User talk:Rich Farmbrough

User:Helpful Pixie Bot main backlog
Total	45997

• This page has been viewed 383949 times. Plus one when I wrote this, plus you looking at it now.

Femto's Box Th 3 Ed 5 Ms 7

Links FAQ Talk Archive Index follow my blog

This page- Drama free days 4584

From SignPost

Approximately 3% of editors account for 85% of contributions to the project, according to the statistician, and participation among this group has declined "even more sharply" than the active registered userbase in toto.

Funny that. Rich Farmbrough, 16:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC).

Unchallengeable take downs?

Rich, On the talk page for the proposed terms of use, you mention a takedown that is unchallengeable. While it's possible, I think it's more likely that it's a symptom of our bad communication about it or something (for which I would take responsibility). I don't think we have any that are unchallengeable right now. So, I want to write to ask if there's something I can clarify, or whether I'm missing something on my list? Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the matter has come up a couple of times, both on the Talk:Texas_Instruments_signing_key_controversy talk page of the article in question, and in the commentary to a recent (July) SignPost. The issue is that there only people who can issue a counter notice are the anonymous editors who originally posted the material. On most websites another person could post the material, wait for a challenge and respond to that. Here, since take-down has been implemented as an office action no one can repost the material without going against the office action (and in fact, even if they did, it would be removed by editors in support of the office action) therefore the material, which is freely published elsewhere, since the DMCA was challenged and the challenge not responded to, cannot be posted on Wikipedia. Effectively this makes Wikipedia the most censored forum for this information. Rich Farmbrough, 01:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC).

Interesting. My understanding from the legal team is that a DMCA takedown must be challenged by a party with legal standing, which would mean that it has to be someone who had posted the content. If we were to then suggest or passively allow someone else to post it, we would not be in full compliance. However, I'll confirm that. If that's the case, then we're in compliance with the regulations and others arguably are not. If it's an issue of interpretation, I'll find out why we're not more broad, but since Mr. Godwin structured those originally, I tend to think we're at the broadest level that he (and then Mr Brigham) felt was legally possible. But I'll get an answer and try to report back. Thanks for clarifying. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 05:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Waiting time for Helpful Pixie Bot

In a recent discussion on this talk page, you agreed to set a waiting time for HPbot, but you didn't set this for IP edits for some unknown reason. This creates siutatuions like [1] where 7 times in 20 minutes you edit the same article while an IP is actively editing it, thereby possibly creating edit conflicts only because the bot won't wait for an hour or so before making its edit.

The same happened e.g. here with three bot edits in five minutes.

I also notice that the waiting period for non-IP edits only seems to be about 10 minutes, even though you said that you had increased it to 1 hour[2]. Any reason that you don't actually wait for 1 hour, and for IPs as well? Fram (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I did set it to 1 hour but the effectiveness became zero as I predicted. I now have it on twice the previous delay, and effectiveness is about 50% at a guess. Rich Farmbrough, 12:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC).

I unblocked this bot on the very clear undertaking you gave me. As you have reneged on this I have reblocked the bot. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I changed it in build 615. That proved ineffective, so I changed it again in build 616. This isn't causing any complaints from the editors who are adding the tags, which is my touchstone, not, with all due respect, what you or Fram might think. Rich Farmbrough, 13:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC).

(ec)What do you mean by "effectiveness"? Are there pages that should get tag-dated but don't, due to the delay? Or do other bots get there before yours (and why is that a problem?)? Or something else? Apart from that, any reason that you can't implement the same delay for IPs, avoiding (from today) four bot edits in seven minutes to the same article[3]? Fram (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I would also be interested in the answer to the questions above as it makes no sense to me. I see no compelling reason to unblock this bot considering all the factors (the number of errors it seems to make, and the lack of responsiveness from the operator, the number of complaints on this talk page, ...). Another bot performing the same task seems to receive no complaints and is doing the job perfectly well.

RE This isn't causing any complaints from the editors who are adding the tags, it was due precisely to complaints/feedback from the bot's "clients" that this delay is being demanded. Your dismissive response to User:EEng and failure to follow through showed how you respond to your "touchstone".

