User talk:Betacommand/20080501

Request for bot delivery of a note to a number of editors on a list

As requested, I'm posting here what I posted at WP:BOTREQ, slightly rewritten.

I'm working on letting possibly interested editors know about Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 4. This is a request that you use your bot to deliver a standard note to a each editor on a list.

I've compiled a list of editors who posted on the page for the prior meetup, but haven't indicated whether or not they will attend this meetup. The list is at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/DC 4. It isn't totally standard; some items have a user page and a user talk page and sometimes even a link to a user contributions page, but there is one line per editor.

The proposed note to go to each person on that list is at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/DC 4/Proposed reminder note - May 1.

You can either sign the note with my name or the bot's name (or some combination thereof, I guess) - whatever you think will cause the least amount of confusion. (I'm not the project coordinator or anything, so no one is expecting a note to be from me.) Thanks! -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

POV search

Hi there Betacommand. Thanks for the offer.

Words:"freedom fighter", "freedom", "martyr", "war crime", "genocide", "shaheed", "shahid" (and their plurals). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Categories +recursion: Category:History_of_Bangladesh, Category:History_of_India, History of Pakistan. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Betacommand/Bot Tasks β^_command 23:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot Run

Hi there. I was wondering if your bot would be able to go through Category:Unassessed school articles and auto assess articles of stub & start importance, which have been assessed by other WikiProjects? Thanks. Five Years 18:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ill get BCBot up for that. β^{_{command 2}} 18:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. Five Years 05:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done β^_command 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

UserCompare

Dear Betacommand, how can I gain access to UserCompare? Sincerely, Bstone (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

drop me an e-mail with a private password you will use for the tool. I have a new web interface for the tool as soon as I can get around to uploading it. β^{_{command 2}} 19:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Polydimensional programming is made up

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In response to this:

Let's see. You concocted "polydimensional programming" after you had already insulted me by saying I didn't know Python and that I didn't know what I was talking about. All because I had made a simple suggestion for how to implement a change that you considered infeasible. After establishing that yes, I certainly do know Python, you started saying it was "polydimensional programming" that I was actually unfamiliar with.

I'm not sure why you would have expected that I would have to be familiar with your "non-notable programming paradigm" to be familiar with Python at all, but once you dropped that whopper there was a bigger problem, which is that you're hiding something about your code, and the BAG for some reason doesn't review it.

"Notability" and whether you could write about it in an article has nothing to do with it. I am dead certain that "polydimensional programming" as you described it does not exist, because:

• No programming paradigm can be "infinitely expandable", except in the trivial way that all Turing-complete languages are.
• I find it highly improbable that you have reworked the entirety of Pywikipedia to be "modular" instead of monolithic. The fact that Pywikipedia is monolithic is, in fact, the reason it would take a strange hack such as checking sys.argv[0] to implement the requested change. If you have made the design modular, then switching accounts should be cake.
• "Plug-in play architecture" and "adaptive interface" are meaningless buzzwords intended to baffle people. "Plug-in play" sounds in particular like a portmanteau between "plug-ins" (a way for third party developers to add functionality to your code, which certainly isn't happening) and "plug and play" (a designation for hardware meaning that it doesn't have to be configured before it works). Neither of these would describe why you can't make requested changes to your code.

You can see the restraint it took for me to refer to this as simply "misleading". You have no such restraint, considering your immediate response is to accuse me of "spreading lies".

I remain convinced that "polydimensional programming" is a cover for the fact that BetacommandBot's code has become unmaintainable, and I don't want unmaintainable code (with a hostile operator, no less) loose on Wikipedia. This is not a lie, it is my belief based on the information you have provided. If you believe I'm wrong, maybe you should open up your code to scrutiny. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not say that I could not make the needed changes, what I said was the way that the design is does not easily allow for that. yeah what you are saying is a lie. you are making unfounded personal attacks and calling an established user a lier without any ability to back it up. There are reasons that I cannot release a majority of my code. (there parts of my framework are copyrighted by my employer.) Since I dont have several hours to lecture on the design, and I am bound by some non-disclosure agreements I cannot fully explain it. lets just say it makes adding on to the bot fairly easy. either prove that I am not using a polydimensional program design or shut the fuck up and stop trolling. β^_command 22:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I pretty much thought it was BS too (trolling comment removed in 5..4..3..2..1..). MickMacNee (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from the context, "polydimensional programming" is a fancy name for a common technique involving introspection to write self-configuring plugins. --Carnildo (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, introspection wouldn't prevent changing the login name between bot runs. If anything, it would make it easier. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

In light of past comments from BC where he has banged on about having released his code to 'trusted' wikipedians, I am intrigued by the news his code contains copyrighted work of his employer. I can only conclude beta is in fact a wikimedia developer. MickMacNee (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

the parts that I have released are free. I have not nor cannot give out confidential information. β^_command 02:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Mick, can we keep this serious? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Beta, your use of words is sloppy and problematic. People who say what they honestly believe based on the available evidence aren't "lying". Just like people who make edits you personally disagree with aren't "vandalizing", and people who criticize you aren't "trolling". Do you really think it advances your arguments at all when you toss these words around? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

introspection is one key part of the design but there is more to it than that. If I really really wanted I could spend 10 hours re-coding the system and another 10-15 hours debugging the changes, but its not worth it for such a minor change. β^{_{command 2}} 19:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

