User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2022/January

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Headbomb. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Unused templates

Hey, are you still working on Template:Vitality/colour and the Template:L1-Vitality family templates or are these abandoned? Gonnym (talk) 13:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I haven't touched those in years. Might want to ask at the Template:Metabanner talk page if they're a potential use for them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. You were the only possible user of them, as I'm sure that if they needed such templates, they would have used or created ones by now. Gonnym (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:L1-Vitality and friends

Template:L1-Vitality has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Morricone

Re Morricone: "Françoise Hardy – Mon amie la rose site in the reader's poll conducted by the newspaper la Repubblica to celebrate Mina's 70th anniversary in 2010, 30,000 voters picked the track as the best song ever recorded by Mina." which you reverted to is not a grammatically correct sentence. The sentence should begin with the word "In" "Françoise Hardy – Mon amie la rose site" is part of the previous reference, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venndiagram8 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't care what you do with the sentence, just don't break the reference. Specifically

"

|url-status=dead}}</ref> ''Françoise Hardy – Mon amie la rose'' site in the reader's poll conducted by the newspaper'' [[la Repubblica]]''"

Should not become

"

|url-status=dead ''Françoise Hardy – Mon amie la rose'' site in the reader's poll conducted by the newspaper'' [[la Repubblica]]''"}}</ref>

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

iPad editing

Thanks, I couldn’t get all that to happen from an iPad …. Was trying to add an inline commentary, iPad won’t do it, and couldn’t find inline for primary source. I am writing up a long explanation for all of the problems with those edits, but will have to move to a real computer to finish. He also provides the example you asked for yesterday! More when I get on real computer, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

"He also provides the example you asked for yesterday" not sure what you mean by that. I've also removed the medcn tags and the primary sources inline tag, because I do not see how the existing refs (Cochrane + NIHR) fails sourcing requirements. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

That’s elsewhere … I’ll get to it on real computer … the current schizophrenia is still messed up (but was before they edited as well), but I’m making it worse while trying to ipad edit … will respond at WT:MED when I can do full and correct write-up when not iPad editing…. Thanks for fixing mess I left. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

PS, not sure if you are aware (see the top of my talk page), but I have to limit my time sitting at computer since the tree fell on me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. Without knowing the exact details of your situation, if sitting causes you issues, you might want to consider a standing desk (here's a random YouTube video by a guy that's been using them for a year). Not sure if you knew those existed, but they might help! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I know of those, and other options … so far, I’m out of luck. But yesterday was worse because I was also editing from a hotspot from the car with hubby driving … I will catch up in a bit when I get on real computer. I try to do as much as I can from iPad and then briefly move to computer for more difficult edits, and am (unfortunately) finding that responding to that good faith editor on WT:MED will take a long post that should not be filled with my usual iPad errors. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, I made a (still unresolved) mess at the article, since ... well, see WT:MED ... is it a journal, or a website, or what? I can't find a journal article, so we need an access-date, which document doesn't allow ... unsure how to fix, leaving it to you, but I don't think we have properly cited the text, but schizophrenia should go to FAR anyway, so I may stop worrying about keeping it up to snuff. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Utensils

May I suggest disengaging? They're blocked, they're warned against repeating the edits, and your exchange with them is just winding them up -- there is obviously no chance that you explaining further will be helpful. --JBL (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I'm pretty much done with them. It's evidently useless to engage more. They have the proverbial rope whenever they get unblocked. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Bots Newsletter, January 2022

Bots Newsletter, January 2022

BRFA activity by month

Welcome to the ninth issue of the English Wikipedia's Bots Newsletter, your source for all things bot. Vicious bot-on-bot edit warring... superseded tasks... policy proposals... these stories, and more, are brought to you by Wikipedia's most distinguished newsletter about bots.

After a long hiatus between August 2019 and December 2021, there's quite a bit of ground to cover. Due to the vastness, I decided in December to split the coverage up into a few installments that covered six months each. Some people thought this was a good idea, since covering an entire year in a single issue would make it unmanageably large. Others thought this was stupid, since they were getting talk page messages about crap from almost three years ago. Ultimately, the question of whether each issue covers six months or a year is only relevant for a couple more of them, and then the problem will be behind us forever.

Of course, you can also look on the bright side – we are making progress, and this issue will only be about crap from almost two years ago. Today we will pick up where we left off in December, and go through the first half of 2020.

Overall
In the first half of 2020, there were 71 BRFAs. Of these, Y 59 were approved, and 12 were unsuccessful (with N2 8 denied, ? 2 withdrawn, and 2 expired).

