A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
  Hillelfrei talk 15:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Ordinary peopleEdit

Hi, thank you for your message. You are kind because on the Slovak Wikipedia this adjustment would have been deleted a long time ago, even if it is justified - only because of the sources. I want to ask if the source can also be articles in Slovak, I have seen them on other en Wiki pages, but I'm not sure if it's right. Well thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Hey. Yes, sources written in Slovak (and other non-English sources) are fine (per WP:NOENG). ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

New nameEdit

I just wanted to say thanks for changing your name. I see you a lot in my watchlist and truthfully, the spelling of the old name kinda bugged me.   Schazjmd (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very muchEdit

Thanks for dealing with User: at AIV. I was actually just about to edit their name in, and I saw yours there, and I thought to myself, "Thank you so much." Cheers. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Warning templatesEdit

Hi Proc, re the conversation we had off-wiki last night about warning templates, I thought you may be interested in [talk discussion I've opened]. It may be one that sits better at village pump, but will wait to see what input is given. Cheers, Darren-M talk 11:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Darren-M, ahh, thanks for starting that discussion. Will add my 2c at some point today (mostly just a shorter version of my thoughts on IRC yesterday). Would be nice to get some consensus to at least add some hints towards the better pages, for newcomers. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Your commentEdit

I don't know why you removed it, but it was an excellent summary of the position Arbcom are in these cases. Thanks! ——Serial # 14:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Beginner versionEdit

Going off of your idea here, I've created Template:Beginner version. How does it look? The visual design could probably be improved, and there are some questions to be answered about implementation (e.g. where should it be placed relative to other templates?). Some editors might have concerns about the general idea of it, given the reception I got here. But hopefully it'll be possible to work through all that if we're patient. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 05:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, was glad to see you started work on a similar concept a few weeks ago. I'm a fan for the most part. I definitely agree with the background not being gray/white/whatever, or yellow like talk - it shouldn't blend in with all the other notices we spam around. Green is nice to grab attention. Regarding the specifics of the message, as a user "new here?" makes me sometimes feel pressured to read both. I'd suggest considering an explicit reason as to why we're giving an alternate link, perhaps "Too long?" instead -- but this is a bit of a small point and probably deserves some more thought. It'd be nice if we could do A/B testing with Wiki to see which has a better follow-through.
I think the banner blindness concerns on the other page aren't reasonable. That phenomenon certainly exists, and is especially relevant when you're showing not-so-necessary info to people. To a new user who is met with a big scary page, I think one single banner to stand out which points them to a less scary page is certainly a good use of a banner. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I tried "Overwhelmed?" Does that work better? Courtesy pinging Darren-M in case you have thoughts as well. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 05:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb, perhaps, but I wonder if it's a word that's difficult for some non-English readers to understand. Since we're writing something for beginners, I want to try write for various audiences, even some which may not have English as their first language and might not know the word. Perhaps your original wording of "New here?" was fine, on second thought. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb, Sorry, I could have sworn I replied to this yesterday to express the same thoughts about 'overwhelmed' as Proc has. I was thinking either 'Just need a quick summary?' or even just 'A simpler version of this page is available at...' Cheers, Darren-M talk 11:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Shimon MarylesEdit

Thanks, You'r right about the source problem, but its not a 'living person', he died 200 years ago.

Thanks! Didn't notice that. Changed the tag to a generic "needs more citations" ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


I haven't revdel'd the revision here as it doesn't look like a blatant copyright violation as required by WP:CRD; all the quotes were sourced and by the look of it back to the original sources the museum used. I think a word with the user who added it to suggest that they cut down on the amount of direct quotation they use would be useful.

Thanks and please keep up the good work in spotting copyvios. Nthep (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Nthep, thanks for letting me know :). There are some ambiguous cases where I'm not entirely sure where to tag and where not to, in the closest ones (in my view, where I'm unsure) I figure erring on the side of tagging and letting a copyvio-experienced admin deal with it is more appropriate, just in case. Truly appreciate your feedback so I can be more clear in my mind about the cases I'm less sure of, and close that uncertainty gap. On this particular page, my reasoning was that the text was pasted exactly from the mun.ca, not all of which were quotes, and that publication was licensed under CC-BY-NC (allowing non-commercial reuse, but requiring attribution, which doesn't appear to be given). Additionally, are NC licenses compatible with Wikipedia? I'm aware plagiarism isn't necessarily copyvio, where content is duly licensed for other use, but my understanding was that non-commercial licenses aren't compatible, and hence a copyvio?
Is usage of the content definitely acceptable here? The quotes may be fair play, sure, but some of the text is blatantly copied from mun.ca and not actually present in the source, and I believe was written by mun.ca themselves. e.g. Lych-gates mark the division between consecrated and unconsecrated ground. It was here, in this liminal space, that funeral-bearers stopped with their load. In some parts of Devon and Cornwall, the gates were known as “trim-trams” - a term which, it has been suggested, refers to a spot where the funeral train (tram) was “trimmed” or brought into the proper order “so as to be in a state of preparation for the officiating minister, on his coming forth to meet them there.” The book itself only contains the final, short quote part of this statement, regarding "state of preparation". The rest is written by mun.ca, perhaps based on content in the book, but it's certainly in their own words (none of it appears to be present in the book, e.g. "liminal space" has no results). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Always best to tag and get the second opinion. NC-licences aren't compatible but again in this case it wasn't blatant as the user, now I look, appears to work for the museum. A gentle word about WP licencing policies and the need to avoid copy/paste even content released under a CC-NC licence is needed. Nthep (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

your opinion please...Edit

Thanks for taking my question at WP:ANI seriously.

I think you have figured out the identity of the controversial individual.

On June 22nd, NBC published a long and interesting article by Asian-American journalist Kimmy Yan, that includes the phrase "...a history of Asian women being judged for whom they marry", that covers this individual, in detail.

If you google it, and read it, I'd welcome your opinion on whether you thought it was appropriate to use this reference in other articles on the wikipedia. Geo Swan (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Killing_of_Rayshard_Brooks#Reversion to Investigation and Charges July 05 2020Edit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Killing_of_Rayshard_Brooks#Reversion to Investigation and Charges July 05 2020. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Closed discussion on talk:Kiev#ClarificationEdit

Hi. Sorry to bother you, but I was involved in the discussion and didn’t want to intervene in administrative procedures. There was some back-and-forth messing with the closed block, which began with these two edits:[1][2], and the result still stands.

Afterwards, there were some editors’ comments removed by others involved in the discussions, so if you wanted to look at that too . . . Thanks. Michael Z. 18:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Mzajac, Thanks for the note. I did see those edits. That comment was made ~1 minute after I closed the discussion, so I err on the side of honest mistake (edit conflict) and let it be at this point, though they probably should've removed their comment after realising rather than move it above the {{hab}}. Subsequent comments to add to the closed discussion were reverted by other editors. I don't think it's worth starting a war over which is the comment to last stand at this point. Seems like people are mostly happy with the closure and letting it be, so I don't think it's worth poking the bear.
It doesn't make too much of a difference anyway. Extended discussions on the RM at this stage aren't going to affect whatever the final outcome is, and there should be adequate opportunity for further discussion when the case goes to ArbCom. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Michael Z. 19:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


Just a thought for the future, if you're going to nominate something for copyright violations, it makes no sense to then remove that copyvio and leave nothing. If there's content worth saving, remove the CV and add a {{revdel}} request. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, thanks for the tip! I was slightly mistaken re the guidelines at WP:CPI. I usually do revdels, not G12s, since there's usually salvageable content, so I was less familiar with the G12 process. In the page you're referring to I didn't think there was salvageable content, so I requested G12 then blanked the page with {{copyvio}}, assuming it was better not to leave copyrighted content live for a day (or a couple). Reading over CPI, I see this is mistaken, and the page shouldn't be blanked for G12, so I appreciate the pointer :) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

BLPN McCannEdit

Hey, ProcrastinatingReader. I think it's fair to say that your latest reply to LA at BLPN is a bit verbose. You kind of state your whole case again, bringing multiple arguments that you've already given before and that LA hasn't really addressed. For conciseness, that is best left out - it's not like you'll change their mind that way. If you must, take only your very best argument and simply ask them for a response to that one argument.

Also, while I kind of get where you're coming from, bringing your opponent's behaviour into a content discussion does not lead to anything good. While you say that you AGF, I question if you're trying to be honest here does sort of imply bad faith on their part, and about edit warring I'll note that they've not reinstated the suspect's name after I removed it yesterday, see Special:history/Disappearance of Madeleine McCann: in fact, they've further removed it.

I hope this advice is maybe somewhat helpful to you. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 02:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

PJvanMill, agree that it's rather verbose, I had the same feeling yesterday, but at this point I cannot collapse the threads due to being involved, unless the other editor would agree to it as well. FWIW, I agree to collapsing for readability. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Shalom ReimerEdit

Hi there. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shalom Reimer, you told the now-defunct sock Wiki2008Time "Feel free to find reliable sources that give her significant coverage and we can happily satisfy policies and keep it". I have since found sources and was wondering if you felt like returning to this AfD to take a look at such sources and to see if you still feel confindant in your delete !vote.

Best, Samsmachado (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Samsmachado, sure, I'll take another look. Appreciate the notification. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Trump v. VanceEdit

Hi. You removed content which i added at Trump v. Vance with the words "rm excessive quotations and further refbombing". I added this content in response to an earlier content edit which was removed with the words "far too early to call it landmark, and one source is not sufficient". Two questions in this context: 1. What is refbombing? 2. What is the appropriate number of sources for the status landmark court decision? --P3Y229 (talkcontribs) 00:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi P3Y229. See WP:TOOMANYREFS. You added 6 or so sources, some of them not-so-good like opinion pieces or MSN, with very long quotes. I think the point that Masem was making, which is what I kinda felt too, was that it's too early to call it landmark, at least based on typical media, due to recentism and typical media sensationalisation. Typically, SCOTUS articles about landmark cases will use zero, or perhaps one, citation(s) for the landmark label, but these tend to be historical cases which have the advantage of not suffering from recentism, and are typically generally accepted as being landmark.
I've let the label stick with those two sources, which aren't bad. No more than that is required in this context, and any more isn't going to help the label remaining. Of course, other editors are free to remove it. I think it could reasonably be a landmark case. I'm not too familiar with what would be the best sources for the label, so asking someone at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases might be appropriate for that. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I tend to agree that it is a tad too early to try to read for the landmark label given the general state of the media and Trump (And also given the result of Mazars which was far less than a win compared to this). It is not like the last two major "landmark" labels that fundamentally change key practices in the US (employment discrimination related to LGBTQ, and state funding for private schools also going to religious ones). They are saying it is landmark in that only maybe the first time the court had to rule on how congress can subpoena the President's records in the route of legislative making, but they really didn't "decide" anything. And yes, we do not need a lot of quotes, yet. If this is truly "landmark" which will probably take a few days to be apparent, then an Impact section would be appropriate and a few quotes could be used, but they shouldn't be loaded into the references. --Masem (t) 00:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your information and explanations. Is it possible to add this USA Today article as a source, because it mentions the landmark court cases United States v. Nixon and Clinton v. Jones. I ask this question because of the following quote from the USA Today article: "The landmark rulings carry political, legal and constitutional implications for the president, Congress and law enforcement officials who argued the records could reveal evidence of criminal wrongdoing. [...] In previous battles over documents or testimony, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against Presidents Richard Nixon in 1974 and Bill Clinton in 1997, with their nominees in agreement. The decisions led to Nixon's resignation and Clinton's impeachment, though he was not removed from office by the Senate." I don't wanna add to much information in Trump v. Vance, but given the quote I think it`s a source which should be added. --P3Y229 (talkcontribs) 00:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
P3Y229, imo 3 sources is too much for that 'landmark' label. If you wish to include it, I'd suggest replacing one of the other 2 with it. Or perhaps just wait to see what the impact is in some days / a week, and elaborate on it in an impact section. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestion. I think the current two sources are good enough because 1.) the New York Times article mentions United States v. Nixon and Clinton v. Jones and 2.) The New Republic article offers additional inside into the landmark court case status. Because of this reasons I won't replace the two mentioned article with the USA Today article. Instead I added the USA Today article as a source. --P3Y229 (talkcontribs) 00:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


Hey, PC! Let's not make decisions on IRC. —valereee (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey valereee, of course, I get that IRC isn't logged for proof of a statement. I didn't think the original statement was too ambiguous. The moratorium in Special:Diff/965647632/965654680 (particularly edit summary in Special:Diff/965654680) does say Additionally, I am reimplementing a moratorium on the topic of renaming to "Murder of George Floyd" hence I didn't think the clarification was required for my update in Special:Diff/967529338 but I did want to double check I wasn't misreading GN's statement, hence I requested a confirmation. Sorry GeneralNotability, but could you clarify again onwiki? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Valereee, confirming that it's exactly as ProcrastinatingReader says - they pinged me on IRC to verify that my intent was to only put a moratorium on renaming to "murder of..." (instead of a general moratorium on renames). I said there and am happy to repeat here, my intent was indeed to only put a moratorium on that particular rename - I frankly can't imagine any other likely rename requests, but I figured I'd leave the restriction as narrow as possible. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
(ec) No worries, I just think it's best if issues are brought up on the talk page for discussion. Discussion needs to be here, always, period. It literally should never be anywhere but here. It literally does not matter at all what is being discussed anywhere else. —valereee (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Beldon KatlemanEdit