So changing the login information takes 20-25 hours between bot runs? Franamax (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

no, reconfiguring the code to use a non-CentralAuth login will require a large amount of re-coding and testing, which I know will introduce errors. β^_command 22:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

But a large theme of the BRFA was that you would use a different uid for different bot tasks, which you adamantly refused to do. So it's actually not that hard to run the different tasks under different id's? Why not just cut the mustard and run the different tasks under different names? (I'll leave aside the issue of how poly-dim coding makes it so hard for you to recode). Franamax (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

its not as easy as you think and I dont have 20 hours to waste on something as worthless as new user ids. Im not here to play politics, I am very busy and I dont have the time to waste on some points idea. β^_command 22:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Pace Mick, that comment doesn't include me, I'm interested in the technical reasons and the social reasons too. Beta, couldn't you in fact pretty easily clone the 100MB of code into 8+1(proposed) separate directories? That's one whole gigabyte of disk space, I can email you that :) You make and test your updates to the central dir and copy them off to the clones, only the auth file stays the same over updates. Each task has a separate login and you spawn each process to perform the spec'd task number. Is there a problem there? Franamax (talk) 23:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a very very bad idea for maintaining code. I am constantly tweaking and changing things keeping the data updated across multiple computers and multiple directories is just piss poor idea. keeping two copies together is hard enough. β^_command 23:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Blaggh. Copying code into another directory as a complete overlay, then dropping in a specific config file is trivial. You run a known stable version of any particular software from a single place for a specific reason, when you want to update the software, you copy in the new version. Where is the difficulty creeping in? Franamax (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

its a bad idea and poor practice, I also dont like people trying to tell me how to code when they dont know what they are talking about. As I have said I am not going to implement it, end of story. β^_command 23:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I'm going to assume that the injunction below is not directed at me and also that the above "dont know what they are talking about" is similarly misdirected. I will stand by my non-abrasative-ity and knowledgeability and suffer the consequences if I am wrong.

Beta, you seem to assert above that copying stable code into a discrete directory for operational purposes is "a bad idea and poor practice". I must refute that statement, in my experience that is in fact a good idea and a good practice. Conversely, tinkering with your active code on an ongoing basis is a decidedly bad idea. This thread now bifurcates:

1. In particular, the BAG restricts itself to "technical approval" of the bot function based on the code functions presented at the time of approval. Surely constant code migration defeats this function. Now, to take an absurd example, what is to stop me from getting approval for a "railroad-article-bot" and slowly changing that into a "homeopathy-patrol-bot"? I am of course not suggesting that has ever been your intention(!), but when you say "constantly tweaking and changing things", surely you would accept that the idea of approval based not on the task, but instead of the ongoing trustworthiness of the user, must needs give us pause. Where specifically were you given the mandate to modify your bot to any particular requested task?

2. In response to the comment above, in re "poor practice" and assuming I may actually have a clue, what on earth would lead you to discard the commonly accepted practise of copying stable software into a discrete location for the purpose of operations? I'm truly mystified here. We're not talking about "maintaining copies" here, we're talking about copy-downs with specific overlays. I'm left with the unfortunate conclusion that "not going to implement it, end of story" is your only definitive statement. Franamax (talk) 01:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

as for 1, The task is the same I am just improving and tweaking back end stuff, instead of checking A first, then B I might find that Checking B first is a better idea. the actual bot task does not change, I am just fine tuning the code, and making it work better. one example is that the first thing that BCBot used to check for when checking for commons dupes was a MD5 check of the images then a template check. but I have discovered that a template check first is a better method and more optimal, it doesnt change the bot or its task, but rather how it computes information. I am also fixing identified bugs, (the very rare few that do occur). As for 2) yes having one stable copy is one thing, but maintaining multiple copies is not a good idea, it increases the risk of an error, and is a waste of a limited amount of disk space that I am allotted. I prefer the method that I have and and I dont like playing politics. I dont like bureaucracy, I will not pander to those who's sole goals are to wikilawyer and to be un-productive. β^_command 02:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Beta, you will never see politics from me (I say that now, please hold me to it in future!) and you should really try hard to dissociate the obstructors and the positive contributors, and I can only imagine how difficult that must be at the bottom end of an endless tunnel of shit pouring onto your talk page. Nevertheless, separating your bot tasks is not all that difficult, srs. Your code does some really important work, if you need more disk space on the toolserver, then say so, I'll get together an army to demand it. Don't cite lack of resources, we can scrape that together, providing you show the need. Also, I haven't been advocating multiple copies of code, I've been talking about copy-down to task-specific spaces of the identical code. Franamax (talk) 03:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Re the above