January 2020

Yeah, you're not gonna be able to get away with this anymore.

Y ST47Bot, Seppi333Bot, Qbugbot 4 · N2 PkbwcgsBot 25, PkbwcgsBot 26
A new Pywikibot release dropped support for Python 3.4, and it was expected that support for Python 2.7 would be removed in coming updates. Toolforge itself planned to drop Python 2 support in 2022.
Two new bots dropped in January 2020: ST47Bot, the successor to STBot, and Seppi333Bot, whose task was to perform a weekly update of four "massive" wikitables for WikiProject Molecular Biology.
Cydebot, an adminbot operated by Cyde since 2006, was blocked after going berserk on categories that hadn't yet been CfD'd.

February 2020

Y AnomieBOT 78, Cewbot 2, DannyS712 bot 67, DannyS712 bot III 63, PearBOT 6, DemonDays64 Bot 2 · N2 PearBOT
On February 1, some concerns were raised about ListeriaBot performing "nonsense" edits. Semi-active operator Magnus Manske (who originally coded the Phase II software|precursor of MediaWiki) was pinged. Meanwhile, the bot was temporarily blocked for several hours until the issue was diagnosed and resolved.
On February 18, ST47Bot got into a tussle with Amalthea (bot), and had to be partially-blocked from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cases/Overview.

March 2020

Y MajavahBot, SDZeroBot, TheSandBot 6, TheSandBot 7, Bitbotje, FACBot 6, TheSandBot 8, Qbugbot 5, Cewbot 3, SDZeroBot 2, PrimeBOT 31, WikiCleanerBot 12 · AntiCompositeBot
In March, a long discussion was started at Wikipedia talk:Bot policy by Skdb about the troubling trend of bots "expiring" without explanation after their owners became inactive. This can happen for a variety of reasons -- API changes break code, hosting providers' software updates break code, hosting accounts lapse, software changes make bots' edits unnecessary, and policy changes make bots' edits unwanted. The most promising solution seemed to be Toolforge hosting (although it has some problems of its own, like the occasional necessity of refactoring code).
Some of the twelve bot tasks approved this month were TheSandBot 6 (removing blocked users from Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues), and TheSandBot 7 (removing unblocked users from Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for promotional user names). SDZeroBot 2 was approved to refine geographic stub tags. New bots approved this month were MajavahBot (to patrol WP:EFFPR), SDZeroBot (to merge stub tags), and Bitbotje (fixing DISPLAYTITLE modifications, DEFAULTSORT errors and broken behavior switches in draftspace).

April 2020

Y TheSandBot 9, BHGbot 5, DannyS712 bot 69, SDZeroBot 3, ST47ProxyBot, WugBot 4, SDZeroBot 4, DatBot 10, WikiCleanerBot 11, WikiCleanerBot 13, WikiCleanerBot 14, AntiCompositeBot 2, Cewbot 4 · N2 DaedanBot 1 · Creffbot
A discussion on the bot noticeboard, "Re-examination of ListeriaBot", was started by Barkeep49, who pointed out repeated operation outside the scope of its BRFA (i.e. editing pages in mainspace, and adding non-free images to others). Some said it was doing good work, and others said it was operating beyond its remit. It was blocked on April 10; the next day it was unblocked, reblocked from article space, reblocked "for specified non-editing actions", unblocked, and indeffed. The next week, several safeguards were implemented in its code by Magnus; the bot was allowed to roam free once more on April 18.
ST47ProxyBot joined the stable in April, after a BRFA started in December was finally completed. As an adminbot, it was authorized to block IP addresses belonging to open proxies, public VPN services, and web hosts. New tasks approved for existing bots included BHGbot 5 (diffusing categories), TheSandBot 9 (taking over some tasks from the inactive RonBot), and WugBot 4 (updating data at {{Interactive COVID-19 maps}}). Also, DatBot 10 was approved to scale down non-free SVGs — I didn't even know that was a thing.
A discussion at Wikipedia talk:Bot policy was started by Thryduulf about whether WP:BOTCOMM should explicitly specify that bot operators must be responsive to concerns raised on English Wikipedia specifically (as opposed to Phabricator, SourceForge, Toolforge, et cetera). Eventually, the policy was amended to its current form:

Issues and enquiries are typically expected to be handled on the English Wikipedia. Pages reachable via unified login, like a talk page at Commons or at Italian Wikipedia could also be acceptable [...] External sites like Phabricator or GitHub (which require separate registration or do not allow for IP comments) and email (which can compromise anonymity) can supplement on-wiki communication, but do not replace it.