"Never married again" is unsourced, not mentioned in source attributed to that entry. I can post sources, but until then, leave this out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeyJ (talkcontribs) 23:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi JoeyJ, your edit changes his name, his birth date, and adds two spouses without citing any sources. If "never married again" isn't in the given source you can probably remove it, but replacing it with "he married two more times" is likely to get undone. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

‎Archive box collapsibleEdit

If you don't want to do a 1400 page big AWB run it should be possible to handle most of them through User:AnomieBOT/TFDTemplateSubster by making {{Archive box collapsible}} a wrapper of {{Archives}}. Just a suggestion though, I haven't actually taken an in depth look at implementation here. --Trialpears (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Trialpears, ah, that's a much smarter way of doing some of these, thanks! The one issue I have with this template is that the unnamed params are slightly iffily-used, where titles for links are given. eg Special:Diff/968008087 is in numbers (omitting the "Archive" prefix), so "auto=short" should be added ideally? For cases like Special:Diff/968007912 it should just be omitted to be autofilled. Though dated formats should probably be retained (eg User talk:Jeandré du Toit). I have a few ideas on how to deal with these variations, but I'm not sure which is the best approach. A quick merge can be done just with a wrapper, I guess, but it wouldn't really be using that template properly. Though, I guess that's not the biggest issue. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I think the whole perfection to make use of the template in the merge is too much of a faff. Using a wrapper seems much better (and faster). I guess future cleanup to make it work nicer is also possible. Will make a wrapper. Thanks again for the tip! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I would probably just do the simple merger, but if I were to do auto detection I would do it through AWB. Something like \|(\s*\[\[([^\|]*\||\/)Archive \d+\]\][\s,]*)+(?=[\|}]) should detect all lists that could safely be removable. Set AWB to skip everything else and that should take care of that case quite quickly. Next modify it to take care of those which should be replaced with auto=short and then do the wrapper. --Trialpears (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I have a bot that does not-subst template mergers, as does Plastikspork. Primefac (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Ah, that's good to know! I was actually making a bot for that, not realising it already exists. Though, you will probably regret telling me that when I starting bugging you for template mergers :P ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Past accounts?Edit

Have you edited under other accounts? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, no, why? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


Thanks for the template update in the climate pages! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


This was interesting, I was not aware of that. Thanks for the new knowledge.

  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, always good to have the bureaucratic bases covered, just in case :P. I must admit, when I clicked that YouTube link I was expecting something nutty, but I wasn't prepared for what I actually saw. Then I started reading the comments on the video, convinced that nobody could believe this. Needless to say, I had to spend 30 minutes watching videos of people saving cats to restore my faith in humanity. To keep my sanity, I choose to believe that video is a troll, and the comments are just folks going along with the joke. That rubbish has no place not just on Wikipedia, but anywhere on this planet. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Lol! I agree with everything you've said. This guy Sushant Singh Rajput has awakened some really bizarre, unsound thinking. That's probably the nicest way I'd ever try to phrase that, too. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


You added {{Undisclosed paid|date=July 2020}} to CuriosityStream. Why did you do this, under what evidence? I made the last edit to add "including Nebula" and I was not paid - this promotion has been going going on for awhile and is probably the most well know partnership and I felt should be added to the article as is relevant. If you added that tag just because of my edit please remove. I added source from 1st party, but I could add more sources if that is what you want, but most sources are of people promoting the partnership so probably not good to add. --Lefton4ya (talk) 00:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Lefton4ya. The tag wasn't added to the article due to your edits. Admittedly, your contribs / article at Nebula (streaming video service) could do with more secondary sources, which are independent and reliable, but my UPE tag at CuriosityStream had nothing to do with that. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for replying ProcrastinatingReader. Ok than if not my edits than which specific edits do you think were paid, and why? If you have a suspicion, then spell it out for someone to dig. But if you can't pick a specific edit, then can you admit you made a mistake and remove {{Undisclosed paid|date=July 2020}} as that tag is only supposed to be used for legitimate paid edits not people making edits that seem promotional. Thanks --Lefton4ya (talk) 04:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

How does a RAT steal a password?Edit

Would you please clarify how a RAT can steal someone’s online password? Does it involve hanging a little camera around the animal’s neck? Has this been done, in the past? catsmoke (talk) 03:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Template editor grantedEdit

Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.

This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a {{ping}} for the administrator who granted the permission. You can find the permalink in your rights log.

Useful links

Happy template editing! Salvio 16:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


  The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
This is for your valuable efforts on countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 10:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

Thank you for creating automatic image dimensions for DYK image hooks. I have been building prep sets at DYK for many years and I can attest that this is a wonderful improvement that eliminates all the guesswork. Thanks for your expertise! Yoninah (talk) 12:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah, glad I could help! I'm not the best writer unfortunately, but hopefully I can help save some time for those who are. Hopefully the time savings adds up! Thanks for all the great work you do at DYK :) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Bot trialEdit

Hey, good luck with the bot trial. I noticed your bot ran into a problem at 2nd Streamy Awards. If you have a lot of those that cause you problems, you may want to skip anything with "Awards" in its name. Those pages should really be using {{Infobox award}}. --Gonnym (talk) 12:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Gonnym, thank you! :)
I was just about to tag you about that specific article, actually. Basically, bot runs about 4 extra sanitation checks to make sure we can definitely understand the date, then the final check is just running it through Ruby's date function and seeing if the parser can understand it. Weirdly, Ruby's date func thinks it can understand "April 7, 2010 (Craft awards)<br />April 11, 2010" (as <Date: 2010-04-07>). The way I've gone around it is by adding an extra check for start/end of string, so if there's extra fluff like "<br/>" or any extra awards/dates in the same param, bot will just skip. I was going to ask if you had any suggestions on any ways for the bot to understand this, but I suppose just skipping (and leaving it in the category for someone to manually clean up if need be) is a better idea? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
There are some disagreements on how to use some of the fields when a show is revived or moves to a different network, which is why you'll run into situations where you have more than 1 start-end date. I'd say just skip any article that has something after the date other than one of the various reference tags. Once your bot clears a big chunk from the list, it will be easier to see how to handle the others, if at all. --Gonnym (talk) 13:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Gonnym, sounds good to me. Rest of the edits went well I think, got a good variety of kinds of templates in my internal logs to show it's skipping the right stuff now. Perhaps Special:Diff/970972042 was notable, in that the edit itself was fine but if you notice |first_aired= above, it's implicitly given as the same year, but the year was omitted. Bot skipped it correctly. I don't think it'd result in false positives to make an inference here, but probably not worth the effort for the (hopefully) minority of templates that do this. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I'd skip that and not fix it. Here it might be correct, but in other places it can just be someone accidentally removing the year and the end year not being the same. --Gonnym (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Gonnym, tangential note, do we want to add a similar tracking category to {{Infobox television season}}? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
No reason why not. But lets handle this first batch of 20k and then add it and {{Infobox television episode}}. --Gonnym (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Genetically modified organismsEdit

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 2 ("1RR imposed") of Genetically modified organisms is amended to read as follows:

Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day on any page relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed and subject to the usual exemptions.

The purpose of the amendment was to match the scope of the existing 1RR remedy and the discretionary sanctions remedy.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Genetically modified organisms

Template:Archive bannerEdit

Please see this edit. Just like the edit I linked, I do not agree with your close. The consensus was for an actual merge, not for Template:Archive banner to become a wrapper of Template:Archives. Please either re-close Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 August 10#Template:Archive banner to reflect the consensus as so or relist the discussion. Otherwise, I may have to take the discussion to WP:DRV. Steel1943 (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Steel1943, thanks for raising your concern. I've seen Gonnym's comment also. My earlier response was Special:Diff/973659499, but (as you can perhaps infer from the edit summary) I believe I misunderstood what that comment was referring to. I'll rethink and update later today. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

GOCE copyedit requestEdit

I've begun my first pass at copyediting the article Statue of Edward Colston. Please expect a ping on the article's talk page as I will most likely have questions. My process can be found here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you startedEdit

Hello, ProcrastinatingReader

Thank you for creating Lewis Goodall.

User:Synoman Barris, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Meets WP: JOURNALIST, otherwise good work.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Synoman Barris}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 08:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


Hi guy what's up,

I just have extended the Wikiproject football by adding Greek task force in it. I will add a Greek flag for Greek football task force and vow not to ruin it. I just wanna edit the template of the project Template:Wikiproject football in order to do I require access to edits. Plz do grant me the access.


Hello, ProcrastinatingReader

Why are you moving other editor's user pages and tagging them for deletion? Liz Read! Talk! 19:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Liz. User:DeltaQuad was renamed to User:AmandaNP a short while ago, and thus underlying pages moved. Template:Editnotices/Page/User:DeltaQuad/UAA/Blacklist is a editnotice which was apparently not moved along with her rename, as it should've been. It's meant to be shown when editing User:AmandaNP/UAA/Blacklist, but it wasn't since it wasn't moved. It correctly shows now, after my move. The leftover redirect from my move should be deleted as G6 per our policies, noting that the editnotice isn't for this, the logic is summarised here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Liz, following up, are you okay to delete the leftover now? Or any objections to me renominating it for another admin to look at? I believe this also has DQ's blessing. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Bot problemsEdit

Bot's starting to mess up. See [3] and other recent edits. --Gonnym (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Gonnym, ugh, thanks for noting. Will revert them all. I believe it's a patch I made today that caused the issue, didn't think it would affect since it didn't touch the code for this task but... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Gonnym, having looked into it: looks like it was actually due to an update I made yesterday, which it seems the server job to re-run the bot after code updates ran the old code somehow, hence why it was only triggered after my unrelated update today. Yesterday's update was to address Special:Diff/977027124. Not exactly sure why that diff happened, and (at least at the time of that diff) no other contribs had this issue. My regex on regex101, tested with that article, doesn't actually match the stuff in the table at all. Plus other edits on tables didn't have that issue. Combined, I have no idea what's going on in that diff (one of the links retained but the wikilink part stripped). To try address that, though, I nested some matches to ensure edits are definitely limited to within the infobox, but it seems that caused today's issue. Keeping the bot paused until I can look into this further.
I guess the simplest way to fix that diff is to split everything up: i.e. (1) a regex to match the infobox, (2) a gsub on that match to change dates, (3) a sub on whole article text to replace it with the gsub from (2). Although, that would mean it can only handle a single IB per page. It currently uses a single regex to match inside IB and replace. Will go back to the drawing board and think of something, I guess. Let me know if you have any thoughts. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Just to add, on top of that diff (Special:Diff/977027124), it looks like there's Special:Diff/977076612 and Special:Diff/977062017 with similar issues (exhaustive list) across 5.5k edits. I can't see anything remarkable about these three diffs, and regex101 isn't giving me any signs, so I really don't know why it made that particular change. For diff 2 idk why it didn't touch the other categories. And for diff 3, well, not sure why it picked that sentence in particular. Best explanation I've got so far is there's a sentient bot with a vendetta against Universal Television and power-hungry Serpent Men. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
There is, of course, a far simpler and less exciting answer: poor edit conflict handling. :/ ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Ah, that makes much more sense. Maybe try to get less pages in a batch so that will lower the possibilities for a conflict. --Gonnym (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Added in something along those lines. Also, just noticed some my checks (to avoid the issue in trial) were overprotective, and preventing stuff like Special:Diff/977264360 from being done. I've made the regex a fair bit more complicated, takes longer to do (might try optimise it later) but hopefully catches some more cases. Basically, includes refs, html comments, certain types of whitespace / weird infobox formatting (eg), etc. whilst trying to avoid more those ambiguous scenarios we discussed. Shouldn't cause issues, I believe; my unit tests pass & supervised edits look fine, so will let the bot run on a slower schedule for a while. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Initial run completeEdit

Gonnym Update: Bot has updated all it can, I believe. Still, just under 5,000 pages remain in Category:Pages using infobox television with nonstandard dates. At a spotcheck of 25, these range from formatting issues (eg |last_aired= using {{start date}}), to both start and end date being in the same param (separated by a dash), to cases where first_aired omits the year, to a host of less common issues like Fun Factory (TV series). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure there are more, but if we can fix these, we can slowly refine the code. --Gonnym (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Gonnym, pushed an update to handle many of these (1,2,3,4,6). Wiki links can probably be done without too much technical issue, but slightly concerned it may fall outside the BRFA's remit / be controversial. Splitting dates I haven't gotten around to yet. And re {{dts}}, it would mean implicitly determining the year (based on end date, as I don't believe {{start date}} supports DD-MM alone), which I thought we didn't want to do? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Nice job! Yeah, the example I gave for dts was bad, but I assumed that if I found one randomly, then it might be used more than once and in those situations it can have a year as well. --Gonnym (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Gonnym, rethinking this; on a close read of ProcBot's task 2 BRFA, technically I didn't file the BRFA as "fixing all categorised television infobox date errors", rather just converting text dates into templates (for which the category was made, but still). Hence I think some of these may fall outside the scope of the BRFA I wrote. So, going to remove the regex for (1) from the list for now. Also going to have to alter (4) to only edit if it can parse the date after the cleanup. (6) is slightly iffy but I think it reasonably fits the scope, since it's the wrong template. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Hmm. Primefac could you maybe advise here? Would there be an issue with doing any of these, particularly (1)? They are all currently categorised as Infobox television errors, but concerned if they’d fall within scope of the BRFA? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Goodness, that's still a lot of pages in that category. If the issue is no longer "text to template" conversions, but a general "fix issues", then yes, it would fall (slightly) outside the purview of the original BRFA. My suggestion would be to file a "Task 2.5" which expands upon the functionality but is still fixing the same (general) issue as the initial BRFA (i.e. tracked improper param values). I can't guarantee a speedy accept (since that would basically be bashing through a Task 2 addendum) but it should be able to get a speedy turnaround as far as trails go (since you've clearly got folks paying attention and helping out). Primefac (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 26.2 for what I'm talking about as far as expansions go.
Thanks Primefac, I've filed task 2.5. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Didn't see you posted this new task, but noticed it just got approved, congrats :) Once it starts running again, let me know if there is anything I can help with. --Gonnym (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
{{Infobox television season}} has additionally |film_start= and |film_end=. Would you want me to add logic to check these usages as well? --Gonnym (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
@Gonnym: I'll need to add support to the bot to detect those params (& that template, really) first, or it'll just ignore them. I'll look into it shortly, but I'd like to get through what we can in this cat first, so it's not being clouded by that as well.
A lot of these are things the bot can't do anything about (too contextual), but I think back to our initial case of
| first_aired          = October 23, 1991 <small>(United States/Canada)</small><br />June 10, 1992 <small>(Japan)</small><br />July 17, 1992 <small>(Japan, VHS release)</small>
(Adventures in Dinosaur City). Are we sure we don't want to do anything with these? I could do a sub-regex to just try to pick out dates in this, and only replace those. Not sure why I didn't consider this earlier. So this would become
| first_aired          = {{start date|1991|10|23}} <small>(United States/Canada)</small><br />{{start date|1992|6|10}} <small>(Japan)</small><br />{{start date|1992|7|17}} <small>(Japan, VHS release)</small>
I'm not sure if that output is preferable or still problematic? Currently it doesn't touch them. As of last bot run, I think size of cat was 3000 (before adding TV season), and I don't think with the current regex I can really improve it much beyond that. Even with this possible change I'm not sure how much difference it'll make, so it may not be worth the time effort to try optimise further. Thoughts? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
There is a lot more the bot can do:
Beethoven (TV series) - {{dts||9|10}}
Barrymore (TV series) - 21 December 1991 -<br>29 December 2000
 Y Credlin - ''present''
Fun Factory (TV series) - [[1985 in British television|20 July 1985]] - if the date is linkable, just remove the link. There is never a valid reason for it to be linked here.
Come to Papa (TV series) - "June 3" - even a page like this which does not have the year in the field is fixable. You already read the page content for the date style template, so you can check the categories as well. Almost every TV article has a debut category in the style of Category:2004 American television series debuts. So you can take this year value.
I'm also wondering why your bot doesn't automatically run over the category. Pages get created and edited all the time. An example is Chelleli Kapuram (TV series). --Gonnym (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
It does (or did), I just increased the delay to every 2 days recently because nothing was changed in the regex and it was just going over the same ~5000 pages again and again just to edit a couple.
Regarding your list, the first one feels slightly implied, but I'll see if I can look into it. The third is diminishing returns imo (dozens of regexes for small fixes might exist, but they'll change less than a dozen cases from my tests of the previous batch), and so should just be done by hand I think. 2 may be possible, but I haven't looked into how to make it fit into my current flow yet. For the fourth, this seems reasonable but is there ever a case where a link is acceptable, or should I strip all wikilinks? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
The date is a simple date. It could sometimes be followed by a ref or with a parenthesis, which both don't belong there but shouldn't be removed by a bot, but the date itself should never be linked (see also the template /doc which clearly states what value should be there). Regarding diminishing returns, I personally disagree with that train of thought. It's a bot, it doesn't care how many "simple" tasks you give it, and for the programmer (you) it takes a one-time couple of minutes to add it, but it saves the rest of the community to ever have to deal with that specific example. Ideally, the bot should handle everything it can. --Gonnym (talk) 00:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough, ticked that one off since it's easy enough to do. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Motion at Clarification request: AbortionEdit

A motion was posted 8 September regarding the clarification request you are a party to. It can be viewed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Motion: Abortion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 19:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Tangential noticeEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- See section "Pasdecomplot continued WP:OR and other conduct problems" CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

CaradhrasAiguo, thanks for notice. I don't quite recall the name of that editor, though. Have I interacted with them before, or in relation to this issue? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
No, not that I can tell, re: the last two questions. I notified you merely as a non-trivial participant in the last AN/I discussion on that user. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Procbot repeatedly editing sandboxEdit

Hi there. In these edits, procbot seems determined to edit my sandbox. Sandboxes are used to try things out and I'm not currently interested in experimenting with the start-date and end-date templates. These bot edits were harmless (but annoying) - my concern is that by tampering with my experiments, you're just creating work for me if I'm ever doing anything interesting or time-consuming. I've had the nobots template in place for quite a while now, so I assume your bot is ignoring it. Is it possible/sensible to stop the bot attacking all sandboxes (at least pages with that name perhaps) or do you have an exclusion list that allows specific pages to be left alone? A better solution IMHO would be to stop disrespecting the nobots template but you may have reasons for disregarding it. Thanks :) --Northernhenge (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey Northernhenge. Thanks for letting me know. It should be obeying exclusions, but it's a good idea for ProcBot's task 2 to ignore the userspace altogether (I will add that in at some point). I suspect the reason why the exclusion isn't being obeyed here is because your page contains {{Nobots}} rather than {{nobots}}. Currently, the exclusion support on ProcBot is a basic string check (not regex), thus I suspect it is case sensitive. I've made a slight change to work regardless of letter case, so it should ignore your sandbox now. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll change it to lower case. Obvious now you come to mention it! --Northernhenge (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


For better or worse, it's a tragedy of the commons situation: individuals think their preferred edit notice is of key importance, but scale that up to everyone, and editors just ignore the resulting ubiquitous messages. On the flip side, it's probably too late to do anything about the banner blindness effect with Wikipedia's current edit notices anyway, so it's generally not worth getting into protracted discussions about it. isaacl (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Isaacl, yeah :/ -- I'd like to have seen T201595 get developed but I guess I see what TheDJ was getting at now. On a smaller scale, similar issue with T75299, I'd like to have seen GA/FA icons on mobile (& got a potential patch for it). Feels like every other thing I end up taking an interest in is too late to save ;p ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Consensus doesn't scale up as a group grows larger, where "larger" is a pretty small number, so changing anything is hard. Measured, persistent efforts, and a bit of luck that enough people engage for a sustained period are needed. isaacl (talk) 04:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding AbortionEdit

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The one-revert restriction on all articles related to abortion, authorized by the community here and modified by the Arbitration Committee in the Abortion arbitration case, is formally taken over by the committee and vacated. Discretionary sanctions remain authorized for all pages related to abortion, broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Abortion

Thank you!Edit

Thank you for your email and kind words! Getting too old to worry about it and want to spend what time I have left editing like I've been doing. Never had a problem using the tools through those who have them. Admins are a very helpful bunch! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 01:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

FYI: protection icons on templatesEdit

Re Special:Diff/980734615 and Special:Diff/980734656: it's the presence of {{documentation}} that provides the automatic protection icon on most templates, not whether or not they're subpages. Jackmcbarn (talk) 05:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Jackmcbarn, ah, that is interesting! I had assumed it was injected in (for the template namespace) by an interface page. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
That actually happens to be how it works for Scribunto modules. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Jackmcbarn, interesting. Why do we do it differently for templates (via documentation instead), just out of curiosity? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Templates are the "normal" way of doing things. The only reason that we do it for modules by injecting from the interface is that that's the only way to do it, since not being wikitext, there's no way to add that kind of content directly from them. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Page/User talk:Dreamy Jazz BotEdit


Template:Editnotices/Page/User talk:Dreamy Jazz Bot is deliberately placed there because its to ensure new editors don't post there. It also means I get the "You have a new message" yellow button thing which catches my attention quicker than my watchlist. The bot's talk page is a redirect to my talk page. It was moved (as per the BRFA approves) to the editnotice place for my talk page. Is there someway to stop the bot from moving the page in the future? I ask this because the bot is not exclusion compliant according to the BRFA. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Dreamy Jazz. Bot is indeed not exclusion compliant, but it will obey redirect editnotices which are set to be redirect editnotices. You can see an example of such an editnotice at Template:Editnotices/Page/Giants. Key points to note is that {{editnotice}} (rather than mbox) should be used, and |redirect=yes should be set. Hope this helps. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes it does help. I'll add that parameter now. Thanks for the quick reply. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Dreamy Jazz, by the way, I think that editnotice actually doesn't show at all currently, because loader isn't checking that location. User talk editnotices aren't located in templatespace, so it should probably be moved to User talk:Dreamy Jazz Bot/Editnotice (which is the page the editnotice loader is trying to load, for the page notice for User talk:Dreamy Jazz Bot) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing this too. I'll do that now. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) isn't it great when the bug is someone else's fault? GeneralNotability (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
I can agree from experience myself.... Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
  The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
thanks for going the extra mile by letting me know about the redirect parameter and that the editnotice wasn't in the right place to begin with. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Aw, thanks! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

echo notificationEdit

Regarding this edit: I presume you meant to link to the user's page, and not a template? isaacl (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Isaacl, yes, good catch. Will fix. Cheers. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Clarification request: 1RR requirements and enforcementEdit

Clarification request: 1RR requirements and enforcement has been closed and archived. The archived clarification request can be viewed here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 01:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Killing of Alton ManningEdit

 On 6 October 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Killing of Alton Manning, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a 1998 inquest found that the killing of Alton Manning was unlawful, and a judicial review found that the decision to not bring charges was flawed, but no charges have yet been filed? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Killing of Alton Manning. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Killing of Alton Manning), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Statue of Edward ColstonEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Statue of Edward Colston you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

IB settlementEdit

For what it's worth, I understand your concerns about {{infobox settlement}}; some of the wrappers trim down a lot of the unnecessary "baggage" that is standard across a group of pages (I did a subst-job for Template:Infobox Finnish municipality which ended up introducing on average about +1k on every page, just because of the hard-coded values the wrapper employed). It might not be easy, but it's probably a good time to be thinking about sub-templates that can store these common values and save a little space in articles.

I'm bringing this up because of your main concern about updates; if these sorts of changes can be enacted, I am more than happy to lend my bot to removing any redundant or unnecessary parameters that can be automatically supplied by IB settlement. If you want to discuss it further let me know, but I likely won't involve myself in any overhaul except for in a technical or supervisory capacity. Primefac (talk) 03:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Primefac. Just letting you know that I'm thinking about this. It's a complex issue, from a technical standpoint, so I haven't tried to implement something yet, as I'm not sure what would be the best design for it. From my observations common 'load', which should be hidden behind a template, is in transcription, in data (eg {{Data Finland municipality}}), and in governance titles (i.e. the |government_blank1_title= values). There may be others, too. I think it's quite a bad idea to expose this stuff to local articles all the time. Imagine if one was creating a Finnish infobox today, what's the odds that those fields would be correctly filled. How about an Israeli place vis-a-vis the transcription ones?
Still, I also think it's a bad idea to have per-location wrappers to hide it behind. Maybe a good way to hide it would be to have this hidden in a data template, which is defaulted to by IS based on the |subdivision_name= value to fetch default values for all of these fields. I'm not too sure on the neatest technical implementation yet, but I think this would work? With the Finnish substitution the value of that param is currently a flag, but that's just a difference in an extra bot step. Your thoughts on achieving this technically? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
I'll use the Finland template as my main example mostly because it's still fresh in my mind. If almost every article that calls IB settlement uses (for example) |government_blank1_title= in the same way (barring blatantly-incorrect uses), then instead of calling that parameter from the article the template itself would call a subpage based on the country/subdivision/etc. Area and demographics could in theory be stored as a subtemplate (again, no need to have dozens of articles calling {{Data Finland municipality}} if the template itself can do it automatically.
The other option would be to modify the parameter names themselves; I know that the majority of those generic parameter names like gov't title are used because the actual "title" could refer to different aspects depending on what sort of government is in place, and as I'm typing this out I'm not sure if it would be a better idea, but it's also a thought.
As far as even starting such a discussion, don't feel like you need to come up with all of the answers or even have a fully-formed plan yet; I suggest taking a look at the talk page of {{infobox school}}, which has been involved in a half-dozen mergers and a few editors have been really active in starting discussions and trying to condense and combine duplicate/unnecessary parameters in an effort to make the template more user-friendly. Probably a good place to get ideas about discussion format and structure (check the archives too, there are a bunch of discussions). Primefac (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Oh, and as a thought about the subtemplates - start small with ideas about those; for long-existing templates like the Finnish one, it's easy to say "oh sure just bung it into a subtemplate" but that template has been around for many years and if you get too crazy about hard-coding parameters you'll get some pretty big pushback (for example, we can't pre-populate |population= for every potential use). Things like |subdivision_name= could potentially be hard-coded, since every city in Japan will use |subdivision_name=Japan so the #switch will be much smaller. Primefac (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
@Primefac: I started Template_talk:Infobox_settlement#Better_usage_of_data_templates_(AKA_cleaning_up_the_crap) as a first phase for this. Thoughts? On the governance params part, I'm still not sure about it yet - I want them to work in a way that we prefill the labels for a certain jurisdiction/type, and editors can use |governor= or |mayor= rather than |leader_title5= (which is less clear imo) but still not sure how to properly do a resolver for this on a per-country/locale/governance-type level. (the simple answer to this would probably be "use a wrapper!" but I digress) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