MickMacNee is now formally banned from this page, and will be blocked if he continues to post here. You run the very real risk of also being blocked however if you continue to attack users as you've done above. Your abrasive attitude is one of the main reason's that we have endless amounts of trouble and I hope that you will work on being far less abrasive when interacting with other users. Nick (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I must side with Betacommand with this. I know for a fact with my bots that maintaining shared code across multiple directories is time and resource wasting, and a pain in the ass. It requires a different development cycle, which Betacommand is not willing to suddenly switch to. We really need to put the stick down already. We've bugged him enough about this, and he isn't going to change it. Please, just go and edit an article for goodness sake. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 18:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the bot issue, but siding with people who resort to language like "shut the fuck up" is not a great idea. Abusive language should not be tolerated, no matter whether the person using it is in the right or in the wrong. EP 19:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not siding with the language, nor am I against it. Betacommand has been harassed about this and his bot for over a month. I would be sick and tired of it. And nobody is letting up. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It's disappointing to see that you would condone Beta's uncivil approach. Part of the problem is the perception that Beta is just bloody well not going to change anything and reacts to any questioning with defiance. Yes, some people will not be happy until Beta's head is on a pike on the castle wall, but there are other people asking reasonable questions who get the same brush-off. And the questions don't get answered. For instance my question above about copying software from a central dev directory to a task-specific operation directory, which you've misconstrued as a request to maintain shared code, when it's really just a simple recursive copy command. Beta's intransigence and shifting reasons don't exactly inspire people with confidence. And new concerns continue to emerge, for instance we were assured that some trusted users had a copy of the bot code, now it seems that some crucial components are in fact the property of Beta's employer and are not divulged and would be unavailable in the "Beta hit-by-a-bus-tomorrow" contingency (if I've read the threads correctly). Lots of reasonable people have reasonable concerns, it's not fair to point to a troll and extend that to the statement that we are all just hitting Beta with a stick. Franamax (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The code that I have given out, is enough to clone BCBot's function with a little work. The main logical processing code is available, with minimal work getting BCBots code operational within a few hours, (it wouldnt be as clean or as streamlined but it would be functional). Like I have stated I will not create a new account as its pointless, and that is the final statement on this issue. β^_command 02:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WPF1 NW

The newsletter is here and the recipients are where they were the last time. Thank you for your co-operation. Chubbennaitor 06:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Could the bot send it out as a template, please. Chubbennaitor 10:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done β^_command 13:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Template send-out! Chubbennaitor 18:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Asterisk spacing

Hi. Thanks for adding a reference list to various articles today. A minor point - this edit also changed asterisk spacing which affected the layout of a species chart. I've put it back the way it was - just an FYI as you go through similar articles. Euryalus (talk) 03:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:X assessment

see here - Tinucherian (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done β^_command 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help -- ₮inucherian ^(Talk) - 04:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Image-Renaming Bot

I and the other user on the ANI think that your Image-ReNaming Bot is a good idea. Please respond at the ANI. Thanks.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 21:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Image Rename BOT

I went and asked an admin I know he said he is willing to support the BOT if you brought it up for Approval. The admin is User:Accounting4Taste. Not very knowledgeable when it comes to BOTs and all the other technical things. But I tried my best to explain to him the BOT's purpose. Rgoodermote  00:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hm I didn't notice the above till now. So I think the score is 3 right now. Two admins and an established user. Is it enough support? Rgoodermote  01:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Second request

Sorry to bother you, but my request above hasn't been responded to, and I'm running out of time. If you can't do this, just let me know, and I'll ask someone else. (Thanks!) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

sorry about that, its running now. β^_command 01:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate it. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing gamestooge edits

It's all fine and good that you're removing a blacklisted site --- even though in both cases I've seen it, it's been a ref removal -- but could you at LEAST be honest in your edit summary? Saying it's "per WP:EL" is completely false. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

that is an external link that was removed. it was just in the form of a reference. β^_command 03:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

4,000 Years old Bronze Picture in History of China

Go head with the deletion. All the bronze pictues I uploaded got the approvals from the owner and I have attached the email from the owner too, if anyone can read the history of the images page or the files. From time to time, I got deletion tags and I have explain again and again and again how and from whom I got these pictures. The type of the tags had been changed at least 3 times too along with the policy change. Despite that, finally, they were all deleted now. Happy? you won? So, the only thing I try to say is that, you can delete those pictures, but you can not detroy the real 4,000 years fine bronze piece in China, and they are still there. Please read all the deletion notifications on my talke page and continue to abuse wikipedia's deletion friendly policies, continue to distort wikipedia and continue to turn wikipdedia into a coldwar machine!

You may cheat one person during entire of his life, or you may cheat all humans for a while, but you can not cheat all human in all time. Dongwenliang (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• BetaCommand and his bot do not delete images, they post notifications of a lack of a valid fair use rationale. See WP:GFDL, or go here to see how to write a proper rationale for images.--WaltCip (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:French Muslims

I have nominated Category:French Muslims (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Govvy (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

=/

Stop ruining Wikipedia. =/ Vael Victus 17:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Malfunctioning Bot tagging articles as Stubs

This Bot is malfunctioning, blindly tagging articles as "Stub", "Low Importance" when they are not, such as National Council of Churches. There are many other examples I could cite, but this illustrates my point. Please rollback these inappropriate tags. Thank you. JGHowes ^talk - 01:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I was requested to do this please see User_talk:Betacommand#Bot help for Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity β^_command 01:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

My reply is here - Tinucherian (talk) 02:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Mess

The bot has made of mess of this talk page. You have to scroll around through tons of annoying "Fair use rationale" messages located in both the table of contents and the talk page body. With your permission, can I delete the messages from the talk page so we can read the thing again??? Please respond on my talk page, thx. Cowicide (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