To summarise I propose leaving this bot blocked indefinitely as I foresee no end to the problems encountered so far. My patience is fairly well exhausted on this matter and other bots are doing the same work without any problems, so there is no loss to Wikipedia. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Except that you treat that other bot differently, since it's editing at 10 minute delay is considered fine and dandy. This is simply prejudice brought about by the slinging of mud, and blocking the bot is bad for the encyclopedia. I addressed EEngs concerns by allowing a much longer delay in his case, as I have done for anyone who has raised the concern. Rich Farmbrough, 21:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC).

AnomieBot has a twenty minute delay, not a ten minute delay, and uses the same twenty minute delay for IPs... Fram (talk) 07:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

AnomieBOT running alone has a 20-minute delay. I have some experimental code running that automatically adjusts the delay to match (within reason) if Helpful Pixie Bot has been running faster; I did this because, way back when I started running the task, it was proposed that AnomieBOT use the same delay as (then-)SmackBot and Rich kept resetting his bot to just slightly faster. That seems to be what happened here, too, BTW: Rich turned his bot to about 19 minutes, then 18, then 16, then 14, then 10 over the course of 4 days. Anomie⚔ 12:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know that AnomieBOT was also running at 10 minutes and it doesn't make sense to me that AnomieBOT's delay should be affected by other bot's settings. It's as if you two are competing with each other, for some unknown reason, and I don't see this being helpful to the encyclopedia. This work is completely non-urgent and a delay of 24 hours would seem perfectly adequate to me. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No competition on my part, just parity. And it lets me know to do things like this. A delay of 24 hours is IMO too long, as on even a moderately active article the bot would never be allowed to edit. Anomie⚔ 15:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course you would still get to see new templates regardless of which bot edits first, since Helpful Pixie Bot wouldn't know about them either - and you have code I think you said to capture these cases. Interestingly that is one reason I find AnomieBOT frustrating - that it clears certain hard cases, which in my old (AWB based) daily workflow I would see the morning after kicking off a run, enabling me to keep the bot up to date. Another advantage of an AWB daily run was that an actual delay was built in, due to the time it took to build the list and the relatively low editing speed. A third advantage was far less reads of Wikipedia. Rich Farmbrough, 22:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC).

Sigh. Time to unblock this, since the block was done on the mistaken basis that I had reneged on an undertaking to MSGJ, which even if correct would not be a reason for a block. Blocks are not punitive. Rich Farmbrough, 17:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC).

MSGJ. You said you blocked because I reneged on something. If you re-read you will find that I didn't. Please therefore unblock. Rich Farmbrough, 22:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC).

I unblocked your bot based on some very specific undertakings which you did indeed renege on. I do not need to re-read the discussion to know this. Based on all that has happened I am not inclined to trust you to run this bot in a responsible manner. As I said earlier my patience is exhausted and I will not be unblocking the bot. If you wish to seek review of this, you may post at the Administrators' noticeboard. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

If it means anything, I miss good old Smack bot; it was fast and reliable as a nuclear clock. At 22:48 I last laid down some tags @ Medal of Honor and as of 02:48 the "nicely behaved bot" has not placed dates. I also liked Smack bot because it fixed any irregularities in the article while it was in there. I used to ping Smack bot with the request template just to have it clean up articles. :) So this delay going on made go and look for what happened to your bot and I find this crap. I think they threw the baby out with the bathwater. Brad (talk) 07:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

• Opinion essay: The monster under the rug

• Recent research: WikiSym; predicting editor survival; drug information found lacking; RfAs and trust; Wikipedia's search engine ranking justified

• News and notes: German Wikipedia continues image filter protest

• In the news: Citizendium on the rocks, Shankbone celebrated, and the week in vandalism

• Discussion report: Proposal to return this section from hiatus is successful

• WikiProject report: 'In touch' with WikiProject Rugby union

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Abortion case stalls, request for clarification on Δ, discretionary sanctions streamlined

• Technology report: Wikipedia Zero announced; New Orleans successfully hacked

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Birds summary

Ref: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Birds#Repetitive_work

There are 3 lists:

• IUCN
• HBW (IBC)
• IOC

These can be used to ref montoypic genera.