Regarding the close at Reference search tools talk page templates discussion at TfD to merge, I sure hope the search options don't get dumbed-down, where some may be omitted because they all may not look pretty crammed within the talk header template. Time will tell. If this were to occur, it would be a failure of form over function. North America1000 03:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Northamerica1000, I agree with you on that. I think the plan is to embed {{Find sources}}, as demonstrated in the sandbox, and a material change in that respect would probably defy the assumptions of the discussion participants. I think Skdb plans to implement this? If so, they may be able to address these concerns better. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Skdb just following up on this, is implementing the TfD something you planned to do or is it up for grabs at holding? Is the edit in sandbox complete? If so, I presume the only thing missing is a bot run to remove duplicates at the same time? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

TfD closeEdit

If you're not going to allow me to reply to your pointed comment about me in a TfD close, please remove it from that close and put it on the talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, it was intended as a comment to highlight the fractured/forked nature of discussion, and as a thought for future nominations (which I'm sure will probably follow), thus is part of the close, rather than as a "pointed comment" directed at you. I'm happy to reword it in a more general manner, if you feel the current wording is unfair to you. As I said, I've read your comment and Frietjes' 2019 TfD, so I'm aware why you feel you can't bundle them together due to 'other reasons'. For practical purposes, though, they should've been, as the arguments were completely overlapped (indeed, your responses were to look for a response in the other discussion). That they weren't/cannot be bundled is perhaps not to your discredit, but does say much of some issue. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Close reworded, in that part. Does this resolve your concern? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you; no. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit noticesEdit

Hello, Procrastinating Reader,

What was the basis for your selection of edit notices to delete? I didn't see that any were actually tagged for deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Liz. Sorry, I've tagged/requested a lot for deletion, for various reasons. Can you clarify which batch you're referring to? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
For the record, due to discussions in multiple areas, this is re Wikipedia_talk:Editnotice#What_to_do_about_expired_editnotices? and User_talk:Fastily#Mistaken_deletion? I presume. I have responded at those two locations, but it's best to keep this at Fastily's talk I think, to keep discussion in one place. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

DS awarenessEdit

I'm not familiar with the incident you were referring to here, but I agree that users should not be sanctioned for behavior that occurred prior to them being aware of discretionary sanctions. The section of WP:AC/DS on page-level sanctions does specify this explicitly: Editors who ignore or breach page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator provided that, at the time the editor ignored or breached a page restriction: The editor was aware of discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict.... Is it the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Awareness and alerts portion you felt was insufficiently specific? GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, yes, this was not for a formal page restriction (under DS) but just DS. The general awareness rules don't seem to say problematic behaviour has to occur after an alert template was placed. The case I refer to was of Bnguyen1114. I'm digging over this again, since I worded my previous message from memory, so my description was slightly inaccurate. They didn't just add a grammar fix, they also added an entry to a list, which remains in the current revision of the article. It was fine. The DS admin did not think this edit was problematic, but it was a violation of the editor's topic ban, so they were sanctioned. That part is fine.
The part I think was problematic was that a topic ban was issued in the first place. The editor was alerted to the sanctions on 3 July @ 2:47 am by Barkeep. Note that (iirc) the editor, following onwiki concerns after a media article on "washing" the Kamala Harris article, already voluntarily said they would not contribute main text to the article again until the community wanted them to. It seems they held up to that. Since they were alerted to DS, they only added list entries and fixed grammar (see their contribs), nobody had issues with those post-alert edits. Yet they were sanctioned on 8 July for COI under DS - a COI they had disclosed prior to all of these events, before their voluntary withdrawal, and after multiple admins had already looked over the issue and took no action.
This was discussed at ANI, where the DS admin agreed there was nothing problematic after the alert, but felt there was an inherent COI. The editor was not exactly a textbook promo editor, they maybe had a not-perfect understanding of NPOV but their contributions weren't that bad overall (they made lots). They were treat very badly (factoring in discussions across the wiki & offsite doxing), and understandably they left (I would have also). I, unfortunately later rather than sooner felt the topic ban itself was entirely out of process and highly concerning. It may well be within the text of the awareness rules, I don't question that, but I don't feel it stayed true to the spirit. Here is the ANI thread, where I raised this concern at the time, if you want to dig into it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC) e: 21:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I think review of this would have to happen at WP:AE or WP:ARCA, though it does seem it was reviewed at some length at AN there. It seems like a bit of an unusual case, where the sanction was made more due to COI and a history of concerning behavior, rather than due to a specific edit, and so that makes the chronology of awareness alerting strange. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare, I think the editor is unlikely to come back, so this is now (perhaps) mostly a philosophical exercise. I feel like some problematic behaviour should've had to occur after the alert for a sanction to be issued. I can copy the above to ARCA if you think it's a worthwhile matter to clear up, but at the same time it may be so niche it's not worth the committee's time. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
If you think WP:AC/DS is insufficiently clear then I would bring it to ARCA, but I'm not sure it was a lack of clarity there around the timing of alerts that actually led to this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Welcome TfD closeEdit

Regarding your close at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 16#Template:Welcome-personal, am I correct that your intent in the close is to have {{Welcome cookie}} remove the TotD message then have {{Welcome-personal}} redirect there? Or vice-versa? ~ Amory (utc) 11:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Amorymeltzer, that's right. There was no discussion on the merge target, so I chose {{Welcome cookie}} as the target based on Wikipedia:Welcoming_committee/Welcome_templates (the existence of similars in place of a cookie, like the kitten one), and the creation date/early structure. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Bristol MercuryEdit

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

Nthep (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

October harvestEdit


treats --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda. Happy holidays! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


Please reconsider your close of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020_October 24#Template:Licht, which does not appear to address the rationale for deletion (which includes "[the navbox {{Karlheinz Stockhausen}}] contains all of the links in the nominated template"), nor points raised in discussion (in particular, "there is not a single article using {{Licht}} which is not also using {{Karlheinz Stockhausen}}"). TfD is not a vote. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Count me in for Delete, - I just had no time. There's not a single article which has the Licht template alone, and in the larger template, it's the very top. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi both. TfD is indeed not a vote - that's why (for example) I've often relisted/readvertised larger, near-unanimous votes that have strange arguments (and often consensus swings afterwards, or we get better arguments/perspective). But closing is also not about my opinion, and I cannot supervote. The rationale made by the participants there is reasonable (that the navbox offers good navigational value), so I believe the close is appropriate. I also considered the previous opera precedent, but that does not directly apply here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 November 1. —Cryptic 18:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Cryptic, thanks for the heads up :) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Your BRFA (3)Edit

Hello, your recent BRFA (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ProcBot 3) has been approved. Happy editing, — xaosflux Talk 14:43, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ProcBot 6Edit

Hello, ProcrastinatingReader,

I didn't really see a way for me to comment on this proposal. I also don't understand what it does that helps fill up categories. Would this also help with CSD G6s and G8s? These are mostly uncontroversial or dated maintenance pages and categories that are tagged for deletion but do not show up in CSD categories. It's been brought up several times at WP:VPT and we've been told that it's not a priority. Liz Read! Talk! 01:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll try explain better, because I think by trying to discuss both cases in the same message it's a bit confusing to follow. Here is my understanding:
I'm not sure how much work you do in templates, but for completeness: Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions is populated by Template:AFC submission (or, more specifically, one of the templates on its sub-pages: draft, declined and rejected). Note that one of these Template:AFC submission templates is present on all AfC drafts. So for an example look at the source of Template:AFC submission/rejected. The relevant part of this code is:
{{#ifexpr: ({{#time: U | {{{revisionts|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}}}} +5 months}} < {{#time: U}})and({{#time: U | {{{revisionts|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}}}} +6 months}} > {{#time: U}})|{{#if:{{{demo|}}}||[[Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}]]}}}}
A brief overview of this code is: if the draft was last edited more than 5 months ago, and less than 6 months ago, then place the page into the category Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions. My theory is that this is only updated whenever the job queue gets around to updating the categories on pages that transclude Template:AFC submission (as the G13 soon cat won't be applied until the links on the page are updated), although this is currently being discussed at VPT. The way to update sooner than whenever the MediaWiki job queue will get around to updating the links (which is supposedly up to 30 days, but eh) is to force the update yourself immediately. This is naturally done by page edits, including null edits. But bots can do it too with a special type of purge, which is ProcBot task 6: regular purging of specified categories.
I'm not sure about the situation with G6 and G8s, this particular fix only applies to pages where the category is being changed/set 'automatically' (so to speak) by a template, and so the bug is that it isn't being updated soon enough. But if you have some links to discussions I could take a look? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I think I'm beginning to understand it a little better which, after seeing you talk about this issue on several different pages, is a relief! Would this explain why I was seeing Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions on aging draft pages but not seeing the drafts when I looked at the category itself? I've been working more with the User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon list these days because it is more complete than Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions but when I look at drafts listed the SDZeroBot page, I'd see them categorized in the AFC G13 category so they were categorized appropriately. Like you said, the pages that transclude the category weren't being placed in the category.
As you might guess, I don't work much at all with templates or bots so this is kind of like a foreign language to me. One last question, why do you think this might have "broke" in October? Did something change or some bot go out of commission which handled this? It was the overnight drop of pages being added to the category that got my and DGG's attention, it happened in just a couple of weeks in early October.
As for the G6s and G8s, I'll search the VPT archives and get back to you. Thanks again for your patient explanation. Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
@Liz sorry for delay. I think what happened in October is the "second issue" I describe. SDZeroBot (like any similar bot, really) edited a lot of old drafts disproportionately, which totally resets their last revision timestamp, which means the code I quoted above no longer recognises them as eligible. Combine this with the above, due to the page edit the links are updated immediately, so the cats update immediately. Second, it edits a lot of drafts that would be eligible soon (or already eligible, and about to be updated by the job queue soon & actually be placed in the category). So this lowers both the actual number of eligible drafts, and the number which would be tagged in the next few weeks. It's likely the numbers would've reset back to normal levels after up to 4 wks. But the real "normal" is probably higher than you expect, since it's up to the job queue when it refreshes a page. In a non-ideal job queue scenario, it seems possible a draft would never even update to be placed in the category, before it became eligible for G13 itself. BTW, not sure if you saw, but the cat reached 5k pages at one point :D -- a long way from the 500 a week ago. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Notice of ANI caseEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:ProcrastinatingReader. Thank you. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, Redrose. Seen, will reply shortly. Shame it has to come to this. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Notifications of community sanctions don't quite workEdit

Hi. You helpfully noted in the IRANPOL sanctions page that user notifications didn't have to be logged any more. There is still a small problem in that the edit filter doesn't set the tag properly in the history, as I described here. Do you happen to know if any edit filter work was done to enable the current system for notifying? It looks like it has a bug. It *should* be setting the tag 'discretionary sanctions alert' in the edit history of the person's talk page, but is not doing so. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston. I think the issue with that diff is that it is using the wrong template (Template:IRANPOL GS notification). If using {{Gs/alert|iranpol}} (or just {{Gs/alert|irp}} - same thing) it should log as expected. The old templates are tagged with "don't use this anymore" notices, but to avoid confusion I sent them all to TFD last week. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the diagnosis. I verified by leaving alerts at User talk:ThisIsaTest that {{subst:GS/alert|topic=irp}} *does* work. EdJohnston (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


