ProcrastinatingReader

Archives:

• • 2020
  • 2021
  • 2022

Request for global bot flag for CommonsDelinker

Hello!

This is a notification to let you know that a new request for the global bot flag for CommonsDelinker has been started.

Please note that the request will remain open for 14 days starting today. You can leave a comment or opinion on the relevant page!

Best regards --Superpes15 (talk)

ProcBot: Main Page snapshots failure

ProcBot's task "Main Page snapshots" failed to run per the configuration specified at Wikipedia:Bot activity monitor/Configurations. Detected only 0 edits in the last 1 day, whereas at least 1 was expected. If/when the issue is fixed, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. When that is done, this notice will be reposted if the bot task is still broken or is re-broken. If your bot is behaving as expected, then you may want to modify the task configuration instead. Or to unsubscribe from bot failure notifications, remove the |notify= parameter from the {{/task}} template. Thanks! – SDZeroBot (talk) 00:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Seems to be an infrastructure issue on WMCS's ProcBot instance. Will contact sysadmins. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Resolved. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

ProcBot: Moved an editnotice from a redirect to the target article

This move by ProcBot was undesirable. Any way to stop moves of that type? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

It's persistent! I think I was able to exclude the bot from that one page, but I'm guessing the bot treats all redirect editnotices as problematic? Is there a way to only target ones that have been recently moved? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Firefangledfeathers: if an editnotice is intended to be targeted at the redirect, rather than the article the redirect points to, Template:Editnotice suggests adding the |redirect=yes param to the template call. That would also stop ProcBot from moving the editnotice. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I've done that here :) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

CopyPatrolBot

Just wanted to see if you're fine with CopyPatrolBot, since you put it on hold and there is some debate about the wording of your message. I'm headed out but I'll see any replies in the morning. Primefac (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

ProcBot: Move editnotices following underlying page move failure

ProcBot's task "Move editnotices following underlying page move" failed to run per the configuration specified at Wikipedia:Bot activity monitor/Configurations. Detected only 0 "move" actions in the last 14 days, whereas at least 1 was expected. If/when the issue is fixed, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. When that is done, this notice will be reposted if the bot task is still broken or is re-broken. If your bot is behaving as expected, then you may want to modify the task configuration instead. Or to unsubscribe from bot failure notifications, remove the |notify= parameter from the {{/task}} template. Thanks! – SDZeroBot (talk) 13:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

RFBA inactive?

The proposal at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BsoykaBot 3 has been open for nearly 4 weeks, and has been calling for a the attention of a BAG member for over 2 weeks, but so far has no comment from a BAG member. Can you take a look, or advise? Dicklyon (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)