False accusation of vandalism

You said on my talk page:

Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/pe.com. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. βcommand 17:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to remove a false spam report - it is not vandalism. The bot that placed the false report and you should be more careful about your accusations. Roesser (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note that that was not a false report, you did add that link. you should not edit those reports. your second removal after being reverted is vandalism. β^_command 18:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did add those links, but they are not spam. They are central to the article. You are taking it upon yourself to call them spam but not providing a rational, which is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy. The report that I edited clearly says that entries can be removed. It was not vandalism on my part to undo your reversion anymore than it was vandalism on your part to revert my deletion. If you are going to act out of authority you should do so responsibly. I protest your behavior. Roesser (talk) 03:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

And those edits have not been called spam. if you actually read the page in question, its a record of who added what links in regard to pe.com. that report is actually a WP:COI not a spam report. β^_command 03:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

VandalProof

Can you please approve me for VandalProof? Thanks! - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 20:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 18	2 May 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Wikimedia Board to expand, restructure	Arbitrator leaves Wikipedia
Bot approvals group, checkuser nominations briefly held on RfA	WikiWorld: "World domination"
News and notes: Board elections, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Did You Know ...	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 19	9 May 2008	About the Signpost

Sister Projects Interview: Wikiversity	WikiWorld: "They Might Be Giants"
News and notes: Board elections, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured content from schools and universities	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The Bot Builder Award

		The Wikipedia Bot Builder Award
		I hereby award Betacommand for his help to Wikiproject Christianity on Bot assisted delivery of Newsletter and Automatic assessment with BetacommandBot -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 11:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

My bot

Can you let me know if this is OK? Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Diligent Terrier Bot - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 19:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Ince and Elton railway station

Can you please re-rate this article. It is no longer a stub class in my opinion... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.246.149 (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Warning

BC - you should know that this is unacceptable. Suggesting another user goes to see a doctor is a serious personal attack. Step back for a second, reflect and calm down. I'm sorry, but if something like this happens again I'll block you. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It worries me that a user can exhibit such a lack of higher brain functioning, without serious risk to their health. I was making an observation. β^_command 01:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Final warning Beta - I don't care where the next comment like that is, but you won't be editing should it happen again. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Really Beta, you and I have talked before once, I'm not on your side totally, but I understand where your frustration comes from. But hey, whoa, you need to calm it up a bit. That's not good stuff, everyone has their own approach to things, lots of times its not the same as your own. Chill bud. Franamax (talk) 02:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the effective ways to deal with trolls is to avoid feeding them, β. Gimmetrow 02:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with that advice is that this would mean Betacommand being unable to respond to lots of people. His definition of a troll seems to be anyone who annoys him at any particular time. The correct term for that is "someone who annoyed me", not "troll". Ultimately, the person who loses out each time Betacommand is unable to control himself, is Betacommand. Hopefully he will see that one day. Carcharoth (talk) 07:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

BC, you do some great work here, but you can't keep treating people like that. You're lucky you weren't blocked immediately. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter Issue V - May 2008 - delivery

Please deliver our project newsletter ( Issue V - May 2008 )

{{subst:WikiProject Christianity/Outreach/May 2008}}
to all members on Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Outreach/Full content Delivery.
Thanks in advance -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 07:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Just wanted to ask if this is done. Thanks in advance -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 02:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

?? Sorry to bother you again - -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 05:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess you are busy. I have taken an alternative help this time. thanks -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 14:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Advice request

Hi, as someone who I suspect has a much greater understanding of how Wikipedia works than I do, I wonder whether you would be able to comment on the potential performance issues involved with a template I'm developing, {{cite doi}}. The template makes it much easier for an editor to cite a source, as they only need to enter a DOI; then, a bot creates a subpage, which is transcluded onto any page which cites that source through {cite doi}. Is this likely to place unnecessary strain on the servers?

Thanks, Smith609 Talk 14:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Very bad idea, why not have a pair of templates, user adds {{cite doi|#}} then the bot comes along and replaces {{cite doi}} with a new template that has the same things the sub page would have? β^{_{command 2}} 14:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback; the problem with that approach is that no-one will ever know that the {cite doi} template exists, and that if the bot is unable to find a record for the DOI, it's not immediately clear to the user. Smith609 Talk 15:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

if the bot cannot find the record have a Doi error template then. if it works people will find out. β^_command 01:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

BCBot

I was curious. When I try to run ShepBot as fast as I can get it going the spam filter kicks in and stops it from editting. Is there a way to bypass the filter or am I just stuck; with using AWB as my software and all? I'll watchlist this page. Thanks for the time. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 01:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

what are you referring to? β^_command 01:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you mentioned on The AWB talk page the speed of edits you can get BCBot to run. ShepBot if set to anything less than 3 edits a second gets stopped by a spam filter from Wikipedia. I don't have a job to run right now. If I get a chance I'll take a screen shot of it. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 01:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Ive never had that error so im not sure what your talking about. β^_command 02:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI

An AN thread on you. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 20	12 May 2008	About the Signpost

Explicit sexual content draws fire	Sighted revisions introduced on the German Wikipedia
Foundation receives copyright claim from church	Board to update privacy policy, adopts data retention policy
Update on Citizendium	Board candidacies open through May 22
Two wiki events held in San Francisco Bay Area	New feature enables users to bypass IP blocks
WikiWorld: "Tony Clifton"	News and notes: Autoconfirmed level, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Changes at Featured lists
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Quick Question

You seem to know about these things so...concerning images used on Spore, user JAF1970 is requesting permission from MAxis to include them in the article(and only on Wikipedia from what I can tell). Even if they do say yes, I was under the impression that that would not be enough for them to be included? John.n-IRL 14:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Good call

[1]. Right after that he went silent for four months, and returned this morning as a vandalism-only account. Looking through the user creation log, I see he was a creation of an indef-blocked account called User:Vandal Wipe. [2] Antandrus (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indef by MBisanz (talk · contribs) for apparent sockpuppetry. This is currently being discussed at WP:AN. I am willing to unblock you to enable you to present your case, if you promise to refrain from all mechanical or bot edits during that time. For now, somebody made a transclusion so that any posting you make on this page (outside these noinclude tags) is going to be transcluded to WP:AN. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the noinclude tags explain why this isn't appearing on the AN thread. Betacommand, I too am willing to unblock pending an explanation below of this edit. That is the only edit I would want to see an explanation for. Carcharoth (talk) 10:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand's response to WP:AN

Betacommand, please respond here:

I was attempting to start over under a new username, I was every careful to avoid editing the same pages, and the edit at WP:BOT was an accident. I think this issue has been taken far far out of context. WP:SOCKs may be blocked for being abusive, how as that sock be used abusively? see this for a listing of all overlaping pages. other than random cleanup there is no overlap except for the one error on WP:BOT β^_command 13:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Snowman's question

• I reported a problem on this talk page on 20 April 2008 at User talk:Betacommand/20080401#Defaultsort and I would like to know why I did not get a reply. On 15 May 2008, I reported a similar problem and I reported it again on this talk page, and I am also waiting for a reply to the second problem. Snowman (talk) 11:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

im sorry it got lost the first time in other stuff. β^_command 15:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Please comment on all the genus categories that you have messed up putting in defaultsort. How long does it normally take you to reply? Snowman (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed unblock

Betacommand, I've proposed an unblock here. If you could be patient and wait for those two hours, I'd appreciate it. If you want to respond to any objections people raise, please use the section above as before. Meanwhile, would you consider answering Snowman's question up above while waiting? If not, don't worry, but it would be good if you could. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 13:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've now unblocked you. The other accounts (three I think, two alternates and one bot) and the page undeletions, I've left for others to handle. I suggest you present your case at the AN thread or the appropriate venue to ask for the bot flag back or for the other accounts to be unblocked. If you could find the time to answer Snowman's question as well, that would be good, along with the other stuff about the DEFAULTSORT edits. Carcharoth (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Unblock of BetacommandBot and your pledge

Trying to tidy up a few things here. In the AN thread, you said the following:

"what should be done is Betacommand2, BCBot unblocked, BCBot flag is returned and "Quercus basaseachicensis" will no longer edit. I will also agree to a 30 day halt on BCBot edits, except for ant-spam related reports and the article by size see WP:DABS which are run on cronjobs."[3]

Given that the unblock was later done by MZMcBride under different circumstances, could you please confirm whether or not what the pledge you made there still applies? Also, could you confirm what you want done with the Betacommand2 and Quercus basaseachicensis accounts? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I still agree to those terms, and Betacommand2 should be unblocked as I use that on public machines where I cannot load this account. (minor errors in my monobook which firefox ignores, but the version of IE that I use other places pop up error messages which is very annoying). Since the alt account I was attempting to start over with was exposed I will not use it again. β^_command 14:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll unblock the User:Betacommand2 account. I know I've mentioned it before, but could you please update the user page to indicate that it is more than just a test account. I will note the confirmation of the pledge, the discarding of the alternate account, and the unblock at the AN thread. If there are other pages that need undeleting or changing, let me know. I think the only other loose end from my point of view is the DEFAULTSORT stuff, but I'll raise that separately. Carcharoth (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

AN post is here. I pointed out another automated task. I suggest you negotiate a restriction to the Wikipedia and User namespaces (and their talk pages), as that would be easier to keep tabs on. Carcharoth (talk) 14:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I've blocked the BetacommmandBot account in response to a consensus supporting the proposed sanctions at AN. The review period needs to be worked out, two periods suggested so far include your 30 day pledge and the 90 days suggested by Durova. My involvement, outside of instituting the block, need only be as minimal as you would prefer; I trust any neutral admin to remove the block following the decided period. Let me know if you have any objections. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

you need to reverse that now. as per my comment on your talkpage. β^_command 18:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I had composed the previous message prior to getting your note. This block is supported by sanction, not an explicit agreement with you. Part of the reason for this block is the widely perceived necessity for a break from any and all bot activity from your accounts. I understand your concern that this bot is setting back progress, but that is something that many users have disagreed with. It will indeed stall some useful tasks, I take it that other bot operators have previously agreed to pick up the slack where necessary. Progress, as I define it, is at least a break from drama for the review period and a drastic reduction in errors made during your bot runs. Progress will take time. I apologize if my action temporarily increases any drama - I hope that in the long-term it will prove to be a preventative measure. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