FWIW, the block, though ill-judged on my part, was not for lack of indents or indenting incorrectly. The block was for refusing to even try to learn how to correctly indent, which had become very disruptive on the incredibly high-traffic talk page involved. I shouldn’t have blocked them; while I wasn’t in any content disputes with them, I was heavily editing the same talk page, and I should have asked someone else. When my lapse in judgement was brought to my attention my immediate reaction was, “That’s fair.” [4] They did eventually pay attention and are consistently making good-faith efforts to format replies correctly. Yay progress! :D —valereee (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make was less that your action was unfair, and more that they probably find it unfair. And so the effect is that they give little weight to your warnings, even if they are well-intentioned. Nobody takes advice from someone they don't feel understands their position, so I just feel like it's hard to determine anything from an editor reacting poorly to such a warning. But yeah, taking a skim through contribs it seems like they now treat the formatting part of WP:TPG relatively religiously. So, I suppose that block did pay off dividends; lesson learned not to question your methods, lol. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I guess your next challenge is figuring out how to do the same for WP:TPNO. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Please always question my methods. Serious as a heart attack, if you see me doing something you think is iffy, I absolutely want to know and I will sincerely try to take it as helpful feedback, which I try very hard to accept as a gift. And I totally agree, I'm the wrong person for this to be coming from, and I completely recognize that (and understand why) it feels unfair. Believe me if anyone else were willing, I would so happily walk skip away humming Don't Worry, Be Happy. I've tried at least three times to hand it off. And really AGF takes care of 95% of common TPNO issues, IMO, so no, I won't be on the alert for impersonation, nosy questions, or forum. :D —valereee (talk) 20:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
@Valereee: looked into this one a bit closer given the ANI has resurrected. I can see the issues with what the editor wrote in Special:Diff/962599162, so I can see why undoing some/much/all of it was necessary. Then I see eg (edit summaries) Special:Diff/977879525, Special:Diff/978443344. So, after all of it, can I really blame PDC for feeling like he's being hounded, or really say that he hasn't been baited here? I mean, it feels like everyone has their share of portion of this pie, so I don't know how to legitimately endorse a ban solely for PDC. It feels like everyone could've, in their own ways, engaged more collaboratively. I can't justify PDC's response either, so I can maybe see why this has been a tricky one to resolve... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that the other editor has responded productively always, but from what I've seen the one has 98% of that pie. And, yes, there's also a CIR issue here. —valereee (talk) 06:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: I came here to talk to ProcrastinatingReader who enacted a substitution on 6 Nov [5] but Template:Infobox Iceland municipality is still not deleted. Seeing the above discussion and that you are an admin, could you delete it? TerraCyprus (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, missed this, but it's taken care of? —valereee (talk) 06:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

A request for clarificationEdit

Hi ProcrastinatingReader, could you please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Proud_Boys#Regarding_recently_closed_RfC and perhaps provide clarification to a RFC you closed? Thanks IHateAccounts (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


merit close

Thank you for quality articles such as Statue of Edward Colston, Killing of Alton Manning and Lewis Goodall, for your bot, for work as a template editor, for fighting vandalism, for "So merit was determined based on arguments for whether there should be a sidebar at all." - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2475 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Well-deserved! Liz Read! Talk! 00:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
"So merit was determined based on arguments for whether there should be a side bar at all" and the answer was no, no? - We have - as of yesterday's close, constructions such as this. The perfect example of a bad compromise. Donizetti's and Debussy's operas were free of the side navbox, and nobody who wrote the articles interfered. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: I am well aware, but realistically what can I do here? When the master template is nominated with all of its transclusions, I can't with any integrity discount arguments such as the ones I listed on TFD talk. As for the link you mention, that is not a bad compromise once you remove the image in the template below it (assuming that is not objected to). Then it's just a standard infobox with a sidebar (no picture) below it. It is something I envisioned in an alternate close (extracting the delete(b) argument out), but partially due to the complexity and partially due to perfect example of a bad compromise, and with BD's thoughts, I decided against it. The only alternative here was me letting it sit by until (most likely) Primefac closed it as no consensus in a few weeks. I imagine its transclusions will be nominated separately now; tedious, but seems the only way forward. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
The problem is that here, we are back to the infobox dispute that the arbs tried to pacify in 2013, and you see how successful that was. When infobox opera was created, the option to have the navigation within the infobox - by a link to the navbox, or by the functionality copied into it - was brought up (by me). Did you see my question to the arb candidates? What would you say? I don't think that Primefac - who responded - would have been eager to close it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: I do not think it's as bad as you think: See Gonnym or Hobit's comments for your options. You have the wrong link btw (that's Scotty's page, not Primefac's) -- Primefac is one of the most active closers at TfD. Otherwise TfD doesn't have many other folks that would've closed it. Eventually one of Trialpears, Izno, JJMC or Spork, but it was going to be a NC close regardless. If that inherently has rekindled a dispute, I think that's more the fault of the nomination for going too far too fast, than of the close. There was literally no other way to close that discussion, and I think it's a little unfair to fault me for being the one to press the button. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry about the wrong link, trying harder. I didn't want to be unfair to you, I am just disappointed that the same (good) arguments which made you clause Gounod and company were not accepted for the minor works which are left over because I was too tired and procrastinated. In this discussion, some editors were tired of repeating in the first bunch already (Gounod etc), remember? To see so much time wasted in repeated arguments, which are not likely to improve all-over kindness in the project, is sad. I am actually not at all interested in the templates being deleted, but in them disappearing, as described in 2013: "If we start adding these infoboxes, to the articles that already have horizontal navboxes available, we can gradually start converting the vertical navboxes for other composers to horizontal ones". (Voceditenore, in the infobox opera talk). That's what we have done: wherever a horizontal is in place, as for Donizetti, the side navbox makes no sense, especially with the image in it not showing for half of our users. It also makes no sense to have a duplicate navigation in the infobox instead. Therefore, I called it a bad compromise to reinstall something old-fashioned and overcome. To have no image in an infobox which would show for all, but one in a side navbox below it which half of our users can't see, is a thing I can't understand. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
The first was different in that the arguments were different, and the numbers too, but the obvious accessibility concerns result in certain arguments being given less weight. But the concept of a sidebar alone can't be given less weight. This template is weird in the sense that it is simultaneously a sidebar, and an infobox-like sidebar. If it was solely about the latter, the close would've been delete (see DfD discussion). The issue is the first part, on which there is no consensus. Neither in that discussion, nor in the underlying PAGs. It is tedious, but the same is true for many discussions for change. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree to a certain point. I have to be very silent in the field, because the arbitrators found me guilty of battleground behaviour for the very argument: that an infobox + navbox is better than this side navbox which looks like an infobox but isn't. 17.000 words of arguments were archived on the project talk alone in 2013, and I pray that we don't return to that waste of time. (I don't know if you saw my question to the arbitration candidates which deals exactly with the topic.) I replied already on the deletion discussion, so try to be brief here: as Voce said, only a few "die-hards" cling to the old style, but they are the more eloquent ones, the FA writer, people for whom English is not a second language. The template is a relic from old times, and can be kept if an author insists (and says he'd leave Wikipedia if not) although half of the readers can't see the image, and handicapped readers have a problems to click on "show". But to see the better style reverted citing the close, by an editor who never edited an article, - that hurts. And the latest try of a compromise - to have both infobox AND side navbox clutter the right corner (but have the pic in the side navbox where many readers don't see it, but not in the infobox where al would see it) - also hurts, - it's a bad compromise. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
In a nutshell: the call to change was made by the project in 2013 (first thread in the linked archive), and should be observed. It includes the facility to navigate to other operas by the composer from the infobox (which hasn't been used afaik because we make navboxes but is available). We had tedious and bitter discussions enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Category:Pages using Infobox GB station with unknown parametersEdit

test close please ignore
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, PR,

This category has a warning not to delete it so could you link to the deletion discussion where it was determined it should be deleted? There is another category that you've tagged for deletion where it would be helpful for the admin looking at it to be able to read over the deletion discussion. Thank you! Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Liz: I was being a bit lazy in making a separate edit to remove {{empty category}} (or, well, on that one I can't anyway). Template:Infobox GB station was merged, and is now just a redirect, so that category won't be populated anymore. It used to be populated solely by the template. The TfD is here. It could be tried as C1 as well, I suppose, but I figured G8's "populated by deleted/retargeted template" may apply, but not totally sure as I don't really dabble in cats. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  Done (and @Liz:) Thanks for this explanation, although it'd be really helpful if such explanations were provided as part of the CSD in future. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Complete deletionEdit


Is there any possibility completely delete my account including my discussions?


Mirhasanov (talk) 09:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mirhasanov the closest you can get to that is WP:VANISH but I don't think you're eligible. This is something best discussed with an admin, perhaps @Wugapodes may be able to help? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader thanks mate ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirhasanov (talkcontribs) 14:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussionEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--—valereee (talk) 11:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 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) 02:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

A thoughtEdit

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds;

I noticed that when someone proposed an addition, you curtly replied, not incorrectly, "you need sources". I don't have any horse in the proposed addition, but just for a lark, wouldn't it be interesting to actually help users like this by going and actually, yourself, finding sources that undoubtedly exist?

I have lots of take-aways to learn from our interactions. If I could leave you with any moral at the end of the story, it would be that you would be far more effective if you had more insight into the process of looking for sources as part of a collaborative process, rather than sitting back and thumbs-downing the hard work of others as my (admittedly VERY cursory) skim of your editing history suggests.

It's easy to sit back and say "you need sourcing". But if you think the addition merits inclusion, maybe invest the time to find the sourcing yourself and pull your own weight. Alternatively, if you don't think the addition merits inclusion, then maybe you should just "person up" (aka "man up") and admit the suggestion sucks.

But of course, this is a learning experience for us all, and I will certainly adapt in the future in response to the feedback I've received. Feoffer (talk) 05:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Had I, when I wrote that comment, thought the change was worthwhile I likely would not have commented at all, but I didn't think it was an improvement and hence the comment (but I don't see why this fact (the appointing president) matters here); although (per my correction) I'd misunderstood what they were getting at. There's a lot of proposed changes on this wiki, and it's usually faster for someone who's already done the research, has the sources and is passionate about the change to go the extra step of improving it, verses me doing the digging from scratch.
For what it's worth, and I'm not sure which of my contribs you reviewed, I think I do often put in that extra effort, for example when reviewing template-protected edit requests which have an issue with them or have no code presented for review at all; in many cases - but reasonably not all - I'd suggest the amendment or write it myself, and spend a fair amount of time testing changes that is never seen with the simple {{done}} response.
Likewise in the case of removing content. It's not an enjoyable task to strip someone's work as was done with your content, but at the end of the day what matters is what we output. If that output is problematic, a violation which inappropriately causes harm to living people (as I feel the content I removed did), or can be improved (even if by aggressive trimming or refactoring), then I think such a change is constructive, even if it removes other people's work. This is the same as deleting or merging templates, really. I apply the same principle to my contributions: whilst I hope they're generally an improvement, I also accept they are not perfect and, like all things, can be improved further. I'd be quite happy with a removal of my work if it meant a better end product. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Emily W. MurphyEdit

Hi ProcrastinatingReader, I'm just letting recent contributors to Emily W. Murphy know that I've dropped the protection level to extended confirmed and added a consensus required restriction. Please see my explanation on the talk page for more information. Thanks, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 12:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

A cupcake of gratitude!Edit

  A cupcake of gratitude for your efforts, including your patience and taking those right moments to breathe, regarding Emily W. Murphy. Thank you for your ongoing, valuable contributions to Wikipedia, even if it can be challenging sometimes to keep it up! Missvain (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:Obsolete Wikipedia community-authorised general sanctions templates has been nominated for deletionEdit


Category:Obsolete Wikipedia community-authorised general sanctions templates has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 22:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind, I never noticed the CATFD field on the nomination template. I've never seen that before. I'm undoing what I've done so far except relisting the discussion I found this in. My apologies. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 22:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

page viewsEdit

The talk page at Emily Webster got nearly 1000 views yesterday. Talk:Joe Biden only had 500 lol. —valereee (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Got those extra eyes at last; we've come a long way :D
I think it's probably folks clicking the talk link on the POV template wondering what's going on. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
So much for me leaving the article, I guess... Oh well, it's in a better shape than I found it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Congrats on the BAG membership!Edit

  Nicely done, seems to have gone pretty smoothly :) Enterprisey (talk!) 09:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, and for your advice too! Although, I think I will have to save the cookie for when the BRFA backlogs creep up again -- I'll really need it then lol. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Deletion discussionEdit

Hi Procrastinating Reader, I really appreciated your initiation of the deletion discussion for Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment... those things have always bothered me because of the points you made and by filling up the talk pages even when they're 5–10 years old. I see that the admin who closed it said "Any discussion regarding converting the template into something else can be had elsewhere" – do you have any plans to start such a conversation? Although I'm not sure where it would talk place... Best - Aza24 (talk) 07:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Aza24! I am not sure either. There was quite a lot of support for converting it into a talk page message, which I think would have to be discussed with Sage (Wiki Ed). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Composer sidebarEdit

One again I must ask you to reconsider a TfD close; I do not believe that a correct weighing of the comments on Template:Composer sidebar woudl result in "no consensus". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I was fairly elaborate in my close. I cannot really add much more that I haven't said there. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
What do you think of Hippolyte et Aricie? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Nice article, but I'm guessing you mean the sidebar? If so, I'm not sure it's a good idea for me to express an opinion of the content atm, given that I recently closed 3/4 of the deletion discussions for these. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Clarification request: Motion: Discretionary sanctions (2014)Edit

The clarification request you filed, Clarification request: Motion: Discretionary sanctions (2014), has been archived. You can view the permalink for the clarification request here. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 19:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Thinking about a radical reduction of talk page bannersEdit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Thinking about a radical reduction of talk page banners. Inviting you since I know you've had an interest in talk page banners. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 05:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissionsEdit

Hey, ProcrastinatingReader,

I'm back again. This category typically contains between 4,000 and 5,000 drafts and it is now at about 3,000 pages. Could you do whatever it is that you do that fills it back up? Is it something that you could teach me to do so I could do it every 2 weeks or so and then I don't have to bother you? Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

This would normally be User:ProcBot/PurgeList2 (which is the protected version of User:ProcBot/PurgeList - docs there) but some changes to my bot (+ TE perms) are needed to make the page's functions work properly and I haven't gotten around to it yet. Basically, once it works, that list would make it so it's purged automatically just by being on the list. What I did last time was run the command manually on the bot's server. I can do that again at some point until I get around to fixing the list itself. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
I will leave it to you, then. Right now, we're about at 2,600 drafts and it would be nice if this could be done before we get below 1,000. (Hint! Hint!) Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 17:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I've pushed a quick update which may have fixed the PurgeList2. We'll find out in 1-2 days when the bot processes it according to the timetable, I guess. It's much faster for me if this works, because manually running the bot task is a pain. Let me know if it doesn't work, though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks so much for pushing this through, PR. Right now, we're at 1,775 drafts and we'll probably get down to 1,000 by or on the weekend. The count is roughly 150-250 drafts expiring each day. We do have a backup process, User:SDZeroBot/G13 eligible, but that list comes out once a day (at 00:02 UTC) while having Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions up-to-date allows any editor to tag old drafts throughout the day or evening. Much appreciated! Liz Read! Talk! 19:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Looks like that change didn’t work. It takes me a bit longer to make a manual run, and the current code is slightly different from the old such that I need to make some changes to even be able to make a manual run. I probably can’t get around to that till Friday or Saturday. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, you must have gotten to it, the count was down to 1200+ drafts this morning and now it is up to 1800+. So, thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 03:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Template question - map requestedEdit

Hi PR. At Talk:Syrian Kurdistan, the {{map requested}} box runs wider than all the other {{tmbox}}-based templates. Do you have any ideas why it isn't wrapping at the same width as the other boxes? I was going to put in an edit request to fix it but I can't figure it out. Levivich harass/hound 18:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: try now? It might've been Special:Diff/992901295. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Ah, ye olde long filename. Thanks! Levivich harass/hound 19:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


For some reason {{gs/editnotice|covid}} gives the "Page sanctions are not authorised for this topic area. Edit notice is not required.", but Template:COVID19 GS editnotice clearly exists and as far as I can tell there's no reason passing covid shouldn't trigger the appropriate warning on edit summaries. I'm still going to replace all of the current uses of the old GS notice, but I thought you should be aware (since I'm tired and not really up for picking apart your module). Primefac (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

This one in the nom was linked to being a mix of covert and this. The covid template, and the 3 iranpol usages, were the exceptions to the current standard that there is no editnotice simply for discretionary sanctions being authorised. Best as I know, the point of the editnotice is to warn for applicable restrictions (1RR and such), in line with WP:AC/DS#sanctions.page & {{Ds/editnotice}}’s function and docs. So the error itself was intended, I was going to pick apart the transclusions which have restrictions, convert those and have the rest deleted. Also some conversation in the first section of Module talk:Sanctions to this effect - that template was really an error to begin with. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

New message from OpalzukorEdit

Hello, ProcrastinatingReader. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 December 5.
Message added 20:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You were right. Thank you for your time. Opal|zukor(discuss) 20:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Opalzukor: I wouldn't throw in the towel just yet. Just because I don't agree doesn't mean others don't either. There's some support too, so I think it's a worthwhile discussion to be having. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

ProcBot edit warsEdit

Hi ProcrastinatingReader, would it be possible to change the format of page names at User:ProcBot/EW to use {{la}} or similar (or {{pagelinks}} if it does more than just articles). No worries if not, but thought it couldn't hurt to ask. Thanks, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 05:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Sure, Callanecc --   Done. This is much more convenient to get to the history, too. It only logs articles atm, it used to do all pages but too many false positives (bots constantly reverting themselves in user/projectspace and whatnot). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Has been a great tool so far! Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 06:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks like someone needs to callEdit

Ghostbusters! [6] LOL ♟♙ (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Re: Nicholas AlahverdianEdit

Hi. Regarding your edit here, this removal is only allowable if the article Nicholas Alahverdian is deleted. While a validly formulated article about the deceased still exists, so do their entries in the Deaths pages. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 10:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


Hi PR, thank you for keeping tabs on Pasdecomplot. In the last AN/I thread that lead to their latest sanctions, I noted their intentional distortion of sourcing to add inflammatory terminology, and within 24 hours of their being unblocked, they have done the same without updating any of the sourcing. Another large-scale revert immediately after unblocking does not bode well, and if this continues, a broadly construed topic ban in Buddhism and Tibet would be in order. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I posted a warning on the editor's page to stop personal attacks. If you would, please delete the PA. I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
CaradhrasAiguo, I'd strike that intentional, that's a comment on motivation. The edit may very well distort the sourcing, but if so let's assume it was unintentional error or unconscious bias. —valereee (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

2020 United States election protestsEdit

Hi ProcrastinatingReader, thank you for fixing the socks properly, unlike the way I did it. I'm still rough around the edges when it comes to that. Could you help clean up Talk:2020 United States election protests as well? Its the exact same sock users. Thank you in advance, Albertaont (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

On mobile, so it’s a bit hard atm. The issue with removing their comments entirely is that multiple editors responded to, and referred to, them, before they were found to be socks. It deprives the discussion of context to completely remove them. Where this applies, it’s better to strike them using <s></s>, and add a note after the strike using {{csp}}, or collapse them using {{hat}}. In some cases you can remove them completely, but if you’re not sure I would just collapse and let someone else remove if they think it’s appropriate. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I've marked the sections created by socks. There's so many sock comments (I actually think half the page is socks!) I don't think striking or collapsing works, although there should probably be better awareness given to these sections since many involved removal of content that may now need to be reviewed again. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks again for your work! I tried removing socks and then realized that they comprise the majority of comments. Albertaont (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Categories not being filledEdit

Hello, ProcrastinatingReader,

I remember posting on the Village Pump a month or so ago about categories not being filled by categories that had been tagged for deletion as G6s. Nothing came to mind when I was asked to be more specific and provide examples but I just came across these:

basically, all of the empty categories in Category:Use Irish English. One of the categories happened to pop up on Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories so I investigated it and found these other empty categories. Otherwise, it's likely that years would have gone by before an admin happened upon these categories.

Of course, deleting empty categories is not a high priority on the project. I just think that if these 14 tagged categories aren't appearing in Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion, it's probably the tip of the iceberg. There are thousands of similar maintenance categories.

Any ideas on a solution I could bring to the Village Pump so it looks like I know what I'm talking about? Thanks and happy holidays. Liz Read! Talk! 01:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I suspect they just need null edits, but I'd personally prefer if we just waited for now. I'm curious how long it takes for the software to fix them itself -- it could be that they were just emptied recently and the software updates them in a few days or a week. Posting this on VPT now and I suspect someone will just null edit them to 'help', then it becomes hard to get an answer to this question.
If it takes the software too long, this would be related to (and solved by) Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Bot_or_other_process_to_keep_categories_and_page_renderings_up_to_date. Though, not sure VPT can help further. That bot request is the only realistic solution to this problem, given the phab tickets are stuck for now (though, devs said they may resolve it later in 2021). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I didn't know about Wikipedia:Bot requests, there is another bot process I'm also concerned about that I'll inquire about. Liz Read! Talk! 23:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
@Liz: quick update, see https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/51006. Basically what you're interested in here is "page_links_updated" (timestamp) and cat_pages (number of pages in cat). The page_links_updated should indicate that the cat wasn't empty as of the date it was checked (most of these are in December, one in late November). The next time the job queue tries to update the links, it should be added to the cat for deletion. I think that'll probably (hopefully) be by the end of this month, but we'll find out for sure I guess. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Merry ChristmasEdit

  Merry Christmas ProcrastinatingReader

Hi ProcrastinatingReader, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas
and a very happy and prosperous New Year,
Thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia this past year, like this tree, you are a light shining in the darkness.
SD0001 (talk) 15:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:IRCCloudEdit


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

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 15:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

TP thank and diff linksEdit

When I read a talk page, I'd like for every comment to be followed by a (thank) link that would thank the editor for that comment, and a (diff) link that links to the diff of that comment. I figure this could be done with a script that would look up the revid for the page using the timestamp of each comment, and if there were more than one with the same timestamp, a text comparison could identify the correct one. I've noticed that this does not already exist, and I surmise there's a reason for that, and deduce that I'm missing something. So before I embark on a fool's errand, I thought someone like you who knows about this stuff might be able to tell me what I'm missing? Thanks, Levivich harass/hound 06:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Your idea of just lazily matching timestamps is also much, much faster than actually checking revision text. There's also the niche case of people editing comments and not changing the timestamp (or actually changing the timestamp), which makes it hard to identify each comment without comparing revision text. It may be better to ignore these cases -- a couple of failures to identify a revision don't seem too problematic and the time for revision matching is probably not worth it (seems a bit like mw:Who Wrote That?, which is for articles only but takes a while to load up).
Initial thoughts, this approach seems reasonable to me with noted caveats. I don't do much with userscripts on MW though, so worth a ping to @Enterprisey and DannyS712 for thoughts. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
@Levivich User:Evad37/TimestampDiffs should add the diff links, if I'm reading things correctly. As for thanks, I would be hesitant to add such links because you should confirm that the script pinpointed the correct diff to thank for DannyS712 (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
TimestampDiffs would make it easy to confirm it's the right diff before thanking, plus the diff page will have a thanks link, so that makes it's a two-click "thanks" which is good enough (and better than the current find-it-in-the-history method I'm using). Thanks, DannyS712, PR, and Evad37, this saves me a whole lot of time!! Levivich harass/hound 04:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Sidney_Powell#RfC:_Describing_Powell_as_conspiracy_theorist?Edit

