qedk

You said drop a note here if any of those sock puppet accounts I sent became active again and that came soon as Special:Contributions/2.127.78.222 just made another round of edits. TKOIII (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TKOIII: Blocked the /23 range for 3 months. --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They're back again, this time at Special:Contributions/90.195.58.193 TKOIII (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TKOIII: Re-blocked. --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They're back again at Special:Contributions/90.195.51.28 TKOIII (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dealt with by Ponyo. --qedk (t 愛 c) 15:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They're back again at Special:Contributions/2.123.50.133 TKOIII (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TKOIII: Blocked for 3 months, range seems mostly empty. --qedk (t 愛 c) 14:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

you have no right to block me just for making simple edits, they are perfectly acceptable and valid and it does NOT go against anything, if a car was made and sold in a decade, then the appropriate category must be there, it looks clumsy and incomplete without it, users expect it to be there, whoever made those ridiculous rules needs to quit Wikipedia forever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.218.87.53 (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They're back once again under Special:Contributions/2.121.242.153 TKOIII (talk) 05:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TKOIII: Reblocked by Materialscientist. --qedk (t 愛 c) 10:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am writing to you today because you write at m:Requests for comment/Should the Foundation call itself Wikipedia that Wikimedia should not be renamed. Now It is possible to take part in an official online survey until June 30th. Please take your time and save Wikimedia!

Thank a lot and best regard! --JohnDoe06.2020 (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now the bot is incorrectly applying C1 tags to categories that are under discussion at WP:CFD, such as here. Can you please correct this? And related question, where to we stand on creating the log page for all pages that are being tagged by the bot? Let me know on both, UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@UnitedStatesian: I was not aware of that template so never wrote the regex to accomodate it, should be fixed in a bit. As for the logs, I'll either do it today or by month-end, the source code is available publicly, so you can submit a pull request if you want (the link is in the bot userpage source). Best, qedk (t 愛 c) 12:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed --qedk (t 愛 c) 16:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The meta is prefix was intentional. Some people don't like clicking links and suddenly end up in another project. I see you tried to implement it in another way, but removed it again. Anyway, the prefix method looks much better, in my view. And if you look at the history you'll see almost all the time meta links have the prefix. Thanks.– Ammarpad (talk) 06:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ammarpad: Links to internal sites are not a biggie afaik, feel free to revert me; I couldn't find a better solution, so it's up to you. --qedk (t 愛 c) 22:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).

Administrator changes Malcolmxl5 John • TheCoffee • Tim! Creffett → GeneralNotability DeltaQuad → AmandaNP

CheckUser changes Bbb23 Interface administrator changes TonyBallioni

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is in progress to remove the T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) speedy deletion criterion.

Technical news

• Protection templates on mainspace pages are now automatically added by User:MusikBot II (BRFA).

Arbitration

• Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. The RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC and is open to comments from the community.
• The Medicine case was closed, with a remedy authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles.

Hello QEDK, I was wondering if you would consider nominating a user for Adminship. This user is TheImaCow. This user joined 3 months ago, but during that time, this user has already made over 32,000 edits on Wikipedia. This user has contributed tirelessly on Wikipedia, and every single edit has been made with one goal in mind: to improve the quality of Wikipedia. Based on all of this, I think this user will be a great fit for the administrator position. I know that I don’t have as much experience as I would need to nominate this user myself, so I wanted to ask someone who was actually qualified to do it first. Take a look and tell me what you think. If you think they’re ready, you can nominate them if you want. Thanks! ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 16:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ProClasher97: There's actually several steps involved in nominating someone for RfA, one of them would be the editor displaying an willingness for the role, while I appreciate you putting in a good word, it depends on the person actually wishing to take on the role. Secondly, 3 months is a very short period and it's hard to prove an user is experienced enough to take on the role of a sysop in less than a year, that's a modicum of experience imo. Hope that clarifies it! I'm sure they would appreciate you putting in a good word for them nonetheless. --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have nothing against this, I am certain for several reasons that it will not happen. There are problems like User_talk:TheImaCow#NAC, or the fact that I've only been here for 3 months. As I read in some RFAs/user essays, it takes at least a year "to understand the policies properly (i agree with that)". and even that happens only in "exceptional cases". So, to be clear, I'm honored, of course, and there are things that speak for it, but also things that speak against it, like the contents of that message. --TheImaCow (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Where've you been on IRC? I've been missing our Brooklyn 99 chats! ~ RhinosF1_(Chat) / ^(Contribs) 16:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RhinosF1: My MacBook died. Just got set up on my desktop before it BSoDed on Friday, fixed now thankfully, should swing by tomorrow. (hopefully) Thanks for asking! --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, see you then. ~ RhinosF1_(Chat) / ^(Contribs) 17:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