What sanction? Beta was the subject of an accusation of abusive socking, which was later determined to be incorrect (in that the socks weren't abusive). The folks who oppose BCB & Beta in general have used this as a coatrack for all the complaints they've ever had about him - which is just plain wrong. --Versageek

The sanction discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Betacommand_blocked_for_sockpuppetry#Proposed_partial_sanction. This sanction is meant to be a break and reboot, giving Betacommand time to reconsider his methods and a chance to prove that he can function in a responsible manner that satisfies numerous valid concerns brought up surrounding his use of bots. I don't mean to block Betacommand from ever using a bot again and I've never agreed with the assertion that he was using a sock abusively. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC) (e/c)

Anetode, I'd ask that you reconsider this block. The original block of the account turned out to be baseless, thus, any re-blocks are unnecessary. This block was not preventative in the least, and is grossly against the blocking policy, as BetacommandBot was not actively causing any disruption. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The original block included all of Betacommand's accounts, I agree that it was unnecessary. This is only a block of his Bot, in response to a clear consensus to enact a set of sanctions devised in an attempt to prevent further drama and bot mistakes. I understand that there are a number of users who tend to disregard any and all complaints and discussions about the bot because they consider the vast majority of them to be frivolous. This is not meant as a cool-down block, a content dispute block, or an endorsement of punitive sentiment. This is a community enacted preventative measure of the sort used regularly by other formalized processes, including Arbcom. The terms of these sanctions are still flexible, their intent is to propose a temporary break period followed by a review by a neutral party. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

the there is not agreement to what actions should be taken I ask that you reverse your actions as the conclusion of the discussion has not been reached. this is not a preventive block, but instead a punitive block that violates WP:BLOCK β^_command 19:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually there is plenty of agreement with regard to the continuance of your bot-related activities. If anything, this is a mild version of the restriction proposed by the sanctions, a few users commented in favor of an infinite block rather than an indefinite block. Further, as is completely obvious to both of us, blocks supported by a consensus at AN are not a new phenomenon and do not violate the blocking policy. Rather than arguing for a continuance of the mega-size discussion already in place, perhaps you could take some time to consider what input you'd like to offer related to the terms of the review. Your 30 day pledge was certainly a good faith effort, however the community is not obligated to overturn these sanctions to abide by a solution devised entirely by you. I have to log off now, I'll be back on tomorrow. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The bot was unblocked, anetode, until you blocked it. Don't hide behind the community here; if all of betas accounts werent (inappropriately) blocked, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not. Perhaps you should read over the discussion you have until recently neglected. And cease making accusations. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you know what I've read, or "neglected" to read? Anyhow, I'm not playing games here. If you cannot provide one diff from BCBots recent contributions that shows need for a (preventative) block, then I don't need to say anything else. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Your comments at the AN subpage were quite dismissive of even the possibility of some reason for enacting any sanctions. This led me to believe, to give you the benefit of the doubt, that you had perhaps not read over the dozen opinions supporting these sanctions. These included several extreme opinions that suggested permanent removal of Betacommand's bot priviledges. You can come out and say that the bot was unblocked until I blocked it - this is obvious and I'm not sure what type of an argument you are trying to make by pointing it out. If you mean to imply that this was in some way a unilateral action, then I'd like to assure you that it was not. It was meant as a sensible, even mild, attempt to work towards a practical solution to temporarily cease Betacommand's controversial actions (defaultsort, et al) until such time that he proves a willingness to take responsibility for his mistakes and drastically reduce the probability of further poorly thought out runs. You're not playing games here, I respect that, but neither am I. If you intend to neglect the hundreds of kilobites of discussion of mistake after mistake perpetrated by Betacommand (in good faith, I am certain), then I think you have a very myopic sense of the problem, or have chosen to dismiss it entirely. Prior to the block you had not commented at all about the proposed sanctions, and now you bring up the claim that they are fruits of the poison tree. I can sympathize with that statement, as the whole thread was initiated by an overreaction to a relatively benign alternate account. I can assure you that the block was not in any way meant as any sort of a punitive measure for using the recently uncovered account. The events leading up to these sanctions can best be traced to a pattern of lack of accountability and a well-established trend of mistaken edits. The intent of these sanctions may not satisfy Betacommand, then again, they are not meant to. The whole reason behind them is to enact a community supported trial period, an opportunity to Betacommand to prove that he has the humility to take a small break and start fresh, to prove to other concerned users that he can operate the bot in a responsible and uncontroversial manner. If successful, these sanctions will prevent a great deal of bad faith and animosity levelled against Betacommand and help him earn earn the respect of many members of the community who may see him as, at best, a necessary evil. Of course I realize that there is a contingency of users who already genuinely respect Betacommand's actions and will defend them through thick and thin, despite the frequency of his mistakes, incivility, and the attendant drama. I don't want to foster an antagonistic attitude against these users, including yourself, but at the same time I wish that they would take some time to consider the huge amount of well-established users who have serious grievances against Beta's m.o., many of which are not related to the regular red herrings of NFCC enforcement or assumptions of bad faith. It's true that I have a number of concerns with BCBot, but if you read over the whole discussion, there is a definite consensus that something must be done. The Betacommand and Betacommand2 accounts remain unblocked and Beta has every opportunity to prove his critics wrong by employing a little humility and a careful approach to successfully operating bots and other semi-automated tools. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be punitive for the purpose of a "cool down". Might need to reconsider this block until a conclusion is reached.--Hu12 (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Beta, I disagree with blocking the bot. However, people seem upset about doing unreviewed tasks on your user account. What would you think about agreeing to only do bot or assisted edits from the bot account (none from user:Betacommand or user:Betacommand2), and to get a review (BRFA) before any task? Gimmetrow 20:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

as long as you can keep the trolls from harassing me link the last BRFA sure, β^_command 20:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Clean up using... ?