Moreover the IUCN website has changed and the refs need updating. Rich Farmbrough, 20:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC).

References to IUCN on bird pages

See discussion at Template talk:IUCN and on WP bird talk page. These links have plagued the WP Birds project for a number of years. I guess that it would need scraping the website. Any thoughts. Snowman (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

See above section: I have the data, Just need to firm up exactly what is needed - maybe some thinking time would be good. Rich Farmbrough, 14:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

Two Barnstars for your great work

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		For your great work in mediating over the years

Tamsier (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		You always edit with integrity and honour. A quality I respect greatly. Always there to offer help when needed to clarify Wiki policy

Tamsier (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Barnstars are cool. Rich Farmbrough, 21:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC).

You win

On the Matter of John Shipp, I'm come to inform you that I will be leaving the article alone from here on out. Although I feel that the article is still questionable, consensus is clearly in your favor for the retention of the article. I tip my hat to you for the work and for being patient with even as I worked to get the article axed; most users are not that polite.

Sincerely,

TomStar81 (Talk) 07:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for those kind words. Rich Farmbrough, 13:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC).

Signpost and hlist

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-11-21/Technology report#Horizontal lists have got class

fyi... Alarbus (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• • Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 21:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC).
    

• • • You're welcome. Hope you can whack a lot of these a bot or script. fyi, Edokter added some cell padding, so the inline padding and div-tricks should all be simply cut, too. Alarbus (talk) 06:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Date templates

In this edit your AWB again added a date template without any intrinsic cause. Please Stop That! Debresser (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

So if someone were to add a reference with a different date style, that would be a good thing? Rich Farmbrough, 16:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC).

Шn my understanding, these templates are first and foremost for the date formats as they are used in the text of the article itself. And even then, and regardless of that, if there is no intrinsic reason for an article to use a certain date format (e.g. an article about an English township should use dmy, and an article about a Canadian province mdy), I don't think incidental usage of a certain type of date format should be used as an indicator. Perhaps if there were five instances, e.g., all in the same date format, that would qualify as more than incidental usage. Has this been discussed somewhere? Debresser (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually Canadian usage varies even more widely than American (our Canadian colleagues have told us), although there seems to be a surprising consistency in the WP articles. In terms of difference between ref dates and content dates there is a red-herring in that when wee were writing the MoS we did not want to prohibit (preferably uniform) 1999-12-31 date style in references. On a later discussion proposing that all access dates be in that style, at least two otherwise intelligent editors swore blind that they were incapable of understanding dates in that format, until they were explained to them - otherwise I would have backed that proposal to the hilt. In terms of first usage there is no de minimus requirement, and nor should there be one, it would result in (even more) endless squabbling ("yes there were x dmy dates. but only because you converted my x-1 mdy and one ymd"). If there is a good reason to change (which is really only "national ties") it should just be changed with a suitable edit summary. Extensive discussions on date styles will be found in the archive of MoSNUM talk. Rich Farmbrough, 13:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC).

So here you are, saying the same thing as I do. So then why did you add a date format when there was no good reason? Pray tell. Debresser (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying that the reason for accepting different date formats in refs is to allow (DMY, YMD) and (MDY,YMD) not (DMY,MDY) or (MDY,DMY). Rich Farmbrough, 15:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC).

