Noyster: Thank you for the invitation to the discussion. I agree with Xaosflux that user pages "intentionally, manually tagged for indexing" should be indexed. Unfortunately I can no longer remember why I chose to add the {{INDEX}} to my user page which I did in an isolated edit on 26 December 2015. This does raise an interesting question: Should there be a mechanism so user pages that are to be indexed need to have that periodically reaffirmed? Kiore (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiore: may have been around then when the default index status for User: namespace was changed from index to noindex - maybe you noticed you disappeared from search results. I think that's why I did it - because a search for something like "xaosflux wiki" was turning up results for the piles of other language user pages I have, but not my "primary" one here on enwiki. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider this a legitimate thing for users to want to do then I'm OK with that. It does mean we have to be vigilant for people bypassing the new page patrol apparatus to get their publicity on Google this way: Noyster (talk), 10:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sesshō and Kampaku. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I see you working endlessly on so many places, and thought that some positive confirmation wont hurt. Thanks for all you do for fellow Wikipedians and for the community! Dan Koehl (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi how can I make make a common pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarzan bond (talk • contribs) 06:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you are asking, I left a banner on your talk page with links to a lot of information. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

18:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Xaosflux, please can you remove my template editor permission, for the time being, as per your post earlier in the month. I haven't had the time to continue testing the changes I am making prior, so won't be committing to anything in the near future. Thanks. Nördic Nightfury 14:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done If you need it back in the future just drop on over to WP:PERM. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks Nördic Nightfury 14:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually check the cases where I unblocked Yobot? -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Magioladitis I did not investigate this thoroughly, thus didn't write up a proposal - only commented on another. I amended that comment now to make it conditional that there is actually a finding. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. See for example that the first unblock was after contact with the blocking admin User_talk:Magioladitis/Archive_2#Yobot. (Compare the times + see how fast I responded to an error that was not even related to the "cosmetic" problem) I read a lot around but very few evidence that makes me sad. It it also weird for me that I am accussed for something and it s not the accuser who has to prove their allegations but me to dig and prove my "innocence"(?) -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also that the second block was mainly that the blocking admin makes an alternative suggestion User_talk:Magioladitis/Archive_5#Empty_sections_and_See_also_.2F_Further_reading related to the task of tagging empty sections. See that the unblock was in cooperation with the blocking admin, unrelated to "cosmetic" changes and focused in a single task. The third unblock discussion: User_talk:Yobot/Archive_2#Taxobox_.28and_other_infoboxes.29_breaking reveals that the error was fixed 1 day before the block and that I contacted the blocking admin before the unblock. The fourth blockk is also unrelated -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was really thining that comment to be an "if" the whole time, just didn't turn it in to words, basically: I don't think you should be de-sysoped but you should probably stay away from the unblock button on yourself going forward and trust if that was explicitly required you would be able to honor it. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While the current policy does not disallow it, I wrote that I gree with that. But I think we should not stay to that and really evaluate if my unblocks evade something and also investigate how is this related to my edits or my bot editing. I think they are unrelated still they are used to create chaos and increase discomfort against me. So we have a pattern of increasing complains based on a series of unrelated events. It' clear to me that none really wants to investigate deeper and till now all statements rely on the "where there's smoke..." scenario. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You really have to take some time to check the unblocks before you judge me actions in a span of 10 years. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at the workshop. I really don't want to hash this out here. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. It can't be a common occurrence for the same person to thank you and to use rollback on you for the same edit :-) I envisioned this situation when "Thanks" was new, but for the opposite situation: I requested a confirmation dialogue so that it would be harder to thank vandals. Nyttend (talk) 05:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I saw the "you were reverted" box and was wondering what was going on :D — xaosflux ^Talk 05:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Xaosflux,

A HUGE backlog

We now have 804 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BAG News February 2017

Greetings Bot Approvals Group member! Welcome to our newest member, MusikAnimal. We currently have 25 open bot requests at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, and could use your help processing! 2017 has been busy, with 37 closed BRFA's so far this year. If you have not already, you may want to consider adding Wikipedia:BAG/Status to your watchlist, it is a bot generated list of all in progress requests. There are multiple discussions ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Bot policy regarding updates to portions of the bot policy. Please be sure to follow for any policy changes upcoming. For general BAG discussion, please stop by Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group. Thank you! 17:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC) (You can unsubscribe from future BAG Spam by removing your name from this list.)