Hey... I noticed you're producing a large number of edit summaries of the form "clean up using". Shouldn't there be something after the word using there? — PyTom (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You're also making a large number of useless edits, such as this. Can you explain why these need to be made en masse without a bot account? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to go over the default sort edits and fix any problems, given that users have complained about the placement of default sort I thought it best to place it in the proper location. I am manually going over my edits and fixing defaultsorts and also doing typo fixing at the same time. (Im using a SVN copy of AWB I think I accidentally changed the edit summary) β^_command 03:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread and 3RR breach

Betacommand, there is an ANI thread here where it has been shown that you breached 3RR. The other editor was blocked, but has now been unblocked, partly because I unblocked you without realising that you had (despite what others had said) been edit warring and breaching 3RR. Please don't ever do that again. Whether or not you were aware that you had done the earlier revert with your Betacommand2 account is beside the point - you used multiple accounts in that edit war, and that is completely unacceptable. Please limit yourself to using one account if editing any one page in a 24 hour period, and please only use the Betacommand2 account for uncontroversial stuff. Carcharoth (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

AN discussion (another one)

Since the initiator of the thread completely failed to have the courtesy to notify you, I'm doing it. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposed community ban of Betacommand. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Image formats

Dear Betacommand,

When creating and uploading images, please take care to use the appropriate image format as described at Wikipedia:Image use policy#Format. Especially take note that JPEG is for photographs only. It really diminishes the intended message to upload a big STUPIDITY IS DANGEROUS AND VERY CONTAGIOUS sign, and then (a bit stupidly) make the mistake of saving it in an inappropriate format that produces large artifacts, looks terrible, and warrants a cleanup tag. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot_requests#WP:INDIA_Bot_Assisted_Assessment

Is BC Bot operational ? FYI -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 04:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Impostor - User:KabelBot

Careful, it looks like you have an impostor. --  Netsnipe  ►  13:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

its the second in as many days, just one of my fans. β^_command 13:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone attacked your sandbox

I have no idea why someone would be that silly to edit such a page but they did. Anyway looking from that page it looks like your going to update the WP:EDITS page. Well good on you my fellow wikipedian! I know how torturous such edits can be, keep up the great work. I know you have come under intense scrutiny lately, i hope thats the last of it. Thanks Roadrunnerz45 ^{(talk 2 me)} 14:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your question on VPT

You asked: "If I give you a list of subcats would you be willing to filter out the non-pl cats?". I replied there and will repeat it here: "Yes" :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

ive gone two levels deep here en:User:BetacommandBot/Sandbox 3, before I go deeper take a look. β^_command 19:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Your disrespectful behavior is reported as 3RR violation. Mukadderat (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Betacommand/Edit count

Hello BC. As I'm sure you're fully aware, this page was deleted twice by two admins acting independently. And as I'm sure you're also fully aware, an agreement had been reached about the original list to accommodate people who did not want their name on the list. The fact that this list is in your user space does not liberate you from the moral obligation of respecting that agreement. Citing WP:NOTCENSORED in creating the list is completely inappropriate and it has me wondering when was the last time you actually read that bit of the policy. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

the lists in question have a few major differences, see my prior post for specifics, as for WP:NOTCENSORED that refers to the removal of valid information, not the creation of the list. your deletion was un-callled for, which is why I re-created it. β^{_{command 2}} 14:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

People don't really have the right to deny the release of their edit count. Every edit is released to GFDL so surely you are allowed to count those edits? I see nothing inappropriate about gathering useful statistics. Now there have been certain decisions about what to do in the Wikipedia space, which is all fine and well but I would say that it being in userspace makes all the difference in the world and that you should try MfD if you think it is inappropriate for userspace, not just simply delete it. I don't see any policy that supports deleting that page. _{1 != 2} 14:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

there is a DRV that says the same thing and opposes the first deletion without reason. β^{_{command 2}} 14:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I have a a link to that DRV please? _{1 != 2} 15:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 21#User:Betacommand/Edit count. Just popping through. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The DRV is just overturning the speedy because it's more appropiate to discuss it at MfD, that's all. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm bringing the discussion here. Beta, to preent an Mfd if and when you recreate this list, it would probably help if you lay out in clear terms here why:

• Your edit list is different from the wikispace ones
• Why you actually need it, or what you use it for (bar the obvious)
• Why, if it isn't a duplicate, you don't move it to wiki space
• Why you do not allow anonymity from it despite it being allowed in the wikispace versions
• Why your list qualifies as an appropriate use of a sub-page per WP:USER