I see. But that still doesn't resolve our argument. Should a date format template be added in a case where 1. there is no substantial reason to prefer one date format over the other, and 2. the only practical uniformity is in references, while the article itself does not have any dates? Debresser (talk) 13:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

• News and notes: Arb's resignation sparks lightning RfC, Fundraiser 2011 off to a strong start, GLAM in Qatar

• In the news: The closed, unfriendly world of Wikipedia, fundraiser fun and games, and chemists vs pornstars

• Recent research: Quantifying quality collaboration patterns, systemic bias, POV pushing, the impact of news events, and editors' reputation

• WikiProject report: The Signpost scoops The Bugle

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Voting underway in the elections, finally a final decision on Abortion, scant movement on requests

• Technology report: Foundation appears correct to back improved smartphone support; and how a Reddit slip meant no-one could read anything for thirty minutes

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 07:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool newsletter

Hey, all! A quick update on how version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool is developing. I'm sending this to both newsletter recipients and regular participants, because I appreciate we've been a bit quiet :).

So, we're just wrapping up the first round of user contributions. A big thank you to everyone who has contributed ideas (a full list of which can be found at the top of the page); thanks almost entirely to contributions by editors, the tool looks totally different to how it did two months ago when we were starting out. Big ideas that have made it in include a comment voting system, courtesy of User:Bensin, an idea for a more available way of deploying the feedback box, suggested by User:Utar, and the eventual integration of both oversight and the existing spam filtering tools into the new version, courtesy of..well, everyone, really :).

For now, the devs are building the first prototypes, and all the features specifications have been finalised. That doesn't mean you can't help out, however; we'll have a big pile of shiny prototypes to play around with quite soon. If you're interested in testing those, we'll be unveiling it all at this week's office hours session, which will be held on Friday 2 December at 19:00 UTC. If you can't make it, just sign up here. After that, we have a glorious round of testing to undertake; we'll be finding out what form works the best, what wording works the best, and pretty much everything else under the sun. As part of that, we need editors - people who know just what to look for - to review some sample reader comments, and make calls on which ones are useful, which ones are spam, so on and so forth. If that's something you'd be interested in doing, drop an email to okeyes@wikimedia.org.

Thanks to everyone for their contributions so far. We're making good headway, and moving forward pretty quickly :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Request

There was a question on Template_talk:Merge#Avoid_blank_line_at_end about a template you made. I gave an answer, but you may have more to say. Debresser (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing so. Debresser (talk) 07:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Violation of edit restriction

In this edit [4] you changed "Infobox Military Unit" to "Infobox military unit". This is not listed at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects and is thus a violation of your editing restriction. Additional examples of this sort of violation are [5] [6]

In the same edit you changed "portal" to "Portal". AWB does not change the capitalization of first letters of templates, so this is also a violation of your editing restriction. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, in these edits you changed <references/> to {{reflist}}. You just marked for archiving a discussion on your talk page admonishing you to avoid doing this. As it is not built into AWB and does not affect the rendered page, it is also a violation of your editing restriction. [7] [8] [9] [10]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Lol, Looks like you better reset the counter back to 0 Rich!. I didn't look through every edit example but I don't see a problem with the first four provided that other more significant edits are done at the same time. That's just me personally though and my opinions don't usually carry much weight. --Kumioko (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no exception in these edit restrictions for edits done at the same time. The changes I mentioned are simply forbidden outright. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, this is surely a case of "thou dost complain too much" – not entirely inconsequential changes bundled with at least one consequential change. As to the 'reflist' change, I suggest:
(/(References ?==\n)[\n\s]*(?:\{\{[Rr]eflist\}\}|<references\/>)/g, '$1{{reflist|colwidth=30em}}') would make the change 'consequential' --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

If the change was made consequential, it would violate WP:CITEVAR. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll let it pass until something actually dramatic happens. Getting these kinds of messages after a 12 hour work day followed by 6 hours volunteering is more pathetic than dramatic. Rich Farmbrough, 02:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

<Sigh> Rich Farmbrough, 01:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

Carl, I am with Kumikio on this one. An editor is allowed to make cosmetic changes, even with automated tools, as long as they are made alongside some more significant edit. If this wasn't specified in those edit restrictions you mention, then such was their intend, no doubt. Debresser (talk) 05:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No, the intent was not to allow Rich to make whatever unnecessary/disputed cosmetic changes he feels like as long as he is making some significant edit - it was to prohibit Rich from making cosmetic changes of any kind unless they were built into AWB or had demonstrable consensus. –xeno^talk 13:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

