User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2017/June

Speed of light

Re: this edit, User:MassimoGuarnieri has been editing many articles, primarily inserting references to various peer-reviewed works by M. Guarnieri. Several editors have been blanket reverting him, since he appears to be citing his own work, and excessively so.--Srleffler (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

More behavior

You know, feigning interest in talk and ignoring talk for four months followed by reverting is considered WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I said I'd join civil discussions. Accusing me of WP:FRINGE is not a civil discussion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

ARCA

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: GamerGate and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

philoSOPHIA

Could I just advise that I'd back off the RfC now? Not every last comment needs to be answered. You've made your points; let others have their say and then the discussion will be closed. It seems pretty certain at this stage which way it's going to go anyway and an aggressive barrage of arguments isn't going to change it. By repeating the same things over and over in answers to every comment you disagree with, you only put off other editors who might agree with you (as it seems most do) from getting involved. It's turning into a wall of text; I'd just let it go for now. GoldenRing (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I haven't made a comment in two days. Not really quite sure what you're getting aggression from. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request CitationCleanerBot 2

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CitationCleanerBot 2 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 00:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

stub tags

Hi. Regarding this edit of yours please consider adding stub tags under categories per WP:IDEALSTUB to make their detection easier. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Bot discussions

For me the discussions about bots are a matter of creating a frame where the bots will work. Not all the discussions are the same or have the same aim. I was preparing alarger discussion where the various aspects will be discussed. For instance, one aspect is if we should consider moving certain bot tasks away from bot owners to a platform etc. It's not all about CHECKWIKI, AWB's general fixes, HTML old code, non-visual edits. Ofcourse, every case has to be discussed seperatelly. It's not personal because, as a community, we have to think ways of how various people will contrivute around. I have met people who would like to program for Wikipedia, people who like to fix errors etc. The thing that editors like Knife-in-the-drawer, Bgwhite are not around anymore puzzles me. I have witnessed the hostility to various bot owners, the same way female editors or newcomers fce hostility in Wikipedia in various occassions. That's why I invest all this time thinking an rethinking about it. You may think this is too much. It's your right. You tried to push me a very specific agenda, having good intentions ofcourse, while I have said in all possible ways that I have different set of priorities. Now we want me to banned from a discussion I invested lots of my time and I have contributed in forming policies exactly via the system of consensus and not via the sysme of majority. That hurts. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: Consider for a second that you might not be the best person out there to lead such discussions. Nothing you have proposed in the last few months has gained any traction, and you create sections like "Proposal to do X", only to later say that the section isn't about X, but rather Y. Combine that with completely unclear topics, puzzling replies, posts made on the wrong venue, non-sequiturs statements, or your recent posts on WT:BAG. IF I AGF and take your claims at face value, you had a concern about newbie-biting from Rob, based on a two week old minor comment about possible actions, which actually got resolved in the way you wanted, with support from Rob. If I ABF, you simply wanted to harrass/embarass/get Rob in trouble because you and him don't get along. Neither of those are good things.

The point is we're tired of dealing with these incessant requests to give you a blank check on doing whatever checkwikis/genfixes/minor edits, or enshrining what you want in policy. We have tried explaining this to you multiple times, we have tried to steered you in productive directions that do have community support, and so on, but nothing seems to work. Very often, someone makes an innocuous comment, and you'll go "HA! See, this means there's a need for an RFC/this means there is a problem/this means the edits I want have support!" and no one would ever reasonably interpret the original comment to mean any of those. I'm sorry you feel hurt by this, but hurting you isn't the goal. The goal is to get you to do what you're good at. Work on AWB/Checkwiki/Genfixes both as a dev and as a bot op, but accept the limits the community has set forth, both in your ARBCOM case, and in the recent COSMETICBOT RFC.