and IRCCloud goes down. Cool, Cool, Cool, Cool, Cool. ~ RhinosF1_(Chat) / ^(Contribs) 15:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RhinosF1: I thought that was funny too. xD Still down unfortunately. --qedk (t 愛 c) 16:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll message you when it's up unless you do WP:DISCORD. Did you like my b99 reference? ~ RhinosF1_(Chat) / ^(Contribs) 16:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Loved it. I have it downloaded but have to reset the password first because the password is on Keychain. --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:) ~ RhinosF1_(Chat) / ^(Contribs) 17:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add this article 👉Bayan Ul Quran Short Description by Hotcat.

Short Description is 👉 " Sunni Tafseer by Ashraf Ali Thanwi " Owais Bin Elias (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Owais Bin Elias: Any reason you can't make the edit yourself? --qedk (t 愛 c) 16:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@QEDK: I have no idea. What is hoycat! ☺ Owais Bin Elias (talk) 04:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

QEDK, there is unfortunately another conflict going on, this time w/ user ThunderPeel2001. [1] The conflict is mostly occurring on the FBI files on Michael Jackson article. ThunderPeel2001 removed great portions of the article w/ no prior discussions, and an edit war ensued. Israell (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ThunderPeel2001 is still edit-warring. Israell (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Israell: Both of the editors were partially-blocked from the page by CaptainEek. @CaptainEek: I'm not aware if you are aware of WP:GS/MJ, but it's a useful tool to enforce editor conduct in this topic area. Also, just adding that I recently warned TruthGuardians "for the last time", so this would've been cause for an indefinite or long sanction imo, in any case, no point about imposing punitive measures, just pointing it out in case you missed it. Partial block was a good call either way. --qedk (t 愛 c) 09:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware, thanks. There are so many DS it can be hard to remember... CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No pressure, cap'n. ​--qedk (t 愛 c) 16:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello QEDK, I had previously left a request on another user’s talk page back in June, and since I still have not gotten a response back, I was wondering if you could take a look and let me know what you think. They also told me on my original request for this user that they would accept the nomination if it went through. This user is Zppix. This user joined in 2014 and has since made over 20,000 edits. Back in 2016, this user applied for the position and failed to get it. I feel that since then, this user has grown considerably with their edits. Based on all of this, I think this user will be a great fit for the administrator position. I know that I don’t have as much experience as I would need to nominate this user myself, so I wanted to ask someone who was actually qualified to do it first. Take a look and tell me what you think. If you think they’re ready, you can nominate them if you want. Thanks! ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 16:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the editor, I'll do a more in-depth view if @Zppix: wants me to. What say? --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

go for it Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 02:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, would your review of Zppix be based solely on your thumbrules, or would there be more criteria that they would need to pass in order to be nominated? ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 22:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ProClasher97: Thumbrules are basically my idea of what a candidate should have, they are not a requirement and nor does meeting them mean I will nominate someone (hence, thumbrules). --qedk (t 愛 c) 14:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the bot is adding Category:Empty categories with no backlinks to category redirects, which are supposed to be empty. Is this intended behaviour? M.Clay1 (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mclay1: Yes it is! To clarify, adding the category itself to category redirects does not make those categories non-empty, the category still remains empty and instead categorized with the category you mentioned at first. Hope that explains it. --qedk (t 愛 c) 15:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I understand the categories are still empty. What does categorising them in this way achieve? Would the category not be easier to maintain if it wasn't filled with redirects? M.Clay1 (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mclay1: It's for housekeeping, and while now it contains redirects, in the future it'll contain empty categories of all kinds, I'm a bit busy rn, so in a few months hopefully. --qedk (t 愛 c) 15:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie a day keeps vandals away! Breawycker (talk to me!) 20:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, indeed they do, thank a lot! --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