(Otherwise, no restriction would be needed at all because cosmetic changes on their own are already prohibited by AWB's rules of use. It would be like an editing restriction prohibiting vandalism - pointless.) –xeno^talk 13:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Xeno, do you still feel sufficiently uninvolved as an administrator to block for these sorts of violations? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that further violations should be reported to a noticeboard for discussion so that any block based on the editing restrictions cannot simply be unilaterally overturned. –xeno^talk 13:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion at AN was just archived, and the editing restrictions were not removed. So it is not clear what another discussion immediately after that one would accomplish. At the same time Elen of the Roads indicated she might be willing to handle enforcement of the restriction. I will ping her again. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

And these changes have demonstrable consensus. Which is why only a select few object to them. Rich Farmbrough, 13:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to create the list of citations indicates that <references /> and {{Reflist}} are interchangeable. I do not see demonstrable consensus that the former should always be replaced by the latter. Nor is there any consensus that template should always have their first letter capitalized, this is simply a change that you make because YOULIKEIT. –xeno^talk 14:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

MOS says to minimise markup. Consensus. Usage is in favour of the template 6:1. Consensus. When I consolidated several portal boxes into one it is a standard change for which there is consensus. For capitalisation of infobox names there is consensus. Rich Farmbrough, 14:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

Can you provide some links to back that up? For example, where is the guideline, policy, MOS page, or whatever that describes a consensus on how to capitalize template calls? — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't put words into my mouth. Rich Farmbrough, 14:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

Usage numbers aren't really that compelling when we both know the usage numbers are where they are because you have been doing these edits for months or years. So the usage numbers are where they are at because you engineered that situation. –xeno^talk 14:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

We also have (I'm sure) a preponderance of US spelling over UK spelling, but that does not mean there is a consensus to change one to the other. The general rule is that optional stylistic things should be left alone unless there is a specific consensus to change them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Not-isomorphic. Rich Farmbrough, 14:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

You over-estimate me. I have only made 1% of the edits in en:. I will crunch some numbers this evening though. Rich Farmbrough, 14:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

I analyse 110 Gb of diffs (roughly 1% of the total) and found 9 cases where I had made such a change. Sine the total number of instances is about 1.4 million, accusations of fait accompli would appear to be as empty as the rest of them. Rich Farmbrough, 22:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

My biggest problem in all this is that if Rich's edits are so bad then why is it the same 4 or 5 editors crying wolf every time. I agree that some of the edits in the past were unnecessary and I also support the blocks due to the actualy errors that were introduced breaking certain articles. But when he bundles the inconsequential edits in with other more meaningful ones I don't think there is a problem. Even if there are 4 or 5 editors who are adminsn and self professed guardians of the Wiki that say other wise it doesn't make it against consensus. Additionally, by and large I think there is consensus for most of the changes with the exception of the same 4 or 5 editors. As for the UK to US spelling thats mixing apples and oranges into an already problematic discussion so lets try and stay on point. I also think arguments of edit volume are mostly kinda stupid BTW. Yes he did some edits that some thought to be pointless, so what, with the exception of the changes that actually broke the article the changes arguably made the article better, incrementally a little at a time. Just because one editor spends more time editing and less time discussing shouldn't be used as a blunt instrument in which to bludgeon them verbally! If he actually makles errors or does truly fruitless edits alone thats one thing but badgering him for this is nonsense and a waste of 99.99998% of the communities time. --Kumioko (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Xeno, the process of improving AWB is so bureaucratic and tedious. They still disconnect after some 15 seconds of idle time, even though that makes using it almost impossible, and many editors (!) have expressed their strongest feelings about it. Now, after that you can hardly expect anybody to take AWB as a standard. Debresser (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