Note that the topic ban is specific to creating site-wide discussions on these issues, while allowing (limited) participation should these discussion arise. The ban specifically would not (if passed) prevent you from running and developing any sort of bots, nor does it prevent you from running CW fixes/Gen fixes/MOS fixes, nor does it prevent your from asking clarifications about policy implies for to your bots. If you make/propose a bot at BRFA, and some aspect of policy is unclear, or if community support for some specific edit (or types of edit) is unclear, BAG is more than willing and happy to hold larger discussions / RFCs on the issue as needed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I know that I am not the best person to start such discussions that's why I am moving slowly before forming a full proposal to address to the community. The same problem was with Persondata.

When I proposed removal the people reacted and I recall a comment that "I am not good to play out the community". Some weeks later the task started and no pages contain Persondata. Even the cosmeticbot card was played tht days.

Same holds for ISBN conversions. When I started it there were reactions. My BRFA closed as "Denied". Now it's done by 2-4 bots and soon there will be no magic words.

Same holds for Wikproject banners. When I started renaming people reacted. Now all Wikiprojcts shar the same name convention.

My wikilife is full of such examples. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

In both Persondata and ISBN case we had the chance to do secondary tasks (not just general fixes) but we missed it. We could have merged other valuable tasks by planning better. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

"Moving slowly" is not how I would describe your recent actions. Moving slowly would look something like

• Create a userspace draft
• Clearly outline what it is you want to do. This means being specific with "This is the task I have in mind, with the proposed logic, these are the possible issues I see/want feedback on, these are the problem this task is trying to solve", rather than a general "Some articles are bad, others are not as good as they could be, I want to make it better, how can we do that?"
• Spellcheck/proof read things.
• Leave it alone for at least 2-3 days, possibly more, come back to it and read what you wrote/proposed with fresh eyes.
• Distill your proposal to the essence of what it is you're trying to do.
• Get feedback from a few people that are interested in helping, hash things out with them. Listen to what they are saying. If they don't seem to understand, it's likely what you are proposing is unclear, or needs more work. Also listen if they tell you your idea has no chance of being adopted.
• Submit it to the community

This is exactly what we did at User:Anomie/Sandbox2 for the cosmetic bot update RFC. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I startd a discussion in December (6 months ago), I resumed a bit this month and it i still am ope discussion. I said I will come with a conrete solution later based also in the in-peron discussios I participate. I am not ready for a draft yet. The discussions in the bot policy seems to go good so far in examining various aspects and various weaknesses of the existing software and proccesses. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hackathon

Hello! I hope you're doing well! We've met at a couple of past Wikimanias and online. I recall you working a bit with printed content, so I thought you might be interested in a hackathon we're doing right after Wikimania (Montreal) in my home town of Potsdam, New York, about 2.5 hours from Montreal. The goal is to improve our ability to put together collections of Wikipedia articles (and other open content) for offline use, which I seem. There will be several of us who have worked with quality and importance criteria at the meeting. It runs for four full days (August 13-17) and the details are at http://OFF.NETWORK. If you want to attend, just let me know. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 02:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Martin,

My plans for post Wikimania a bit up in the air at the moment. I'd argue that it's fairly unlikely that I attend, given that my passport isn't up to date (which is easily fixable). However, I do not feel very comfortable traveling to the US for the next 3-4 years due to the political climate, nor do I feel very comfortable going through US customs for the same reasons. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I fully understand. However, we're only 30 miles from the border, and as a Canadian you're pretty routine for the border people here. Potsdam is a college town (2 universities in one small town), so I'm sure you'd feel at home. We also have a lot of interesting people coming (WMF, Kiwix, K-Lite, Wikimed, etc) - over 20 so far have booked, mainly into dorm rooms on our campus. But if you're not comfortable coming, I do respect that. Let me know if you change your mind. Regards, Walkerma (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, it's likely that I'd be fine. I'm a white dude after all. But I'm not turning in my social media passwords, nor am I comfortable with the level of professionalism in US customs agents/law enforcement agents under this president, and those who he emboldens. I could very well be detained and delayed because some yahoo officer decides I'm too liberal on Facebook, or having ordered nuclear materials (job-related) in the past, or a dozen other reasons.

Am I being paranoid? Maybe. But I'd rather be safe than sorry. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)