User talk:Primefac

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Je suis Coffee
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User talk:PrimeBOT)

AFC reviewer[edit]

@Primefac, although I don't disturb admins on asking whether they have reviewed my RFP or not, I have a question if have the AFC reviewing right:

1. What is difference between Probation and Active in terms of how many drafts we can review and duration of time?

2. If I receive this right, how will I review the draft? (A tool must be there in case instead of manual process)

Thank you ☮️CSM269🕉️(🗨️✉️📔) 10:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In order:
  1. Nothing. Probation is just a way for admins to more easily remove members if necessary.
  2. Reviewing instructions are at WP:AFCR
Primefac (talk) 10:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying that. ☮️CSM269🕉️(🗨️✉️📔) 10:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I more thing, I feel shy to say but I had applied for WP:AFCR rights. Four days passed no one commented yet. I see most of the request at this right are reviewed by you. Can you please see my request if possible? ☮️CSM269🕉️(🗨️✉️📔) 11:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I usually do review requests on Sundays, but I was busy yesterday, so I will likely get to them today. Primefac (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac, after this conflict, I want you to remove my AFC rights. I will not ask for a long time. I have also revoked my PCR and rollback privileges. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️✉️📔) 16:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redaction[edit]

Hi. I'm not saying you should unredact it, but I don't get it.

  • WP:OUTING#Exceptions: Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable in specific situations ... 2. If individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums.
  • Using RL name as username = "individuals have identified themselves"
  • User's talk page = "appropriate forum"

Although I didn't post links, if I could post links, why can't I refer to content in the links? I won't link to it or refer to it because you've redacted it, but I don't understand why you redacted it, and it's hard to comply with a rule when you don't understand what the rule is. I don't understand exactly what the issue was, why some things fall outside this exception when others don't. Levivich (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your second bullet point is what everything hinges on, and that second bullet requirement (in this instance) is not met; there is no statement that the RL name is their username. Primefac (talk) 07:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an interesting case for you to reason over: User:Rachel Helps recently connected User:BoyNamedTzu, whom she taught how to edit Wikipedia, with a real name, with whom she is professionally acquainted. Does this fall under WP:OUTING? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By a strict reading of policy, yes, though I suspect you already knew this... and yet you still proceeded to post the information in multiple places instead of contacting the OS team like you should have done. That could have been fixed with a simple revert, but now we're looking at over 50 revisions needing to be hidden across three different pages. Primefac (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point of emailing the OS team if they just remove the COI evidence without blocking anyone for the undisclosed COI it evidences? Levivich (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it becomes a habit, we prefer to warn first about outing. In this latest instance, I'm pretty sure they didn't realise they were infringing upon the rules. Exposing a COI does not absolve someone from breaching the outing policy. Primefac (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, unless I am mistaken, having a COI (disclosed or otherwise) is not a reason in and of itself to block someone. Primefac (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Yes I was asking about the second thing.) Why would undisclosed COI editing not be blockable? And again, what is the point of saying "email it" if emailing it doesn't lead to any kind of enforcement of the COI/PAID?
This is a serious issue that is really coming to a boil. You've been doing various things to impede on-wiki discussion of this particular undisclosed COI editing by AML-affiliated people, but you're not doing anything, AFAICT, to stop the undisclosed COI editing. What gives? And what do you reasonably expect the rest of us are going to do? Just ignore it and move along? That ain't going to happen. Let's get on the same page here about stopping the undisclosed COI editing that you know involves multiple editors (not just those at arbcom and ani right now), and I can't say who else it involves because you'll redact it. Which is fine, but if you're going to redact, you need to act. You can't just hide the evidence and then sit on it, that's not cool, and I'm sure you agree in theory that that's not cool, not helpful and not what anybody wants from the OS team or from arbitrators. Levivich (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
emailing it doesn't lead to any kind of enforcement - and yet, because HEB emailed me about a user's editing and COI, I had a discussion with that editor based on that content and encouraged them to disclose, which I will note they have now done. That is, I believe, the end goal of everyone searching for people with hidden COIs, is it not? To have them disclose? We need to do it in the right way, the policy-supported way, otherwise we will never have people disclosing, because even those who disclose will end up topic-banned from participating in those areas because they fear the repercussions of disclosing. Primefac (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK I'm glad to hear that, thanks. I can't really reply on wiki with any specificity so I'm going to email you a reply that has links to stuff. Levivich (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just popping in to say that I agree with this approach, at the end of the day the point is to get editors to disclose and comply rather than to play a game of Gotcha or Survivor. Although I disagree for the most part with the argument that we need to be particularly lenient in order to ensure that more people disclose. As a regulatory scheme that just doesn't hold water, the issue is that people don't fear the consequences... Hence they argue that they can ignore the rules because "A rule that can't be enforced is not really a rule." which would suggest that the way to get people to follow the rule would be to actually enforce it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that starts getting to the philosophical differences of opinion between us. COI disclosure is a way for editors who might have an unconscious bias to indicate to other editors that their edits might need a closer look. If a COI editor cannot maintain neutrality, and they insist on adding their content, they could be blocked for being disruptive, but not simply because of the COI itself. There is no rule to enforce here other than WP:NPOV. Primefac (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the trouble. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 05:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I[edit]