May 2020

Y MajavahBot 3, DannyS712 bot 70, CitationCleanerBot 5, Dreamy Jazz Bot 4, QEDKbot, William Avery Bot 2, DannyS712 bot 68, PrimeBOT 32, TheSandBot 10, Bot1058 7, BHGbot 6, EaglesBot 2, Cewbot 5, WikiCleanerBot 17 · N2 MDanielsBot, PhuzBot 3, Gedimon · ? PearBOT 7
MajavahBot 3, an impressively meta bot task, was approved this month for maintaining a list of bots running on the English Wikipedia. The page, located at User:MajavahBot/Bot status report, is updated every 24 hours; it contains a list of all accounts with the bot flag, as well as their operator, edit count, last activity date, last edit date, last logged action date, user groups and block status.
Other approvals for this month were William Avery Bot 2 (processing redirects in {{R from scientific name}}), DannyS712 bot 68 (allowing users to schedule bot reminders for themselves), TheSandBot 10 (removing blocked/locked users from Category:User talk pages with conflict of interest notices), Bot1058 7 (updating Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests/Permalink), Dreamy Jazz Bot 4 (adding {{WikiProject Biography|living=no}} to talk pages where their associated article is in a year of death category), and QEDKbot (deleting and nominating empty categories).
General syntax fixing tasks were approved for DannyS712 bot 70, CitationCleanerBot 5, PrimeBOT 32, BHGbot 6, Cewbot 5, and EaglesBot 2, as well as WikiCleanerBot 15, 16, and 17.
Seven bots who fell below activity requirements (with neither the bots nor their operators having any edits or logged actions in two years) had their bot flags removed. They were NekoBot, Robert SkyBot, DASHBotAV, VoxelBot, JackieBot, ReferenceBot, and CensusBot.
On May 12, EmausBot was blocked.

June 2020

Y QEDKbot 2, AnomieBOT 79, WOSlinkerBot 6, Yapperbot 2, Yapperbot, AnomieBOT 80, Dreamy Jazz Bot 5, WikiCleanerBot 18, HasteurBot 15, MusikBot II 4, NoSandboxesHere · N2 RedWarn · ? Seppi333Bot 2
In July 2017, Headbomb made a proposal that a section of the Wikipedia:Dashboard be devoted to bots and technical issues. In November 2019, Lua code was written superseding Legobot's tasks on that page, and operator Legoktm was asked to stop them so that the new code could be deployed. After no response to pings, a partial-block of Legobot for the dashboard was proposed. Some months later, on June 16, Headbomb said: "A full block serves nothing. A partial block solves all current issues [...] Just fucking do it. It's been 3 years now." The next day, however, Legoktm disabled the task, and the dashboard was successfully refactored.
On June 7, RexxS blocked Citation bot for disruptive editing, saying it was "still removing links after request to stop". A couple weeks later, a discussion on the bots noticeboard was opened, saying "it is a widely-used and useful bot, but it has one of the longest block logs for any recently-operating bot on Wikipedia". While its last BRFA approval was in 2011, its code and functionality had changed dramatically since then, and AntiCompositeNumber requested that BAG require a new BRFA. Maintainer AManWithNoPlan responded that most blocks were from years ago (when it lacked a proper test suite), and problems since then had mostly been one-off errors (like a June 2019 incident in which a LTA had "weaponized" the bot to harass editors).
David Tornheim opened a discussion about whether bots based on closed-source code should be permitted, and proposed that they not. He cited a recent case in which a maintainer had said "I can only suppose that the code that is available on GitHub is not the actual code that was running on [the bot]". Some disagreed: Naypta said that "I like free software as much as the next person, and I strongly believe that bot operators should make their bot code public, but I don't think it should be that they must do so".
Two new bots had their first BRFAs approved: Yapperbot, to replace Legobot for handling the Feedback Request Service, and NoSandboxesHere, to remove {{user sandbox}} from articles in draftspace using Category:Non-userspace pages using User sandbox.

Conclusion

What's next for our intrepid band of coders, maintainers and approvers?

Will Citation bot ever be set free to roam the project?
What's the deal with all those book links that InternetArchiveBot is adding to articles?
Should we keep using Gerrit for MediaWiki?
What if we had a day for bots to make cosmetic edits?

These questions will be answered — and new questions raised — by the February 2022 Bots Newsletter. Tune in, or miss out!

Signing off... jp×g 23:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

(You can subscribe or unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding or removing your name from this list.)