Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by X! (talk | contribs) at 10:45, 29 September 2010 (→Please block Rich Farmbrough - thousands of unnecessary capitalization changes: my view). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Note: I will generally answer on your talk page (and usually copy here), and look for your responses here. If you see my answer here and it's not on your talk page, I'm either not happy with it (haven't finished writing it), or I forgot to copy it over. However I don't really use my watch-list as it still has 20,000 items in it, so best to reply here. R.F.

FAQ

Please feel free to read my FAQ. R.F.

Full ArQuive

Alternatively browse my Talk Archive Index. R.F.

FarmBLOGh

Or follow my (broken) blog. R.F.

Threads

• Silly putty
• Slinky
• Fluffy kitten

I understand people feel strongly about things, but please try to keep your conversations in the appropriate threads. Rich Farmbrough, 20:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC).

FYI

See here. –xeno 21:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have added the link myself. Q Science (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

I've henceforth blocked you from editing until the issues surrounding your unapproved bot are resolved. Despite the much good this bot has had, it's also creating much disruption. Just today, it tagged the Main Page as uncategorized. It took 12 minutes to self-revert. It is adding spacing changes which are clearly not uncontroversial. Despite multiple warnings, it continues to do so. Thus, I have blocked you until you can resolve these issues. (X! · talk)  · @924  ·  21:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Burma

Only thing i spotted from the run the other day was that you left in the leader title -mayor so it now comes up with a { } error. Can you ensure they are removed like this?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thread copied from ANI - due being unable to save while I was replying to it

Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

SmackBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights)

Recently, the AWB bot has been making totally unnecessary capitalization changes. These were being "discussed" on Rich Farmbrough's page, here and here. He said that he fixed the problem, but a day later, it was back. When brought up again, his response was to blank (archive) the page. Therefore, I request immediate halt to this use of this bot until this issue is addressed. Q Science (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• The fact that so many have complained to Rich about pointless template capitalization changes and other sundry changes such as == spacing around headers == makes it clear that these are not uncontroversial edits. As such, they represent a violation of WP:AWB#Rules of use #3. I had laid off complaining about R.F. botting from his main account, but only because the edits were by-and-large useful and uncontroversial. This is no longer the case. These types of edits that change articles from how they were intentionally set by other editors to suit one bot-op's personal preference should stop unless they are approved by BAG. –xeno 21:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Would there be any objection if a regular editor simply hit the big red button on SmackBot's user page until an admin deals with the matter? Delta Trine 21:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Neither the bot nor I are editing at the moment, nor will we be for some time. I have revised the ruleset on Cite templates, as I said. When people start destroying the structure of the talk page the choice is to revert or archive. I had 35 threads, all pretty much dead, it seems reasonable to archive them - all accessible and new messages can still be left. I have now revised the rulset further and removed the Cite templates completely, restoring the status quo ante. Rich Farmbrough, 21:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC).

Do you want me to copy this over to ANI? As I mentioned to you prior you to collapsing it, you shouldn't be changing the first-letter capitalization for any templates without consensus or approval; if a human editor used {{small case}} then it can and should remain small case. I'm also a little concerned at your characterization of good faith criticism as "vandalising the talk page" (since amended). –xeno 21:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that would be cool. I'm away for the night anyway - and dropping comments into multiple unrelated threads is what I was referring to - I have moderated my language a little. Rich Farmbrough, 21:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC).

Ok. –xeno 21:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Multiple threads are the strong indicator here. If there are no errors, then there are likely to be no threads—something impossible, which is why it is important that we take the time to report bugs here, not just revert the change. Thirty threads means thirty problems that didn't work out. If any of them are repeats, it means that the original bug wasn't fixed—and that is the conflict that I watch at work here. Editors report bugs, and the bugs go unfixed. Editors report again, unfixed again; ... If a issue point is controversial (and not a clear-cut bug), then it should not be being altered en-masse by automated means (including pseudo-automated means).

• Not so the page was approximately
  • 2 outdated/test messages
  • 1 technical discussion
  • 1 thread about a template
  • 1 about an IP vandal
  • 1 about an apparently deleted item
  • 1 about something from 2009
  • 2 requests for article fixes
  • 1 request for a feature
  • 2 discussions about categorization (or not) of WADS and SWAT
  • 2 thanks
  • 4 notices
  • 1 advice of an edit conflict
  • 3 request to look at tagged articles
  • 1 query about MediaWiki limitations
  • 2 error reports
  • 2 about the current issue, one an instruction to stop, one a query.
  • and 1 *ahem* request to be a pen-pal.

Rich Farmbrough, 06:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC).

One option might be to pick a number here (eg. five). As soon as this number of threads are open and not yet archived, then hold off the edits until one of the threads gets auto-archived. This would ensure that all threads got the attention deserved, ensure that all bug reports were seen and not missed, and ensure that the edits being done really were of an above-average quality and truly uncontroversial nature. —Sladen (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea, I've actually dumped auto-archiving by date anyway as there are too many problems, albeit minor. Many thanks to Mizabot and WerdnaBot and the others for years of service. Rich Farmbrough, 06:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC).

Sorry, but that's nonsense.

What is? Femto Bot (talk)

If you want to continue doing bot tasks (or bot-like editing) without explicit BAG approval, then your tasks better bet completely uncontroversial or backed by solid consensus, and you be extremely responsive to concerns brought to you. If a task is challenged then you better stop right away, instead of waiting for five threads with complaints.
Over the past couple of days it seems to me that you just wanted to sit it out. You claimed you changed your AWB rules, but you were in fact still doing it. My AGF ran out. Amalthea 10:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes it was matching {{Cite Web}} I think. I have removed all four (journal, news, web and book) from the generating rules as of build 553. Femto Bot (talk)

There are three issues that I see here:

1. Running an unapproved automated bot on your main account - explicitly disallowed by the bot policy
2. Not responding to concerns about your bots, and blanking instead - bad bot operator practice
3. Continuing to run tasks which quite obviously do not have community consensus - bad bot op practices and violates Consensus

Those three issues, combined with the continuation of this for a long time, has resulted in a block. Unless you can give reasonable explanations for these three points, I see no other way to go except to remain blocked, and if necessary in the long run, a ban from operating automated tasks. (X! · talk)  · @490  ·  10:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Live At the Blue Note 11/14/2000

The article Live At the Blue Note 11/14/2000 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Has not received enough third party coverage to meet the notability requirements of WP:NALBUMS.

While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge to artist/discography. Rich Farmbrough, 06:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC).