Thanks! Primefac (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
Regarding my previous block
Hi, just a quick question. When over ten months ago I was blocked from the 2021 Eslöv school stabbing, my unblock condition was that I was to refrain from editing the article, which I have. I was a much less experienced editor back then and the whole BLP thing didn't come from a place of malice, rather that I just did not understand the policy. I have learned a lot since then and looking back my editing was quite disruptive and in retrospect now I completely get why I was blocked. My question is if I can in theory now edit the article if I wanted to? To be honest I am not that interested in that topic anymore but it would be nice to know.
You would have to ask Seraphimblade, who I have pinged here, as they were the one that instituted said restriction. Personally I think it's best if you just leave it be. Primefac (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
AFeatherlessBipehead, I would tend to agree with Primefac. Wikipedia has millions of articles, so if you're saying you don't even have any particular interest in that one any more, I would just find another one to edit instead. You certainly have no shortage of choices. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 13:31, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
It could get filled again, which is the primary purpose of the tracking category. I would say the same about the "unknown parameters" category -- even though it's empty now, someone could add in an unknown param and it would then populate the cat. The template still has the code to track the deprecated parameters, and thus the category could be populated. Until the code is removed (something which I'll probably do in the next day or two) we should not delete it. Primefac (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
Hi—you created this discussion, which is now closed; however, Template:Metacritic album prose was left out of it. Is it worth opening a separate discussion or should it just be made subst-only per the original discussion? Neo Purgatorio (pester!) 09:56, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
It was brought up early in the discussion but never really gained any traction from a "let's include this as well" standpoint. Given how long the discussion was open I do not think it would be appropriate to extend the TFD closure to include this template. Primefac (talk) 10:33, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
It was on my list; other than waiting for the bloody cache to actually get through the cricket infobox transclusions (been waiting two weeks for the thing to stay empty...) I don't think I have any high priorities, so I suppose I could hit that next. Primefac (talk) 09:25, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
Does AWB have the option to perform a search to load the pages you want to edit? If so, try hastemplate:"Infobox cricketer" insource:/fullname\s*=\s*\w/. That should get you 99% of the remaining ones. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:23, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
It does, I suppose I just assumed that after a fortnight the cat would have finished updating (at this point it's almost a game how long it will take). That being said it looks like over 5k (!) which will be quite a while if I let the system slowly trawl through them all.... Primefac (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
I hear ya. These can get annoying as hell. For some of these templates with smaller use counts, I've taken to just running the bot on all transclusions of the template and skipping if only whitespace changes are made. But whatever workflow works for you! You're killing it with your bot so keep it up! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:39, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
I have started background null edits. You should see some pages flow into Category:Pages using infobox cricketer with deprecated parameters over the next few hours. Feel free to whine provide constructive feedback about the slow categorization of pages at T157670. There is a bot that refreshes stale pages, and it is currently caught up to 41 days ago; the template was edited 26 days ago. I know that the developers are smart and clever enough to ameliorate this problem with not a lot of work, but it's not a priority for them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:14, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
There's another purge bot that's at BRFA, haven't had a chance to look at the details yet but since they're a new editor I want to make sure I don't just rubber-stamp it because I want to use it myself! Primefac (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, should have cleared out the conflicting params cat first. Only 150 though so it's not overly common... Primefac (talk) 10:45, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
FYI, ran out of things for ZackBot to do for the moment, so I'm helping with IB settlement. Figure there is more than enough for us both..... Also our bot runs seem to usually be a different times of the day. I'm typically online 00:00 to 05:00 UTC... If for any reason this is causing an issue/conflicts for you, let me know and I'll let you take the lead on this one! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:50, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
Go for it. Primefac (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed you were the deleting admin on Template:Molecules detected in outer space. I checked the deletion discussion and it was absolutely correct, it needed to go
However, I was using it on my userpage. I know thats very minor!! But I would like the source code, or something similar, so I can restore it there - not as a template, just for myself. Of course I'll make it be accurate (as other users pointed out, it was factually incorrect)
I'm working off the advice of some helpful users on the wikimedia discord who told me this is my only option. I really hope you'll consider my request! Thank you very much for reading. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 16:21, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
Cmrc23 has given you a bear! Bears promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Bears must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bear, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of bears by adding {{subst:Bear}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
Yeah, the infobox got skipped on the first (I'll get that fixed going forward) but the edit itself is a valid genfix. What's wrong with the second one? Primefac (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
@Primefac: First change is correct? Why? In the task 30 is not enable a content change in the out of the template call. Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2026 (UTC), --Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
It's a valid change, yes, despite not doing what the edit summary suggests (in other words, it's not ideal but it's not something that needs to be reverted). I have acknowledged that issue. Kindly answer my question please. Primefac (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
Your bot is making changes that it hasn't approved. Just because they're correct if a human would make them doesn't mean the bot can make them. And under the description that it doesn't make and these changes are fake, it presents them as correct.
My bot runs with genfixes enabled, so yes, there will be genfixes on the page in addition to changes to the infobox. There was an issue with the commented-out code on the page that was causing the bot to skip fixing the infobox, which I have now rectified. So yes, there will be some edits without changes to the infobox - I appreciate you bringing that to my attention, and it has now been rectified. Do you have any other substantive concerns? Primefac (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
"genfixes enabled" how bot tasks or where is a record about enabling? Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
For Task 30, it was discussed after the first trial (The genfixes were thrown in during tasks 28 and 29, and are just AWB's standard genfixes). I very rarely run my tasks without genfixes enabled, and those tend to be explicitly indicated. Primefac (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
Ah. You're allowed to do it indirectly. Directly, it's not even strictly a statement. Then why do we have it: Function overview or a line with "Approved.". … Confusing, one thing is written and another is the interpretation. What should an uninterested person think when he sees Special:Diff/1373524813 (rhetorical question)? (@Xaosflux:) Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
I'll still answer your rhetorical: they'll think the bot isn't behaving, and they'll raise the issue with the botop. The botop should then fix it, and all will be right with the world. Primefac (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
Infobox settlement
Hello, the PrimeBOT edits changing template fields e.g. imagesize to image_size (amongst others) is failing to check if the correct field name is already present. This is causing a number of articles to appear in the duplicate parameter error category - Category:Articles using duplicate arguments in template calls. Can you run the bot again please and remove the empty duplicate fields and manually fix populated duplicates? Thanks - X201 (talk) 07:35, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
Sure. Primefac (talk) 09:23, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
PrimeBOT 30 #2
U have a wrong comment in edits (Ex. Special:Diff/1373658451): /* top */ Task 30: parameter:. You don't edit the section with the title "top". Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
Uh... yes you can. #top is a valid anchor. Primefac (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
Speedy deletion criteria G15 has been renamed from "LLM-generated pages without human review" to "Unambiguously LLM-generated pages" and has an additional sign of detection added to it following a RfC.
why are u removing them? I can see if it can never be filled, but why remove ones (like elevation) that have a chance to be filled? Masterhatch (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
See the last few lines of #IB Settlement above; I just got frustrated and rather than attempt to figure out which blank param was causing the duplication error, I just decided to remove them all. It wasn't the best way to do it, but it's not like those parameters can't be re-added if necessary. Primefac (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
gotcha. Makes sense. Masterhatch (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
And for what it's worth, that was a one-time thing, it shouldn't happen again. Primefac (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
GA related moves
I see you've moved the various GA pages; I don't recall exactly what happened last time but it certainly broke GAN, so I'm assuming it will break it again. I know I promised to get the bot ready for this change, but I haven't done so. I am away from the computer where I can make any changes to the bot as well. Can you keep an eye on bot's GAN related edits and if things are breaking please reverse all the moves? If I recall correctly there will be other edits that have to be made too; I think the GAN subpages may end up in the wrong place. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:49, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I saw the moves were reversed but this discussion made it sound like those issues had been resolved. I guess I'll keep an eye on things for now. Primefac (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
Well, I just looked at the bot's contributions and I don't see anything obviously wrong. I absolutely don't remember fixing the problems; I did come up with a design but I'm sure I didn't implement it yet. I'll post a note at WT:GAN asking people to keep an eye out for odd behaviour. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:00, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
I now remember that per the discussion you linked to, this edit caused at least some and possibly all of the problems. That's a natural edit with the new names of course. Let's wait and see if anything else goes wrong. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:02, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
Unprotect Madden NFL 06
50 edits in 6 years, this doesn't seem like an article that would get vandalized at all if unprotected. Protected in 2018, 20 year old game. Toketaatalk 16:38, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
We'll see... Primefac (talk) 09:03, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
Probationary reviewer status...?
What is that, may I ask? I've read the AFC guidelines but no where did I see a probationary reviewer status shane(talk to me if you want!) 13:37, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
Probationary reviewers can be removed from the list for any reason without prior discussion, but are otherwise no different from non-probationary reviewers. Primefac (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
Yes. Primefac (talk) 09:12, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
Nominate me?
Primefac, I'm worndering, in view of our work together over the years, whether you might please consider nominating me in the WP:Administrator elections opening this week? Bsherr (talk) 04:41, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
oof... not sure how much time I'll have this week, but it looks like nominations close on Monday, so I can try and get something together this weekend. For what it's worth I think you'd be fine self-nominating. Primefac (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
Fuzheado
Hi,
I saw that you were the Bureaucrat that officially desysopped Fuzheado. I saw that Fuzheado is not ECR confirmed after the desysopping. EaglesFan37 (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks, in a lot of these cases the admin never got it granted (they were an admin before ExCon was a thing) so I forget to check. Primefac (talk) 09:18, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Following an RfC, late signatures added to administrator recall petitions after 720 hours from opening are reverted or struck and do not count towards the threshold, even if the petition has not yet been formally closed.
The post-May 2026 administrator elections RfCs concluded with consensus for election monitors to curate blatantly inappropriate questions after posting, and to remove or merge true duplicates, clearly marking merged questions. Calls for candidates will include advisory guidance that users with less than one year’s experience or 5,000 edits generally lack a realistic chance of success.
Technical news
Interface administrators no longer need to specify the ResourceLoader option in the definitions for gadgets on MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition as gadgets are always loaded through ResourceLoader. (T298199)
The list=abusefilters API module now supports formatversion=2 and includes breaking changes to its responses. In particular, the actions property is now a JSON array rather than a string, regardless of the format version. Maintainers of user scripts and other code using this module should check compatibility and update their code as needed. (T435828)
Doug Weller passed away on 30 September 2026. Doug Weller began editing Wikipedia in 2006 and became an administrator in 2008, making nearly 275,000 edits over two decades. He served on the Arbitration Committee from 2015 through 2018 and was also a longtime CheckUser and Oversighter.
Heya Primefac! Just wanted to give you a heads up that I've been using your infobox cleanup code for a bit with PhuzBot, thank you very much for that code! I did run into one tiny issue, where parameters that have a forward slash in them, such as |jr/sr= are silently eaten by the code. This is because of a missing / in the regular expression. Setting aside whether a parameter with a slash complies with MOS:INFOBOXNAME, the fact is there are infoboxes with these parameters ({{Infobox officeholder}}, for one), and silently eating parameters is less than ideal.
I'd recommend changing:
private static readonly Regex param = new Regex(@"\|\s*([\w0-9_ -]+?)\s*=([^|}]*)");
to
private static readonly Regex param = new Regex(@"\|\s*([\w0-9_ /-]+?)\s*=([^|}]*)");
I've made this change in my instances, and would recommend that you do the same. Ordinarily, I would just be bold, but I didn't want to edit your code without giving you the heads up. Thanks again! phuzion (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, I haven't updated the /code dump in a while, but I've raised it before as an issue. Thanks though! Primefac (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Infobox climber: 3 rules wait because the template still accepts their old names, |medals=, |medals-expand= and |worlds=. That is normal: they start working once the template drops those names. If a rule is backwards, swap its names.
Just thought you'd find that cool! Been catching TONS of mistakes I made like this where I didn't properly remove all the old parameters. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:27, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Huh, neat. I think I missed a lot of those because I kept forgetting to check the aliases in the wrapper code, so there will likely be more. Glad to see the bot is performing well! Primefac (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
To be clear, NOT meant to point out a mistake by you. I made that error so many times. Just thought you'd get a kick out of it. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:40, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Didn't take it as such:-) Primefac (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi Primefac, I was wondering when approving this if you thought this task was a task to operate for 10 months daily from January to October 2026 (what I intended) or a task to operate for ten months each year daily (which I did not intend). Either way, I'm going to see if the WikiCup judges et al want the bot again for next year. Tenshi! (Talk page) 16:51, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
I do not see any reason why it cannot be used for 2027, the wording is ambiguous enough that either of your operating conditions would be met. Primefac (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
I would like to challenge the revdel at Talk:Ddnard Napattalung, as the controversies were very public and reported by the press. The user who challenged the mention was an SPA with no other contributions, and the article has very long been subject to a lot of COI editors pushing their POVs on behalf of the subject. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:28, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Have seen, will reply. Primefac (talk) 08:44, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Okay, so the very short answer is no, I am not going to reverse the RD.
You say that these controversies are public and reported by the press, but in your own statement you said you couldn't find anything reliable and then posted a couple of opinion pieces. It's one thing to discuss controversial topics about a BLP when there are RS, but throwing things out to see what sticks isn't okay.
If you feel these topics are important to include in the article, find RS that discuss them, and then discuss inclusion on the talk page.
As a minor note, being an SPA matters for nought when it comes to debating BLP-related topics; whether or not someone has a COI or is only interested in a single article does not make their arguments invalid, especially if it regards controversial topics. Primefac (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Some of us have been discussing this off-line. I'll just note that WP:BLPTALK gives some applicable guidance. RoySmith(talk) 13:23, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Question about AWB use
Hey Primefac! My watchlist sometimes floods with these depending on how many drafts I review, which I find annoying lol. It really does make it more difficult for me to monitor my watchlist because I do try to keep an eye out for messages on draft talk pages and I have also missed messages on User talk pages. However, I am not familiar with AWB rules or exactly the purpose/importance of these changes so wanted to run it by you to get your thoughts. If these changes are not really all that important, how do I approach it with the editor? S0091 (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
The AWB rules basically boil down to don't go mad, don't do unnecessary things, and stop if someone complains*. The problem you're going to have here is that last bit; if there is consensus for a task, then it gets much more difficult to ask nicely for someone to knock it off. Since 2023 WP:PIQA has essentially mandated that all pages with banners need to be included in {{WPBS}}, and certain individuals are very keen on holding to that. I think there are a non-zero number of CONTEXTBOT issues that would prevent a bot account adding these banners (which would allow for watchlist filtering) but for specific cases I'm sure a bot could be useful to knock down some of them (noting that cewbot does do some simple maintenance). Thus, AWB is the only way to do it, and that means the occasional bout of watchlist spam.
In other words... I'm not really sure there's anything you can do about it; while Tom is really receptive to feedback on their edits, they (almost always) have a pretty good explanation for their edits. Primefac (talk) 10:44, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for the explaining, Primefac. It is very helpful to know the background and why these changes are being done. I will leave it be. S0091 (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
You good?
Heyo. You haven't been as active of late... Just wanted to check in on ya. All good? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:17, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Was on call this last weekend and got called in. All good otherwise, thanks. Primefac (talk) 08:45, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Sometimes when I'm in a rush I kind of forget how to do my due diligence... Primefac (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
I just want to be clear, I am 100% teasing you. Been there, done that, have the t-shirt to prove it... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:47, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
I know, about to head off for the night and too tired to be witty in return:-p Primefac (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
You know, that's fair. Have a good night! Catch ya tomorrow. Also, curious if you've had a chance to look at the work Phuzion and I have done with ParamBot? Let me know if you have thoughts tmrw. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:51, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Question for ya regarding ParamBot. We recently ran into an issue where the bot couldn't edit a few pages because it is not yet WP:XC and the pages were protected. Now this will obviously come with time and is not an urgent matter at all, but given that the two operators of the bot (myself and Phuzion) are most definitely extended-confirmed (in fact we are both WP:TPE) is there a precedent for granting extended-confirmed status to a bot before the account has made 500 edits to the English Wikipedia and after 30 days have passed since the account's first edit? I am happy to make a formal request at the proper location (not sure where that would be), but wanted to check in with you and see if there is any precedent for this sort of thing. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:17, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Bots have extendedconfirmed so that shouldn't be an issue. Are you sure it was the protection that was a problem? Primefac (talk) 08:57, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Self-trout The bot didn't have Edit protected pages flagged in the BotPassword. Fixed! phuzion (talk) 11:30, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Just to save anyone else the effort, I went through their ten accepts. They all looked fine except for one that was AI generated which I moved back to draft space. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:55, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
You know I respect your decision but also note I disagree after spending countless hours away from enjoying Wikipedia to deal with their conduct. Time will tell but I believe WP:ROPE will come into play as they seem to have already violated their topic ban --CNMall41 (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
I know, and I will admit it was a borderline decision to give them access. Thanks for the heads up. I'll look into things. Primefac (talk) 08:46, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Like I said, I respect your decision. It may be just the right amount of rope necessary to be fair. Take care.--CNMall41 (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Any archives regarding deleted sidebar (you closed the RfX)?
Hey there, in this discussion you closed the deletion discussion with consensus for deletion. Are there any archives of the sidebar anywhere on the site (I'm working on a new sidebar Draft:Template:Political ideologies in the United States sidebar and believe this one might be useful)? I can't seem to access them. Thank you! Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Maybe I should have been more straightforward about this as well, and I definitely wasn't intending to deceive by omission. But just as a good-faith notice, I opened a deletion review of the sidebar at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 October 22. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:16, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
I asked to exclude the matches for /\<\/ref\>, \<ref/, of which there were 23, in the bot run. There are now only 8 matches. Are you sure your bot did not change these? 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:42, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
I couldn't say. I'll be honest, I think I either misunderstood or misread your request, because I would have definitely asked what the point of those is; we don't tend to put commas between references, it's almost always [1][2] not [1], [2]. Why are these 8 (formerly 23) special? For example at Jean Maleb#Honours I personally would have just put it as 2007[13][14]. Primefac (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
I suppose you are right and in most cases the comma should just be removed. I was originally fearing there would be situations like Representation theory of finite groups#Decompositions (where "found in [4] and.[5]" is clearly a result of bad application of WP:REFPUNCT), with more than two references listed, but running a refined search suggests these virtually never occur. 1234qwer1234qwer4 09:54, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Okay. Primefac (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
I commented on the task 18 October. I'm not sure my opinion has changed but seeing phuzion's lengthy statement I will give things another read and comment further if necessary. Primefac (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:23, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:18, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
Administrator changes
Oversight changes
Guideline and policy news
Miscellaneous
Technical news
Arbitration
Obituaries
Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:37, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Self-trout The bot didn't have Edit protected pages flagged in the BotPassword. Fixed! phuzion (talk) 11:30, 19 October 2026 (UTC)