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)[reply]

Too many Eddys[edit]

There is a log jam developing at the Editor of the Week accepted page. I'm considering doubling up the awards for next week so that the holdovers from last year are cleared up by the end ot this month. The only problem I foresee is at the Hall of Fame. I would need to add an Awardee for mid-week on March 20, 2024. I hope that's not too much of a problem or time consuming. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 17:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Easy enough. Done. Primefac (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

False Copyright[edit]

Hello. You have falsely marked my photo as copyright and caused me to get blocked on Wikimedia Commons. The photo I uploaded specifically is in the public domain, as 1. It was taken before 1957, 2. The Imperial War Museum says it is allowed to be used on sites like Wikipedia 3. The site I got it from listed it as public domain. I don’t understand why you took this down as this one is obvious that it is not under copyright. Please review this. Antny08 (talk) 14:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I realised my error and corrected myself; it is still there. Primefac (talk) 14:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am still blocked for it, my account has been blocked, even though I did not violate any copyright. Antny08 (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the wrong call, obviously; I'll see if I can help with the unblock. Primefac (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate it very much Antny08 (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Primefac, the reason I requested a history merge, instead of a normal merge, was because this Eastern Palm University is supposed to be the place where this new KOMU is supposed to be created at, the contents there are supposed to be Eastern Palm University so that the page be moved to the new name which is KOMU. If that was the case, the history would have been preserved, but as it stands it’s as if they’re separate entities whereas they’re the same. Would I normal merge do the thing? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So can I just double-check (too many pronouns). From the history it looks like Eastern Palm University came first, and recently Kingsley Ozumba Mbadiwe University was written. It also looks like Kingsley Ozumba Mbadiwe University is the new name of the university, yes? If that's the case, then I would suggest simply redirecting Eastern Palm University to the new page, because there is almost nothing at the old title to merge (though if there is missing information by all means copy it over). Primefac (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, KOMU is the new name and yes that’s what I had in mind. I’d just redirect then. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aww, thank you for doing the merge/redirect already! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stonetoss[edit]

Why try and cover for a fascist and argue their page is too negative...theyre a nazi 2601:243:1D80:3FA0:E020:94A8:E490:55EC (talk) 12:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G10: Biography of a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced

Why use this when the subject is a Nazi and is sourced. Why cover for a nazi? 2601:243:1D80:3FA0:E020:94A8:E490:55EC (talk) 12:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G10 is the closest we have to WP:RD2 (BLP violations) so it wasn't perfect but it fit the bill. I'm not sure what you mean by "covering", I'm just enforcing policies. Primefac (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to delete Hitler's page for being "too negative"? Do we just need to wait for this guy to die in order to read about him? 108.26.153.4 (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read his article recently but I suspect that it is written from a neutral point of view, and thus is not "too negative". I would also like to note that I did not delete an article, just a redirect (i.e. there was no "content" on the page). Primefac (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this and your post at BOTN. I wouldn't mind working on this. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Primefac (talk) 08:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

little question[edit]

Hello Primefac, how are you?
In this discussion you had mentioned having a bot run the task, could I get an update on that? I have the now tested regex ready for you if you want to just put that in.

Extended content
.[lL]ast=Bureau

.[fF]irst=US Census
.[lL]ast[\d=]+Bureau
.[fF]irst[\d=]+US Census
.[fF]irst=U.S. Census
.[fF]irst[\d=]+U.S. Census

Since the page list is rather large, I think a bot is really necessary.  Thank you very much! Geardona (talk to me?) 18:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said since the list was large, a bot would be a good idea over having someone with AWB do it manually. I honestly haven't looked at the discussion for a while, but I could probably handle it. Also sounds like there might be some context issues to keep an eye out for... the discussion is rather fragmented. Primefac (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is, this was not fun to test, I figured this was something that PrimeBOT could handle? The context issues don't seem huge at least to me but im not sure if you are thinking of a context issue im not. The discussion is rather fragmented after my little mistake of running JWB on potato wifi (see my talk for more link). This would need a new BRFA, correct? Geardona (talk to me?) 18:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be, I just have to write up the proposal after figuring out specifically what needs doing. Primefac (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On PAID[edit]

Hey Primefac: I just saw this revert [1]. I don't plan to post it again, neither in that page or in user talk pages, but I think it is entirely appropriate to let users know about WP:PAID requirements. That is why we have {{Uw-paid1}} and further levels, although I didn't use the bot-like approach. I hope ArbCom upholds WP:PAID in the upcoming case request. I would have expected ArbCom to discuss this with the user during the previous off-wiki communication that led to the recommendation to open a case request. MarioGom (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MarioGom, that is fair; ArbCom obviously knows more about the situation than the general editing community here, and as I said at ACN we have done our best to indicate to the user of the expectations of their participation in the Arbitration process. Primefac (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]