I started a thread at the administrator's noticeboard to try to find a way forward with this, and would welcome your participation there, as you have been involved in some of the prior discussions, and have extensive involvement in botty matters. UninvitedCompany 17:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- @UninvitedCompany: thanks for the note, I left a reply there, tried to keep it to the policy points, not programming issues. — xaosflux Talk 20:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I see that the AN discussion has failed to draw the wider review that I had hoped for. I believe it is perceived as a third-rail topic by other administrators since no one wants to disagree with a prominent blocking admin, or go on the record as opposing the operation of a widely-used bot. Wikipolitics. For my part I can see both sides. I believe the best way forward is to, at the same time, unblock the bot, while also opening a formal request for reexamination at WP:BOTN. I believe it is important to unblock the bot first to avoid creating facts on the ground. Your thoughts? UninvitedCompany 16:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- @UninvitedCompany: in general I think most of the "making bad edits" issues seem to have been addressed by the operator, so on that consideration unblocking and resuming operations should be allowed. I think the force edit summaries to include the editor it is reacting to part is an outstanding consideration - however I don't think it is a showstopper. Policy-wise, I don't see these edits that react to requests as elevating the others to the status of "operator", as such editors do not exert autonomous control over the account. (Compare to how someone not signing an edit is not operating sign-bot). I'd want to see affirmation acknowledgement of the current operator (Smith609) that they will be responsive and take responsibility for all edits their bot makes, and that if minor adjustments are needed to meet changing standards (e.g. if a certain parameter should not be removed from a template) they will comply to the standards. Taking responsibility for edits of one's bot is a core tenant of bot operations, and "garbage in - garbage out" isn't an affirmative defense (it should be "garbage in - nothing out"), as they are always welcome to NOT make any edit. While I'm on BAG, this is not intended to be a response "for BAG". — xaosflux Talk 17:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!Edit
|The Technical Barnstar|
|This for your hardworks on enhancing Wikipedia through technical works such as programming, bot building and approving, Village pump, etc. I appreciate your selfless service to the encyclopedia. You are a typical metapedian of our wiki. Thanks for helping others in technical area. Thank you for taking the time for this. Thank you! PATH SLOPU 07:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)|
In February 2018, you protected Wikipedia:Notifications/Thanks, as it was linked from a system message, however it no longer is. I have just closed a WP:RM discussion that resulted in consensus to move Wikipedia:Notifications, and I have moved its subpages too, however I was not able to move Wikipedia:Notifications/Thanks, due to the protection. Can you remove the protection when you get the chance, please. Danski454 (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).
- Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický
- An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
- An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
- An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.
- The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
- Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Video gamesEdit
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Video games. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
What do i do?Edit
Hello Xaosflux, what did i do if someone is blatantly ignoring the [Wikipedia:Signatures#NoTemplates]] rule, and how do i report them?
- 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.
- @JJBullet: first, ask them to stop. If it persists, you can list them at WP:AN/I for administrator review. — xaosflux Talk 11:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/NoticeboardEdit
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)