Administrator changes

Red Phoenix

Euryalus • SQL

Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

GB fan

Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

• There is an open request for comment to decide whether to increase the minimum duration a sanction discussion has to remain open (currently 24 hours).
• Speedy deletion criterion T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) has been repealed following a request for comment.
• Speedy deletion criterion X2 (pages created by the content translation tool) has been repealed following a discussion.
• There is a proposal to restrict proposed deletion to confirmed users.

Hi could you please review my request to a be a pending change reviewer Ralphster7 (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ralphster7: I'm the third administrator you've asked to review your request this week (please read WP:ADMINSHOP). I also saw that your request for autopatrolled was denied, I think that this is when you should take a pause and focus on writing good content or making good edits, because it feels like you're hat-collecting. It's probably not your intention - in any case, I'll leave your request be for another administrator to review instead of straight-up denying it. Best, qedk (t 愛 c) 18:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to share an article with you for Wikipedia . Kindly please guide me how to go about it Sarahkalidasi (talk) 07:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarahkalidasi: I'm unsure whether you mean a Wikipedia article or some other published piece. In any case, you can choose to post it here or send it to my email (click on the "email" link at the top). Best, qedk (t 愛 c) 08:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! this article is back despite being closed as delete at AfD a couple months ago. I wonder if you could look at the deleted version and tell me if it is substantially similar? it's a new account that has recreated it, unless the contribs on the deleted draft were also deleted. Thanks.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatMontrealIP: It looks pretty different, there's also some conflicting information, so I really doubt the reliability of the article. --qedk (t 愛 c) 22:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. It looks very fishy, like your typical promotional autobiography.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, QEDK, how's your day going? I seem to recall from your RfA a while back that you are regarded as a bit of guru in all things sockpuppetry, so I thought you might be the ideal person to help me parse a nuanced case of what I suspect is socking. I'm not sure if you are a CU, and the idea is to take this to SPI ultimately anyway, but I thought at a minimum you might be able to detect additional useful elements in making a clear determination that I could add to the filing (or in the alternative, convince me this is more innocent than it seems, if that is in fact your read). To wit:

A little over two years back, I was bot-summoned to an RfC at Alicia Keys regarding which occupations should be used to describe the artist in the opening sentence of the lead. User:Lapidite77 was quite vocal that she felt the description should be "singer, songwriter, pianist, music producer, and philanthropist", but the consensus of the discussion (via an 11-to-1 !vote) was to utilize only "Singer-Songwriter". Today, having contributed to another random RfC for an artist with a similar lead, I became curious as to whether that decision at the Keys article had led to a stable result, and went to check. Doing so, I discovered that, despite the consensus never being revisited via the talk page, all of Lapidite77's preferred terminology had been re-added into the article by a new user, User: Pompous Retail). Finding this a little suspicious, I decided to do a cursory article/contribution overlap analysis and found things increasingly suspect the more I looked into the matter:

On the most surface level, despite being on the project only five months, Pompous Retail has edited about two dozen of the same articles as Lapidite77, all in the area of BLPs relating to musician and actor celebrities--indeed, this seems to be the only area of interest for both editors, though of course that is not exactly unheard of. But getting a little more granular, both editors have a particular fixation with the occupations listed in the lead sentences for female celebrities, and there's been at least one telling additional occasion where Lapidite was thwarted by talk page consensus on such matters, and Pompous Retail later came through the article and re-introduced exactly the change Lapidite had wanted: here Lapadite is opposed by everyone on the talk page regarding whether or not the occupation "theatre director" should be added to the lead sentence for Cate Blanchett, and here Pompous Retail adds "theatre director" in exactly that context, and with a misleading edit summary to cover what is actually being changed. There's similar fixation on the lead sentence occupation list at Halsey (singer) (Lapadite77:[2], [3], [4], [5]; Pompous Retail: [6]).

There are other elements here that further increase my suspicion: without exception, in the five months that Pompous Retail has been active, whenever they show up on an article, Lapadite77 never turns up there again (timeline here), despite remaining active in the general area of such BLPs and despite the fact that her contributions to some of those articles spanned years. Additionally (and I'm going to be a bit vague on this per WP:BEANS) I believe I see some patterns in the idiosyncrasies of the edit summaries--but I'm sure you're better equipped than just about anyone to come to your own conclusions as to that, in any event.

So...thoughts? I'm pretty convinced we're at least beyond WP:DUCK on this, but given these are high traffic BLPs prone to a lot of edit warring by nature, I wanted a second opinion from a specialist before I filed the SPI. Do you see anything here which I may have missed which either enhances the concern or argues against it? Snow ^{let's rap} 23:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Snow Rise: It seems pretty suspect yes, but I don't think it's at WP:DUCK yet. There's three possibilities - 1) the person is using two accounts on two devices, 2) they are meatpuppets, and 3) they are unrelated. Exploring the first possibility, a checkuser would yield the result almost definitely since most people use WiFi at home but first we must have grounds for a check (I'm not a CU btw ). Now, looking at their editing patterns, I'd say that it's  Unlikely -  Possible that they are related, and that's for multiple reasons (editing hours, edit summaries, WP:BEANS, et al.), so for this to be surely a sockpuppet, it's missing a lot of the basic signatures. It's quite possible that they are aware of how to keep clean tracks having been around for years, but that's a lot of hard work (certainly possible, though). I think there is a possibility that the new account is being used to make covert edits given that there's more than one occasion where it seems to be editing via proxy, but that also leaves the possibility of the new account being a WP:MEAT. In any case, it's probably evident that the new account is not "new" since their very first edit on mobile shows that they know wikisyntax (ref tags, bulleting, ;, edit summary). I personally think a CU "might" be feasible but only a CU gets to decide that once you open a SPI. :) --qedk (t 愛 c) 08:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, so here's the million pound question then: under the circumstances, with the behavioural pattern so mixed, would you advise opening the SPI just under an abundance of caution/because it can't hurt to request a CU and see what shakes loose? Or does it make more sense to let this one lay unless/until there is more suspicious activity? On the one hand, celebrity BLPs are well outside my usual areas of contribution (other than that a significant number of random FRS RfCs that I am called to are in this area), so I'm not likely to spot any further suspicious activity (at least not until well after it has happened), so if I'm going to bring this in for further scrutiny and take a chance on securing a CU, now would seem to be the time. On the other hand, even if there are some rather suspicious parallels in the edits that first caught my attention, I was already on the fence about whether there was enough to sustain a useful filing here--and if your more detailed scrutiny has suggested only an unlikely-to-possible finding on the basis of behavioural patterns, perhaps it would just be a waste of clerk time at present, and the matter should be left alone until there is more evidence of gaming or disruption associated with one of the accounts. In your experience with such matters, is it worthwhile to open the filing if only to have the suspicions be a matter of record in the archive, for anyone who might look into one of the accounts later? Or is this a dud that you wouldn't waste further community energy on for the present time? In any event, thank you for taking the time to review the matter and provide your insights--I appreciate it! Snow ^{let's rap} 21:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Snow Rise: I think there's enough to warrant a check but in case technical evidence is found lacking, I doubt there is much for a behavioural block. You could wait till you find a smoking gun and then that could be used for a block with/without technical evidence. It's possible to get things wrong but suspicions can be legitimate and you need to weigh if it's worth it (your time vs. outcome). I don't think you need to worry about community time, we have a lot of clerks and you can ping me to the case (if you do file). Either way, I don't think the case is a dud but whether you wait for something stronger or go for it anyway is up to you. --qedk (t 愛 c) 21:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very good then--thanks again for your time! Given your feedback, I think I'll file the case just out of abundance of caution--hopefully the CU will decide there is enough here to take a peek behind the veil and potentially give us some degree of clarity, one way or the other. In any event, I appreciate the assistance. :) Snow ^{let's rap} 08:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi QEDK

At WT:Bots/Requests for approval#QEDKbot, I have started a discussion to request revocation of approval for QEDKbot, and reversion of some of its actions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. --qedk (t 愛 c) 07:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to the bot's BRFA:

• If the category is tagged with {{Db-c1}}, {{Possibly empty category}}, {{Disambiguation category}}, {{Cfd full}} (Cf* to be accurate) or its redirecting templates, it will skip the page.

Apparently not. In these edits, the bot added Category:Empty categories with no backlinks even though all of them have {{empty category}}, a redirect to {{possibly empty category}}:

• Category:CS1 uses Bosnian-language script (bs)
• Category:CS1 uses Kurdish-language script (ku)
• Category:CS1 uses Sindhi-language script (sd)
• Category:In lang template errors

List of {{possibly empty category}} redirects is here. I presume that the bot is also ignoring redirects to the other templates mentioned at the BRFA.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Trappist the monk: Hmm, not sure what went wrong. I had shut off the bot yesterday but that didn't take, it's quite possible that the issues are related so I'll investigate, shut it off from TF-end today. Thanks for reporting. --qedk (t 愛 c) 15:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Trappist the monk: I added the new types of categories and it seems that I forgot to incorporate all the skip templates in the newer block, fixed now. Thanks. --qedk (t 愛 c) 06:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bot operators should take care in the design of communications, and ensure that they will be able to meet any enquiries resulting from the bot's operation cordially, promptly, and appropriately.

Your claim in that edit summary that "trappist said all there was to say" is untrue. Trappist did not set out the problems with category disambiguation pages, nor did Trappist note that you should be monitoring for these problems rather than relying on others to alert you. Furthermore, Trappist's post was two days ago, and the problems remain unfixed.

So far you promised to remove the category for redirects, but instead of doing that you added the category to hundreds of category disambiguation pages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: Yes, but you had already written paragraphs on this exact issue on the BRFA talk page, I just don't see why we need to have two simultaneous conversations on the same issue in two different places. Now, I never promised to remove the category for redirects, what I did fix the bot was so that it works in its remit (per Trappist's quoted comment). And, as I wrote in the edit summary, it will be fixed in time, now please restrict yourself to using one page to communicate (i.e. BRFA talk page). Thank you. --qedk (t 愛 c) 07:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. The sequuence was the other way around: I posted here at 00:24[9], then I followed up 25 minutes later with a post[10] at WT:BRFA where I expanded on the issues raised here.

It is still unclear what you plan to fix, i.e. what the revised code will do. Will it untag the category redirects? Will it untag the cat dabs? What is soon? (Day, weeks?) The lack of clarity is most unhelpful, esp in regard to issues which should have been resolved in trial. Instead, the bot is running in an experimental phase over the full set of categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: The sequence is irrelevant, you posted to both places (akin to forumshopping). If you wanted to make a good-faith attempt to resolve it here, I would understand, if you made a "complaint" at the board, I would also understand, instead you did both, and that's the reason I removed it (since I wanted to address it on the "official" page). The bot won't untag anything, I will (or the bot's patrolling function), the bot is currently "fixed" in the sense that these issues will not reoccur. The bot is not currently running, so I have no idea what the last sentence means. --qedk (t 愛 c) 07:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not foumshopping. The post here was a notification to you that your bot is malfunctioning in a way which had not been reported, so that you could fix it. As a bot owner, you should welcome such reports.

The post at BRFA was to add these issues as evidence request to BAG to revoke approval for the bot.

My position is simple: I want you to reduce the damage which your bot is doing through its malfunctions. Hence my post here.

More broadly, I think your bot is an ill-conceived menace which was improperly authorised without community consensus, so I want WP:BAG to shut it shut down entirely. Hence the two posts.