I believe this closure needs reconsidering. I think you failed to consider that most of the Support comments have come later into the RfC, as the WP:RS coverage of Powell as a conspiracy theorist has only grown stronger over time. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I see no evidence those support comments were motivated by a change in sourcing wrt the phrase. Although many editors chose to say "described using the label in countless reliable sources", few followed through with specifics. If any of those later supports provided sources addressing the main opposing concerns, it was only one (The Guardian source, by Patiodweller). I can only do with a discussion what I'm given, and I was not given something to give less weight to the GW concern. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Given that NonReproBlue posted several in the discussion section, and Neutrality listed multiple including a NY Times link, I think you need to re-read. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Right, but as far as I can see the NYT does not say she is a conspiracy theorist, it says she spread a conspiracy theory. This is ultimately what made oppose arguments slightly stronger: the label itself should be widely used by reliable sources. The rebuttal by GW making this distinction was, by my reading, not adequately addressed and didn't cause editors to reconsider their concerns. Further, some precedent in past RfCs has found these two things are not equivalent. After NRB's comment, only 3 comments came in (2x support, 1x oppose), and pinged opposers did not change their comments. As such, I do not believe it caused a material shift in opinions; it is ultimately the other participants who must be convinced of the sourcing, not me. As for other options going forward, my close did mention one other route to achieve consensus on similar wording in the lead, namely the Kiteinthewind wording. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
"but as far as I can see the NYT does not say she is a conspiracy theorist"?????? "Trump Weighed Naming Election Conspiracy Theorist as Special Counsel" https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/19/us/politics/trump-sidney-powell-voter-fraud.html IHateAccounts (talk) 04:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I see. I was looking at the link labelled "NYT" in Neutrality's response (this). Sure, let me think on it and get back to you. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience IHateAccounts. I've slept on this, re-read the discussion over twice, and amended the close accordingly. I do believe there was an error in my close which failed to address the support for alternate wording, rather than just relegating this to a personal note at the bottom of the close. The discussion was more nuanced than a binary question, and I think my original close failed to appreciate that fully. Regarding the specific question of the label, I'm afraid I still do not see consensus for inclusion (and believe me, I've tried). The point you make here was not made explicitly in the discussion. From my reading, GorillaWarfare rebutted the sourcing, and nobody explicitly (in reference to) rebutted GW. The distinction she claims has a basis in both PAGs and in past precedent, so I am afraid I cannot give it any less weight, especially as this is a BLP. Neutrality's comment, whilst he links to the cite, quotes something else. I didn't check every source myself, which is how I missed this initially. I think it's outside of my remit as closer to analyse whether I think this source meets the burden, instead my role is to analyse what editors thought, and I can only consider what is explicitly on the page. As what you're quoting here wasn't quoted in the RfC, I believe my role calls for pretending like it doesn't exist at all.
That said, there is a route to achieving consensus on this point which doesn't involve a future RfC: pinging the editors opposing and asking if the 'newer sourcing' has changed their views. The nature of 'support/oppose walls' in changing events is that it could be random, or it could be guided by a change in external circumstance, such that if earlier voters were to come back and reassess their comment (which they often don't), they would've agreed. If you want to ping in the oppose voters (and they are not obligated to respond), and they (as a whole) state they're convinced that a change in sourcing has rendered the label appropriate, then I think this is sufficient to say there's consensus for the label. If they disagree, or don't respond, I don't think there's a route forward here, at least on the label. That said, I have amended my close to better analyse the "promoting conspiracy theories" part (and the DUE arguments), so there is an immediate option to including that wording, at least in the interim. It may also be worth sticking with that wording until time passes, to see if the label sticks. If it does, that may also persuade some opposers who had long-lasting notability concerns. I hope this helps! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I am raising the objection directly on the talk page. As noted by CozyAndDozy, "90% (9/10) of the final respondents to the RfC" were in favor, and at least one initial opposer (soibangla) DID in fact reverse themselves on seeing the new WP:RS coverage. I have to say I'm disappointed as it seems every justification you put forth for your decision isn't supported factually. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Okay, no problem. For your options, as I say, there's always the option of pinging editors who had concerns with the sourcing in order to achieve a consensus for the label and see if their views have changed. If instead you believe I misread the discussion, you can also request a close review at the AN (per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I can only do with a discussion what I'm given Just to note you weren't given anything. As far as I can see you took it upon yourself to close this RfC. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 14:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The phrase was figurative. As in, the close has to reflect the discussion. If the discussion was lacking, there's nothing a closer can (or should) do to apply a 'correction', in my view. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
No, I am asking you to not habitually use the passive voice as that makes you appear to sidestep responsibility. Your phrasing suggests the outcome is out of your hands, when in actual fact it is very much in your hands. In fact, not only is it in your hands - you actively and voluntarily put your hands there! Your replies are full of language essentially saying it had to happen as if it was inevitable when in fact every step of the way the outcome originated from your active decision to assume the role of closer. While this superficially shields you from criticism, it really isn't a proper defense. Now, I don't know if you just happen to be in the habit of sounding formal, or if you subconsciously distance yourself from your own choices, and I do not claim you are acting in bad faith. I am merely making a suggestion: if you use the active voice you assert authority (and responsibility) over decisions you have made yourself. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Specifically the close has to reflect the discussion We are not discussing a theoretical close, we are discussing a specific close done by you. there's nothing a closer can (or should) do We are not discussing a theoretical closer, we are discussing you. A phrase such as "***I*** made the call to do this or that" is much stronger than "the circumstances had to lead to this or that" and if you are unwilling to put yourself on this line of fire, then maybe don't decide to close discussions? Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't really understand if you have a specific objection with the close I might be able to address, or if you're concerned with my phrasing in my clarification above? Because honestly I didn't put as much thought into the exact words in the comment above as you are now, so it may well be that (strictly speaking) a different set of words would be a better descriptor, but I thought the point was still clear.
I'm responsible for the close and my interpretation, of course. I'm don't really think I'm responsible for what editors did or didn't discuss, though, and I don't think a closer should compensate by inserting their own external analysis into a close. Analysing the discussion is distinct from analysing the available sourcing beyond what editors did in the discussion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: Oh well. There have been some changes, but then the replies by Qexigator have now proven that objections by others were offered not based in wikipedia policy but rather in WP:FALSEBALANCE trying to pretend that Powell's conspiracy theories have legitimacy. I'll give it another couple days but I guess it'll have to be filed to next challenge steps soon. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Your closure of Talk:TikTok#RfC on "Chinese"Edit

Hi, I appreciate that closing discussions is time-consuming and not fun. I'm just concerned that a couple of points in your closure summary might have been written a little hastily; I fear they don't reflect the consensus accurately:

  • In your summary, you said, There was some disagreement on whether viral should be mentioned.
This seems inaccurate. No editors came out in favor of describing the app as "viral". Every editor who addressed that aspect of the RfC opposed calling the app "viral".
So, it seems better to say, "There was consensus against describing the app as 'viral'."
  • You also said, most editors believed that the app should not be described as "TikTok ... is a Chinese video-sharing social networking service ...". Instead, editors believed that stating the ownership of the company (ByteDance) as Chinese would be more desirable...
The emphasis here seems to be the wrong way around. I think it would be more accurate to say, "Rough consensus emerged that the app's Chinese ownership should be mentioned in the sentence. Within that rough consensus, most editors favored achieving this by using the sentence both to state the name of the company that owns the app, and to state that this is a Chinese company. That approach was favored because it avoids repetition of the word 'Chinese' within the sentence."

If you would be willing to revisit that closure in the light of the above, I would be grateful. Thanks, and sorry for the trouble! Zazpot (talk) 06:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

As for #1, that's mostly correct (at least one only opposed the positioning of the word), but "viral" wasn't really the RfC question ("Chinese" was) and hence most participants did not actually address whether they liked the term. It came up because the 2 proposed variations of the lead happened to contain the word, because it's in the current text. I could not find consensus for eg "option 1", because there's no evidence that even the supporters who didn't mention objection to the wording or placement of "viral" actually support that wording. There's no evidence that they oppose it either. It seems they just didn't consider it, because it wasn't really what was being asked. So the point of that sentence, as I'd intended to clarify with the last sentence, is that this matter is not part of the RfC. Anyone can go ahead and change it in the live article right now, just as they can change any other piece of text.
As for #2, I think that's mostly a semantic difference, but I can appreciate it may cause some confusion. I've made some changes to the wording, for clarity. Does this help? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for this. Re: "viral", I fear your new edit to the closure is internally inconsistent. On the one hand, you note that where this was addressed by participants, there was opposition to using the word "viral". This clearly indicates consensus; and I think you are correct to say it. But on the other hand, you contradict yourself by also saying, this RfC close does not find any consensus on that matter. So, I would suggest sticking with the consensus that you yourself have identified, and just deleting the contradiction.
On the "Chinese" front:
  • There was consensus for describing the app's ownership as Chinese. Your wording acknowledges this. Thanks.
  • There was consensus against unnecessarily repetitive wording. (No-one liked option 2, and pretty much everyone who addressed repetition was opposed to repetition.) Your closure summary does not mention this, and probably should.
  • there was not consensus against describing the app as Chinese. However, your closure summary (again erroneously, I fear) suggests that there was. I think it would be better to say that there was no consensus on whether the app itself should be described as Chinese.
So, I think a further edit to the closure summary would be in order. I already proposed some wording in my initial comment above, but here is a more succinct proposal:
If you think my suggested wording is erroneous, then please could you say why? If not, then I would be very grateful if you could use it, as I think it will save future editors of the page much confusion.
Thanks! Zazpot (talk) 06:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
If I ask 20 people if they like beans, and they all answer yes/no, but 4 people also tell me they don't like peas, does this mean the whole group of 20 people decided they don't like peas, or rather that the other 16 people just didn't consider the question because they weren't asked it?
That applies here. The point of the question wasn't really the "viral" wording. So yes, whilst the people who talked about the wording said they didn't like it, the majority (est) supported an option which included viral wording without indicating any opposition to the wording. Does that mean there is consensus for the "viral" wording? I think no. I think it just wasn't addressed, because it wasn't the point of the discussion. So I can't say if there is or isn't a consensus for the wording, I simply don't know, at least not from that discussion.
Regarding Chinese: I generally do not implement the results of my RfC closes. I think it's better someone else does it usually, for a number of reasons. Here, it seems a couple of parties have understood the close and implemented it, so I'm not sure that the wording is misunderstood on the whole. Still, I'll read it over at some point and see if I can't tweak some parts -- a bullet point structure seems to be a nice way of presenting the outcomes neatly. I don't agree with your 4th bullet though, and I think the 5th depends on what you mean - as far as the lead sentence goes, there was explicitly consensus against starting with "TikTok is a Chinese video-sharing social networking service" by my reading. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Category purgeEdit

Hi, someone on the Discord suggested that getting ProcBot to null edit Category:Pages using deprecated image syntax might be useful in helping clear the backlog - there are certainly some null edits required at the start of the category, and I suspect there are bound to be some further in amongst the other 6000 odd pages. Any chance you can run this as a one-off (or alternatively like once a week/month or something?). If it finds a few, it'd certainly save me some time, as I've already manually cleared a bunch! Many thanks --Lewis Cawte (Talk) 11:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year, ProcrastinatingReader!Edit

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

Thanks 1234qwer1234qwer4, same to you! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year, ProcrastinatingReader!Edit

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

Thanks Moneytrees -- happy new year! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Spider-Man (2017)Edit

Hello, the Spider-Man (2017 TV series) page includes outdated information, as the continuity section states that only the third season of Guardians of the Galaxy (TV series) is set in the same universe as Spider-Man, and that the previous seasons go with Ultimate Spider-Man, despite the fact that the source that says that is from 2015. Cort Lane (president of Marvel Animation & Family Entertainment) confirmed in 2019 that all three seasons of Guardians is canon to Spider-Man, as he said this while discussing the third season of Spider-Man "the most epic conflict in the history of Marvel Animation. We planted the seeds in two seasons of Marvel's Spider-Man and three seasons of Marvel's Guardians of the Galaxy, but you don't need to have watched them to be blown away by this colossal confrontation. While a ton of guest heroes will be on hand, Peter Parker's special link to Venom makes him the only hero who can tip the scales to save humanity." [7] I have been adding that to the page, but it keeps being removed. It also states that Ultimate Spider-Man appeared in Guardians, which is incorrect as he didn't. Is there anything you can do? Aaa11769 (talk) 05:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey. I briefly remember this dispute (if it's the same one). I solicited input from the WikiProject for it, but I will admit I have little specialist knowledge in this area to weigh in myself. Generally you'd follow the steps outlined at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution - the overarching theme being you need to solicit input of more people, making an argument that convinces them to your view, and that will form a "consensus" for your preferred option. I'll look more closely in a day or two, see if I can't suggest something more specific. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Page moverEdit

I nominated you at WP:RFP/PM for the WP:Page mover bit, since you're exhibiting too much competence at RM to do without it. :-)  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  06:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Cheers :) -- have replied there. And happy new year! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Page mover grantedEdit

Hello, ProcrastinatingReader. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Barkeep49 (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Taming talk clutterEdit

I responded here; could you let me know if you got the ping? I pinged several parties, but I am unsure if pinging works on a post that long. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Got it, thanks and for the detail! Digging a bit around this topic. I think we can probably recreate the bot, but first it'd be nice to know what page everyone is on regarding this, and where bots may conflict, etc. Will reply in full there. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

COVID cases templateEdit

Hi ProcrastinatingReader, would you be able to help with this template - Template:COVID-19_pandemic_data/United_Kingdom_medical_cases_chart? I'm guessing it's based on a lower level template that's used by all the other COVID-19 country articles. We now have a problem, given the turn of the year, in that selecting data just for January pulls in both Jan 2020 and Jan 2021 records. Presumably selecting one of the month buttons causes the relevant records to be extracted from the data set based on the just the month element of the date (who would have thought back in March we'd still be bothered about a virus!) Anyway, if it's something you'd be interested in sorting out, that would be great, unless someone else is already working on it. Thanks, Arcturus (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks like this is because the Jan [2020] and Jan [2021] have the same IDs, which only identify by month and not by year. Probably some editing to parse the year and change the ID, and possibly the display for clarity as well, will be needed. Pinging in Ahecht who wrote the module, since they will know their codebase better than I, and I don't really know graphs well. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader and Arcturus: As a temporary fix, I enabled the |nooverlap=true option, which will at least fix the problem until January 15th. I'll have to think about the best way to modify the codebase to work after that. --Ahecht (TALK
) 05:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Looks like Alexiscoutinho is working on something in Module:Medical cases chart/sandbox. --Ahecht (TALK
) 05:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader and Ahecht: That's great. Thanks for looking at it. Arcturus (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@Arcturus: An alternative temporary fix would be to invoke the sandbox function which works fine for the UK. It's your call though to use a changing (and potentially breaking) sandbox. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@Alexiscoutinho: probably best to have a permanent solution. At least in the UK - and in fact in most countries - there were just a handful of cases in January 2020, so it's not a big deal if that month is displayed alongside the current month. I suspect the 'Last 15 Days' display is the option most users select, anyway. Of course as we move into February it will be much more useful to have the permanent solution. Thanks, Arcturus (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox station other_servicesEdit

Do you think we could add something like other_services2 ? A bunch of stations have former and future/proposed services crammed into one section, I was wondering if we could split those up. Cards84664 01:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Cards84664: Sure, we could add that. But I had a little concern with services in the station infoboxes I was going to bring up at some point (may as well do it now), and so I dunno if even more services sections are a good idea. Pinging in Mackensen too, for thoughts.
We have what I think is a slight issue with these on mobiles. Collapsing doesn't work on mobile Wikipedia (it automatically expands the collapse). And on mobile the infobox goes after the lead's first section. So the effect is that on some pages the infobox is a very long scroll until you can read the prose. Example (you'll need to be on a mobile, or resize your screen horizontally very small to see): [8][9]. I feel like this may be a slight UX issue. Whereas on desktop it's on the right hand side so it doesn't matter, on mobile it pushes the prose way down. I have no ideas on a solution, though... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I've seen other_services used for former and future/proposed, and also in some cases for connecting metro services at a mainline rail station (I consider that non-standard, but anyway). I haven't seen former_services used outside of the US, but then the state of things with US rail is somewhat unique on Wikipedia (English-language editors + English-speaking country + widespread loss of rail services). The UK handles this by generally (though not exclusively) indicating line succession, grouped by operator, with notes for closed lines/stations. That wouldn't work in the US at all. If we did implement additional fields I think I'd want to deprecate other_services in favor of explicit former_services and future_services fields, but even then I would have concerns about the first of these because it wouldn't make sense outside the US, and you can argue that the entire US approach needs a rethink. Mackensen (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@Mackensen: That was my main reasoning for keeping the parameters generic, since they could be interchanged for a number of unique headers case-by-case. Cards84664 17:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Community general sanctionsEdit