AWB has a large collection of "general fixes". Since the problem is R.F. making up his own general fixes without broader consensus, using AWB as a standard for which general fixes have consensus makes some sense. Also, the AWB devs try to incorporate as many useful changes as consensus will allow, so if a change is not well enough supported to be in AWB, it is hard to justify making it on a semi-auto basis over large numbers of articles. A history of doing that is what led to the current restriction that R.F. is not allowed to make these changes at all. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't support that argument and heres why. AWB is used by a lot of projects besides Wikipedia and the logic AWB must also take into account these other projects. There have been plenty of times when the devs wanted to make a change for the betterment of WP but couldn't because they had to account for the other projects and sister wikis. Also, bare in mind that several bots use AWB and the edits they perform are not "built in". Using myself as an example also, I do a lot of edits that aren't built into AWB (at least not yet) such as rearranging sections (see also goes above References, external links and Further reading) based on the guidelines in the MOS. I also do this based on the MOS guidelines for talk pages. Many, many other editors also have logic they do thats not part of AWB. Before you argue that these limits are because of his edit restriction, which may be true, that is not how you phrased it above and the tone above sets a bad precedent to be used in future arguments above what kinds of edits can be done in AWB for all editors. So as I mentioned above, if he is careless andn breaks something fine, if he goes willinilly making changes for spacing and casing alone that seems to be so aggravating to some users fine, but when he is incoporating these insignificant changes with others that are more meaningful that should allowed. Otherwise these minor changes that you hate so much will stay on the article forever. --Kumioko (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

If someone does something with an AWB bot that is not built in, they need to have explicit bot approval for it. If someone manually reviews their AWB edits, they can do many things that are not built in, if they have consensus. But R.F. is under a special editing restriction that does not allow him to do even as many things as a normal AWB operator would be able to do. In particular he is not permitted to make the changes I linked in the first post of this thread. This section is not about whether to lift the editing restriction, which is what you seem to be getting towards with language like "should". The restriction is in place, and the point of this section was to document that it was violated. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

IMO the point of the restriction was to stop him from doing these edits individually and to get him to pay closer attention to the logic so pages don't get broken. Or am I missing the point. And I'm not asking for the restriction to be lifted or limited I don't see these as a problem since there being done with other edits is all and there are quite a few of us that are getting a little tired of the little boy who cried wolf act that goes on here every couple days. If you would have brought a bunch of cases where he was breaking pages and doing inconsequential edits (like removing blank spaces) I woudln't have bothered to comment at all and simply gone about my merry way as I have done in the past on such occassions. This just isn't one of those times. --Kumioko (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

See Xeno's comment above dated 13:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC). — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocking Rich for this IMO is utterly useless and I do not believe is in the spirit of the restriction. I personally think that creating this discussion over such petty things is more mischievous than the edits performed. I find it a little irritating frankly that the same users pull these shenanigans over and over. If he does something truly grievous like breaking articles then ok but otherwise your just wasting our time with this discussion. --Kumioko (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Request

There is a good question at Template_talk:Tfm#Notice_parameters. I couldn't really answer it. If the answer is that such a change could be made, go ahead. I'll update the documentation afterwards. Debresser (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Debresser (talk) 07:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Change of venue

Talk page followers might be interested in Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser#RfC on Template redirects. Rich Farmbrough, 11:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC).

Templates Cat use dmy dates and Cat use mdy dates

I created {{Cat use dmy dates}} and {{Cat use mdy dates}} and applied them to the most obvious categories having to do with ballet companies and dancers (which is all I really care about!)

They are crude copies of {{Use dmy dates}} and {{Use mdy dates}}, merely omitting the onlyarticles parameter.

I don't know whether there is an onlycategories parameter; but, if there were I would include it.

I just made the presence of the templates visible within the categories in which they are present: Articles in this category use dmy dates (and vice verse).

For the benefit of editors who do things the old-fashioned way, by hand.

This discussion began on my talk page, the Megan Fairchild section, which is now archived here.

Ohconfucius wrote that he uses a script to tag articles MDY or DMY and could use some help modifying it.

Rather than expect a script to search up and down the category tree for each article it seemed wiser to do so once and for all, tagging the categories by hand.