Your reply is sadly unclear on the key point: will you (or your bot) untag all the catdabs and catrdeirs? Yes or no, and when? Sorry to sound like an interrogator, but your reply can be read in many different ways. I don't cae whetehr you or the bot untag thos ecategorie: i just want the untagged and want to know whether you are going to ensure that happens.

I am sorry that the last part of my comment was unclear. When I wrote that it "is running in an experimental phase over the full set of categories", I mean "running" in the sense of "all the occasions or periods on which it has been run since it was authorised". I do not monitor the bots's contribs to check at which points in time it has been run, and you have not identified any log of its operating times ... so I used the present continuous tense to cover both continuous and intermittent operation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: Okay then, so assume what I said is "your reports are notification enough and I don't require multiple notifications about the same issue". I do welcome the report, I just don't welcome it being prefaced with "your wretched bot" on multiple pages. That's literally what I'm saying, I don't care if it's "forumshopping" or not, I just don't want to have to deal with the same issue in multiple places. And again, to put it very simply, the bot (or me) will uncategorise catdabs and pages tagged with {{Pec}} (and "when" is when I get time to write the code or do it myself, it's a hidden tracking category, so clearly the damage is very minimal to say the least) - but yes, it will be done. Hope that clarifies it. --qedk (t 愛 c) 08:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for confirming that the you or the bot will uncategorise catdabs and pages tagged with {{Pec}}.

However, I also specifically asked (twice) about category redirects, and your latest reply has not mentioned them. (Do you see why I find your communications poor?)

As to when, there is no need to wait until you have written your own code. The removals can be done very simply using WP:AWB in bot mode. If you don't have AWB authorisation yourself, you can ask for it. Alternatively you can put in a request at WP:BOTREQ. The job list can be generated by a pair of simple Petscan queries: https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=17169380 for the redirects and https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=17169387 for the cat dabs.

I am aware that you find this process uncomfortable. I don't enjoy it either, but the reality is that you are running a bot which does not have community consensus (due to lack of pre-BRFA discussion and inadequate notification of its BRFA), and which has been disruptive, and which is and/or has been running experimental, buggy code across many thousands of pages. Those multiple factors make for a complex situation which inevitably involves multiple locations. That is the result of your choices. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: I don't care about your opinion on the bot not having "consensus", that's an imaginary viewpoint you have made and only you alone are debating that this consensus does not exist but as I have stated multiple times, it was announced and went through the normal approval process as any other bot, the onus for consensus is thus, on you. And, for the last time, I will not be responding to your concerns on this talk page because this is just not worth my time replying to you at multiple forums when one singular place would do and no - I will not be uncategorising category redirects because that does not fall within the remit of the bot's stated functions (and would thus be considered misuse of the bot), if you show consensus exists that editors do want it excluded (if and when the current thread closes with that conclusion), I can file a change request at BRFA. I don't want to use WP:AWB or something similar to achieve the previous objective of detagging, if you want to use it, feel free to but that's again, your choice and I will do it in the way that I prefer and know. Final point, I don't care that you find my communications poor, so you needn't tell me your opinion on them. Please put your further concerns on the BRFA talk page. Best, qedk (t 愛 c) 10:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calling my reasoned view of the BRFA an imaginary viewpoint really is classic gaslighting. It is not the first time you have done it, and it is a vicious, bullying way to behave. Despicable conduct.

As explained to you numerous ties, in detail, the BRFA was NOT announce at any category:specific page, even tho BRFA requires that it should be. So it does not have a valid consensus. And at the CFD, nobody supports keeping it.

And after your usual disgusting conduct, we finally get the answer that no, you will not be untagging the category redirects. That contradicts your answer to @Marcocapelle at CFD,[11], where you said that the latest update would fix the overlap with Category:Wikipedia soft redirected categories.

However, right now Category:Empty categories with no backlinks contains 55,685 pages, of which 53,346 pages are also in Category:Wikipedia soft redirected categories. That's 96% redirects.

So your "fix" has not removed the overlap, and Marcocapelle has been misled. If you did not intend to deceive, then please withdraw your reply to Marcocapelle. (If you don't withdraw the comment, I will take that as evidence of intentional deceit). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]