Unlike AfC, the GOCE, or MilHist projects, for example, New Page Review is a function and one that is established by policy. As an admin I am not aware that I need special permission or a consensus to make this kind of watchlist notice. Please do the community the correct service and revert your revert. And rather quickly please otherwise the New Page Patrol system is going to wallow in future in the typical apathy and anarchy Wikipedia is headed for, and I will personally regret the thousands, (yes thousands) of hours I have spent on it. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are obviously at a disagreement to this, as I mentioned at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details prior to you making an administrative edit to the notice without discussing. Will leave this for an uninvolved administrator to deal with now. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: I tagged that talk for edit request to attract patrolling admins. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Xaosflux. You previously helped with this in Katie's abscence. Please could you re-block, and if possible, for longer? The evidence is here. First IP after the last 10-day block expired was reported and blocked. The third IP was back today, and as you can see from their contribution history, making less than helpful edits. Any questions, please ping me or drop a note on my talkpage. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts 180.234.0.0/16 has been blocked for a month this time. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 07:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - please put article in the sandbox. Arigo (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, on 4 February I noticed this and today (8 February) I noticed this, is it a coincidence? Do you edit from a mobile device? Sorry I'm just curious.. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 18:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vejvančický I found where mine came from, some of the examples on other projects for using the Special:ApiSandbox have a manual link to enwiki Talk:Main page, I've been changing them to the sandbox page when I find them. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a warning edit filter, hopefully will put a stop to this. See Filter 838 log for any hits. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vejvančický: looks like it's working stopped one already Log838. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you, I noticed the IP attempt yesterday. To me, it's still a bit puzzling but I'm not a technical person so it probably doesn't matter :) --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 05:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of sovereign states. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks. @References - do they have to be translated as well? @Weblinks - why does my Wikipedia username show up as .../with my name. How to get rid of it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arigo (talk • contribs) 14:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Arigo: User:Arigo/Harald Sicheritz is a subpage of your otherwise not created userpage User:Arigo. For references, the actual name of references should not be translated, but the meta data about them (such as access date, publication date) should be. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

18:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
167		Flag of Bosnia and Herzegovina (talk)	Add sources
67		Ikurriña (talk)	Add sources
6		NER Class S (talk)	Add sources
162		Licentiate (degree) (talk)	Add sources
64		Up tack (talk)	Add sources
69		Sigma Octantis (talk)	Add sources
69		Oklahoma Christian University (talk)	Cleanup
1,697		Magic (paranormal) (talk)	Cleanup
68		Nexopia (talk)	Cleanup
825		Universal Life Church (talk)	Expand
18		Jean-Patrick Capdevielle (talk)	Expand
2,826		Tesla, Inc. (talk)	Expand
481		E-commerce payment system (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
520		Bill Kaulitz (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
432		Social construction of gender (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
325		Independent voter (talk)	Merge
45		Ogone (talk)	Merge
462		Third-person pronoun (talk)	Merge
30		Androdioecy (talk)	Wikify
267		Rock-climbing equipment (talk)	Wikify
34		Staff function (talk)	Wikify
8		United Nations General Assembly Resolution 66/225 (talk)	Orphan
4		Newspapers Canada (talk)	Orphan
32		D'academy Asia 2 (talk)	Orphan
8		Flag of Herm (talk)	Stub
20		Civil Danger Warning (talk)	Stub
12		The Best Coin Fold (talk)	Stub
58		Matheus Biteco (talk)	Stub
10		Flag of Alderney (talk)	Stub
8		Megh Singh (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Basketball Comebacks. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Re this, it's a perfect job for a bot. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that, but we did want to let them opt-out and the changes happen so rarely. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If wanted, I could write a bot to maintain WP:ADMINMMS, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter list, and similar MMS lists, adding/removing from rights changes, which would allow users opt-out. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NPR list may have a lot more activity - however I'm not sure if having patrol rights is a requirement for being on that list or not? — xaosflux ^Talk 13:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that it is a requirement. In any case, I wasn't planning on having the bot remove those without patroller. It would go through the log and add those granted patroller and remove those that had patroller removed. The admin list could have the requirement of must have sysop. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since that list has no requirements, no longer being in that group may not be sufficient to remove someone - is that the currently established practice? — xaosflux ^Talk 12:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having gone through the logs back to the creation of the list, only one user (excluding +sysop) has not been removed after patroller was removed. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May want to ask the folks over at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers what they want done with that. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone is free to add themselves to the New Page Review message list or remove themselves from it. Blocked and banned users are generally removed as well as users who have their rights revoked. It's generally considered to be one of the tasks for the NPR coordinators. But that's up to them. I don't see a need for a bot to automatically administer the list. It's already added to automatically when an admin creates a new rights holder using the user rights management tool. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kudpung - hope that clears things up - doesn't look like we need a bot to do any of this right now. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Dweller, we have enough paperwork already. Let's have the bot do this simple task. –xeno^talk 23:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  JJMC89 if you want to run with it, you know where BRFA is :D I'm sure Xeno will volunteer to get desysoped to try it out . — xaosflux ^Talk 23:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Xaosflux,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 804 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of sport utility vehicles. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you could please kindly take a little time from your busy schedule and visit my new article Reverend King Ezeugo

I would really be grateful if you can give me some insight, e.g if you think it's lacking in some areas, If you think I should include more inline stations, if you think I should add more content in some categories etc It would really really be appreciated, but perhaps you are way too busy and cannot assist at the moment. I equally understand.

Thank you. Celestina007 (talk) 12:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (talk page watcher) @Celestina007: It's rather good. Very intersting. But I suggest it will need some tightening, perhaps a little re-writing in the main section; and mainly sourcing every sentence of that section which will need such to avoid any hint of WP:BLPVIO- as there are some pretty strong claims being made! And yes, cats, formatting, etc, but that can be left until last. It's the floridity that needs addressing primarilly  :) have a great day! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 12:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]