Ohconfucius' script needs to be modified to detect the presence of the Cat use dmy dates and Cat use mdy dates templates in any of the categories in which a given article directly resides.

NB There will be articles that lie in categories that are tagged both ways, Alexandra Ansanelli being a prime example; these ambiguous articles will need to be skipped by the script.

Ideally the script would put out a list of articles requiring human intevention — but this is far from an ideal world.

I would not be asking you, a veteran of the Date Wars, to re-enlist, but hope that this can be done discreetly and so avert future Date Wars.

You are absolutely right about how unimportant this, date format, is.

Indeed, I'd be happier if there were fewer scipts being run, ideally none, and people would do some real editing for a change! — Robert Greer (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you for the advice! — Robert Greer (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

{{GravEngAbs}}

Could you please elaborate on your answer in this RFC. It seems it is interpreted differently by me and User:Gerardw. Thanks. — Christoph Päper 08:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Blockquote

WP:MOS#Block quotations explicitly gives <blockquote> as an example of how to format a block quote. There is no reason to replace this with {{Block quote}}, as that template is only useful when the additional parameters are used. In particular this edit [11] is a violation of your editing restriction. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree in general with the above, but in this case Rich actually fixed the quote because it was not closed properly. I have now refixed it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Substitution checking

Please see the two sections I posted about this subject on Template_talk:Fix#Substitution_check and Template_talk:Fix#Method_of_substitution_check (one right after the other). I compare Ambox with Fix, asking a few questions and making a few suggestions. Debresser (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Purple Star
		for equanimity under sustained criticism, that might be considered an attack. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 21:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Rich Farmbrough, 21:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC).

Kimchi Chronicles

Hi Rich. I just wondered if the original creation of the article for the American TV series Kimchi Chronicles (which is fine as it is and I edited it recently as well) had a kind of flaw in its creation. It seems that the original article was created by an editor called "frappeinc" (User:frappeinc) which happens to be the production company for the show and owned by Charles Pinsky in NYC: Frappé Inc.. That was the only contribution by that user. Was it a COI originally? Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I would say so. Unless it's a copyvio there's nothing we need to do about it now. Rich Farmbrough, 18:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC).

Governing hierarchy and structure of WP

Hi Rich: You commented earlier upon this proposed addition to the page Wikipedia outlining the formal structure of WP. Since your comments, a number of further changes have been suggested and implemented. Could you take another look at this proposal and comment further? Thanks for your assistance. Brews ohare (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, here's the pi-jaw

I let that discussion at WP:AN run itself into the ground, in the benighted hope that you would stop making the edits that are driving people mad. However, it appears that like everyone ele who runs bots (remember I'm on a committee with Xeno and Coren) you are an anal retentive with OCD on the autism spectrum. Or at the very least, you can't figure why what you do is annoying people. So it falls to me, Captain Swing the Luddite to remind you that

regardless of the editing method (i.e. manual, semi-automatic, or automatic; from any account), Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from making cosmetic changes to wikicode that have no effect on the rendered page (excepting those changes that are built-in to stock AWB or those that have demonstrable consensus or BAG approval). This includes but is not limited to: changing templates to template redirects, changing template redirects to templates (see here for AWB stock changes on this item, with the understanding that bypassing template redirects will only be done when there is a substantive edit being done), changing the spacing around headers and ordered lists (except to make an aberration consistent with the rest of the page), and changing the capitalization of templates. Furthermore, prior to orphaning/emptying and deleting categories or templates, the appropriate processes (WP:CFD/WP:TFD) should be engaged. Sanction imposed per this AN discussion, to be enforced by escalating blocks

Now you're an intelligent man, and it shouldn't come to this. So I want you to take all the code out of whatever instrument of the Devil it is that you use, that does things like this and changes <references/> to {{reflist}}, and switch cases the first letter of template names, and stuff like that. Because the next time that someone tells me that you have done it again, I will block you in the following sequence - 24hrs (in case you thought I wasn't serious), 1 week, 1 month, 1 year. And that would not be a good thing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)