Hi ProcrastinatingReader, what do you think about working together to draft a community general sanctions regime (Wikipedia:Community general sanctions perhaps) similar to ArbCom's discretionary sanctions (obviously with adjustments to make it community based)? Once we've got a working draft we can look to doing an RfC to replace all of the current ones (the GS subpages) with a single system? Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 03:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this Callanecc!! This whole thing has bugged me for a while, but I've rarely managed to convince someone to take an interest in this mess. Various people have different interpretations of what is and isn't the reality, and I think this confusion is bad for transparency/clarity. Whereas the practical impacts tend to be minimal in a principles based approach, things like the current WP:AN case show that this can occasionally cause practical issues.
When I've previously considered creating an "official community regime" of sorts, like WP:AC/DS, I've had these main concerns:
  1. I do not think the community is able to manage a full discretionary sanctions regime. Unlike any clear policy page, I think DS is really just a [complex] set of procedures allowing an undefined set of actions, whose 'correctness' is only determined on appeal, which makes it rather unique to any other PAG which is more concerned on principles. ArbCom often offers clarifications or amendments to WP:AC/DS (eg 2018 ARCA clarifications on awareness/page restrictions, 2013 DS review, etc), but the community fails at reviewing the system - I'm not sure if it ever has? Partially, I think, because community DS is less consequential than WP:AC/DS (ArbCom takes over the larger dispute areas, so GS is left with the smaller ones; only so many pages fall in scope), and partially because getting consensus on AN for such a complex regime is difficult or results in insufficient participation, verses having 15 arbs decide one way or another ('right or wrong', at least there will always be a clear and decisive outcome). Anyway, with a separate page such changes/clarifications wouldn't propagate to this new system automatically. I think it's important to 'stay in sync' with ArbCom than accidentally create forked sanctions regimes, which will be confusing for admins and editors alike if certain DS/GS actions are legitimate and others aren't: imagine trying to explain this to the avg sanctioned editor lol
  2. The easiest solutions to (1) that I could think of are:
    1. Create a new page and transclude WP:AC/DS, showing that full page, with certain text replacements for the differences. This stays in sync, while changing the differences (eg the venues for appeal). Downside: in a full page, it won't be immediately obvious to admins which parts are different if most of the page is repetition. Especially given the relatively low volume of GS-affected pages, I don't think it's feasible to even create the expectation that there is much different about the "two systems". I think this will just lead to confusion and less usage of GS.
    2. Simply saying on WP:GS/elsewhere that the formal regime is (something like): "WP:AC/DS applies, except that the venue for appeal is WP:AN, a different set of templates should be used, and GS cannot be used for page deletion". Then, remove the "Remedies" from the subpages (heck, in my opinion redirect all the subpages to a central WP:CGS_LOG like WP:AELOG, since the only useful purpose of the subpages nowadays is sanction logging, with notifications being automated. This fixes the problem permanently, and a single log is more convenient anyway).
    3. Expecting the community to, at AN, pass regular amendments like "the community approves ArbCom's motion/clarification/whatever". Realistically, I think we'll probably forget to keep doing this in a year time tops. It's also slightly bureaucratic.
I feel like my preference is trending towards something like #2 as the simplest option, but I'm open to any, and any other ideas too of course. I actually think your rewrite last month of WP:GS#DS summarises the status quo very well and in plain English (better than I imagined my own rewrite reading, in fact). It's also not overly complicated or verbose, and inherently stays in sync with WP:AC/DS. So maybe some kind of variation of that is an option to get consensus on, potentially on a new page which can explicitly be designated as a 'policy page'?
All the above are just some broken thoughts. What do you think is the best way forward? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I think #2 is pretty much what we need. Basically, a new sub-section policy at the top of WP:GS which effectively says that community general sanctions are exactly the same as AC/DS except the dot points at WP:GS#Discretionary sanctions. I agree that a central log is a good idea (WP:Community general sanctions log/WP:GSLOG?). To do this, I think we would need an RfC to:
  • authorise a community version of discretionary sanctions which is the same as the ArbCom one but with the exceptions dot points currently at WP:GS#Discretionary sanctions
  • convert all existing community discretionary/general sanctions to the new version
  • create a central log similar to WP:DSLOG and hence move any current sanctions (from the subpages) to there.
Thoughts? Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 03:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan Callanecc. w.r.t. bullet #1: maybe make it (just the community DS part) on a new, separate page, then turn that into a policy page and transclude it into WP:GS? A bit like how AC/DS is transcluded into ArbCom's procedures page. Just a bit clearer than having an info page with a sub-section policy tag imo.
Whilst we're at it, may be worth thinking over some of the disadvantages of community-authorised DS (compared to ArbCom DS, in terms of outcomes) and see if there's possible fixes that can be bundled into the RfC? One key reason it's inferior may be that ANI is an inferior forum to AE? Another perhaps that community-authorised DS is less well known than ArbCom authorised DS.
On a smaller note, maybe it's worth addressing the semantic issue? Somehow, over the years, it seems community-authorised DS has become just "GS". Though maybe it's ingrained enough to stick with it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, a new page for clarity is probably good idea.
Maybe the disadvantages are something that El C and EdJohnston might have some ideas about. We've also discussed something similar before.
I guess the benefit of "community discretionary sanctions" brings the idea that suggests it's the same as the ArbCom one just a community version. General sanctions suggests it's a different things, it also has the downside that WP:GS is an overall term. I don't really mind either way to be honest. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Nicholas Alahverdian deletionEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Orange Mike | Talk 15:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:All-rounder's Test tripleEdit

I would like a WP:REFUND for the above template. The Cricket WikiProject wasn't notified, and similar templates have survived nomination. StAnselm (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I can't refund sorry, you'll need an admin for that. You can request undeletion at WP:REFUND. The refunding admin should probably create a new deletion discussion for it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissionsEdit

Hi, ProcrastinatingReader,

This category, in the past, held between 3,000-5,000 soon-to-be stale drafts and it is now down to 1,353. Could you do whatever you do to refill it? I'm asking early because it takes a while after you do, whatever that you do, that it fills back up. If you (or your bot) could do this twice a month or every two weeks, it would probably be good enough that I won't need to pester you. Thank you so much! Liz Read! Talk! 20:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, PR. The category is up to 3,549 drafts now. Quick work! Liz Read! Talk! 02:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

RE: Statement by ProcrastinatingReaderEdit

Regarding this, I would love to author an amendment request with you to just change the wordings to provide for any admin to be able to do an appeal. Would you be interested in doing that after, say, the 20th (to give arbs time for the Wander v. Flyer22 case)? –MJLTalk 21:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems L235 partially addressed this in Special:Diff/999572666: I'm willing to formalize this into our procedures if need be, but I'd prefer to wait for broader DS reform. We could do it, but it may also be better to raise it as part of a broader reform, which hopefully occurs later this year? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I actually feel like I prefer any user to be able to appeal. There's a case somewhere on my talk about a new-ish editor who was tbanned which I now think wasn't entirely fair. They probably don't have the expertise or the patience to navigate AE/ARCA, but another editor could do it with far less time investment. It's like expecting all people to be able to seek remedy of the courts equally, it's not true in practice. It's sometimes just easier for a newer editor to just quit, than invest time in making an appeal. So for DS particularly, I feel like any editor being able to appeal on someone's behalf, or at least with their permission, is ideal. I can see the downsides, though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


Wait, what?! 2FA isn't making me safe? I thought that was the whole point. Goddammit. WTF is a non-techie to do? —valereee (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, I don't mean that it's useless. I still use it on most of my accounts, but I don't think anyone should actually rely on it for security. If your password is getting breached in the first place, likely due to weak or reused passwords, or getting socially engineered, you have an underlying security issue. If you have a keylogger on your computer, this is mostly moot as you may as well have other malware on your computer too; your session could just get stolen or you could have a RAT. Besides, if you have a keylogger I think your Wikipedia admin account is at the bottom of the list of things to be worried about. Similar for an unlocked mobile device being stolen: if it were me, I'd be more worried about a malicious party going into my bank apps, than them using a wiki admin account to delete a page which is probably restored within a hour (not that a stranger on the street would know you have a wiki admin account, or care, in the first place). Further, if the software/servers themselves are compromised, nothing about your password or 2FA can save your account.
API keys are also basically passwords which are used to fetch sensitive data behind the scenes in software, without any extra security measures much of the time. A long password, 30 characters of pure randomness, is safe. 2FA is good for peace of mind for when all else goes wrong, but nobody should ever be relying on it. With decent security practices nobody will breach your password in the first place. But teaching and ingraining decent security practices is hard, so 2FA is a good buffer for if you mess up, but imo it's not much more than that. Statistically, though I haven't checked the data, I imagine teaching people good security practices is futile, so 2FA is probably effective in that sense. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Replace "you" with "one", as in the generic "you", btw. Not saying you're security-incompetent, of course :P ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Notice of ArbCom discussionEdit

Hi, just making you aware that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Syrian_Kurdistan exists, since you commented in prior discussions on the issues raised there. GPinkerton (talk) 11:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit filtersEdit

Hi, can you please respond here? Thanks, Alaexis¿question? 08:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)



The Editing team has scheduled a major update to mw:Extension:DiscussionTools (the new Reply tool) for next week's deployment train. Since you invoke the feature from a script (I do, too), you're probably going to see that update next week, before it's officially released in the mw:Beta Feature system. The new update will use a similar system for starting a ==New discussion==. As before, full-page wikitext editing will not be affected. There is more information on the project page at mw:Talk pages project/New discussion.

If you encounter problems next week, please ping me or leave a note on the talk page for the project. Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Whatamidoing (WMF)! This looks very cool and excited to test it out here. The rest of the tool is pretty nifty so far! One thing I noticed at the demo is that it takes a long time to load after clicking "Add topic" -- hopefully performance will be faster on the live site ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
It should be much faster on the live site.
Supposedly we'll be seeing this towards the end of WP:THURSDAY, but I think it'd be safer to describe it as "not before Thursday". Last I heard, it was still in QA's hands. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@Whatamidoing (WMF): One interesting thing I noticed at Template:Did you know nominations/Financial Conduct Authority v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd & others is that the tool doesn't seem to be active there. I'm guessing this is because DYK nominations are in the template namespace (which generally shouldn't have replying enabled), but it would make sense for pages with the prefix Template:Did you know nominations/ ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Sidney PowellEdit

I saw your crucial input on the Sidney Powell article and talk page. My news organization is looking to speak with a few Wikipedians anonymously about their thoughts and interpretations on this person for a story that covers current events like this alongside the birthday of Wikipedia and how wikipedians shape the discussion and shed light on the facts. Do you have a few minutes to spare over email to talk about your perspectives? Thanks very much. I look forward to hearing back from you. Kombucha Morning (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on MEDRS/RS debate regarding fringe lab leak theoryEdit

Your comment on whether MEDRS are mandatory before editing a claim implying the lab leak theory is not a conspiracy/fringe idea is requested by this Diff in this page, please take a look. Forich (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

blanked editnoticesEdit

Hi, about a month ago you blanked many edit notes for articles related to Covid-19 (since there are probably currently no page sanctions). Per [10] and [11] these templates could be deleted as G6, or do I misunderstand something? --TheImaCow (talk) 13:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, all blanked editnotices are eligible for G6. You can tag them individually if you want, I planned to just send a generated list to an admin regularly, every few months. Last one I made was shortly after your first link. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I can't tag them myself because you need Page Mover/Template Editor permissions to do so. But if you plan to suggest them for deletion at some point anyway, then everything is fine for me :) --TheImaCow (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Possible disruption, WP:Get the pointEdit

Hi. Could you please take a look at this discussion whenever you can? (motivated by a series of edits and reverts). It seems a user is not conducting himself in good faith. Thanks--Watchlonly (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I haven’t looked too closely but it looks like a content dispute. I suggest reading WP:DR for your options to resolve (in short: discussion). If possible, although you may feel it’s not required, if you can find a source saying 25 that may be the easiest and fastest option which pleases everyone. If you can’t, you’ll need to either convince others on the talk, or get the participation of more editors, in a regular discussion or a binding WP:RfC.
If it were a conduct issue you’d need to contact an admin (which I’m not) to resolve. That option is always open to you, but do note that I don’t personally think anything there needs admin intervention atm, and I imagine an admin might give you the same advice in the first instance. Good luck! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)