MickMacNee (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that a DRV reversedis clearly supporting the reversing of the previous deletion, I think the latest deletion was contrary to consensus and should be reversed. Using admin tools unilaterally in a content dispute, and this is a content dispute, is a big nono. _{1 != 2} 15:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The proper method would've been to MfD it, not to delete on sight. Enigma ^message 15:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my deletion. If you're not going to honor the previous agreement about placeholders, I won't let this list be. Another MfD is the perfect way to lose everybody's time repeating the same arguments on the placeholder debate. Userspace is not a place where you can ignore the community when you don't like the compromises it agreed to. Note that you also reverted aggressively as vandalism any attempt to use placeholders so I consider the list to be a disruptive attempt to refuse the community's wishes. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Beta, if you would just implement a way for users to remove themselves from the list, I'm sure that your list would be kept at the MfD. So, please, just implement it. Your list is not going to be worse because of that, and you won't unnecessarily piss off other productive editors. You will save yourself a good amount of WP:WIKIDRAMA and create good will towards you. About censoring, I will just claim the privacy rights at WP:BLP. Lame, I know :P --Enric Naval (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Your contribution

Hey, love your DANGER sign...may I borrow?

Anyway, I'm here about your recent contribution to WWII lists. This needs to be done in all the lists, so I was going to ask for a Bot request to do it. Are you doing this by hand? If so, please stop and prevent yourself from getting RSI :) However, your good intention and help is appreciated, cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a find and replace js that allows me to mass fix them in about 30 seconds, Ill go ahead and fix the rest then. β^_command 00:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

should be converted to the better format now. β^_command 00:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I placed a request for another issue in Bot requests that may be Wikipedia-wide if you want to have a look at that also.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

I have filed a request for arbitration which involves you. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Betacommand_3. John254 17:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Take it for what it's worth, but my advice is to not bother replying there unless requested by the ArbCom, let others defend you. This looks to me like a frivolous complaint by someone with a grudge, based on the extremely POV language in the dispute. But do whatever you think is best. Kelly ^hi! 19:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandal Proof Request Backlog, Can you clear it? Prom3th3an (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandal Proof Request Backlog, Can you clear it? Prom3th3an (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Polish categories

I am back from the conference, what should I do with regards to our task and User:BetacommandBot/Sandbox 3?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Why did you call it vandalisim that I changed the wording in the warning? --81.1.105.183 (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

editing others comments on talk pages is vandalism. β^_command 20:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

He's right, if someone else says it, you have no right to change it, even if you think your making it better/more accurate. We have WP:MFD for pages that blatantly cause problems. MBisanz ^talk 20:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

RFC Not Working

Hello. I think you made the RfC bot. I put an RfC template here [4] on May 24th and it still hasn't shown up on the list. Do you know what's wrong? Life.temp (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

its on Template:RFCpol list where you asked for it. β^_command 03:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Somebody fixed it. [5] thanks. Life.temp (talk) 04:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion of the AN thread

Per the consensus of the thread on WP:AN, the Sam Korn solution has gained community consensus. You are prohibited from running automated programs to make edits (or edits that appear to be automated), on either a bot account, or your main account. You are also placed under civility parole, and any edit which is seen as uncivil by an uninvolved administrator may lead to a block. Failure to comply with either of these restrictions will lead to a block of up to one week. These restrictions are in place until the community decide that the remedies are no longer appropriate. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 00:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Beta, I'd say you're pushing it already with the run of double redirect fixes. It's not like fixing double redirects is a bad thing, but making the same kind of edit every 10 seconds is somewhere on the boundary of "edits that appear to be automated".

Automation can go on without your help. There are existing double-redirect bots out there. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you need some clarification of what exactly the restriction means. You aren't allowed to make any bot type, automated edits. All your edits should be done manually, and each edit should be checked by yourself before making it. Your contributions should show this as well, and you shouldn't make edits that appear in anyway automated - generic edit summaries like the ones you did for the double redirects are not acceptable. If you did this again, you'd get yourself a block. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you suggest that he type the summary differently each time? There are only so many ways you can say the same thing, and if you want to be assuming bad faith, a bot can just as easily use more than one summary as a usual editor can. Last I checked (and I have been away a bit), showing dedication to the project by doing tough or repetitive, boring work was considered to be a good thing, not a crime. Operating at a higher efficiency than other editors is also not a crime, unless it's obvious that he's using a bot. Like, if it said "Using AWB". Not if he copies and pastes edit summaries. You, for example, have used the summary "Welcoming user using VP" 471 times, "Your recent edits" 402 times, and "warn" 375 times in your career. I've used "Welcome to wikipedia!" 942 times, and, somehow (no clue why) "I vandalize myself" 57 times. That doesn't mean we're running unauthorized bots. Edit summaries are really not a valid way to enforce this sort of thing. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 23:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't, but this gives the impression that he's using bots, which he's banned from. I've gone through and checked the edits, as I'm sure other users have to check for mistakes, which is exactly the reason he's banned from using bots. He's banned from making edits that appear to be automated - these appear to be automated, so if it was to happen again, he'd be blocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

and whoever placed the block on zero proof would be at arbcom for abuse of admin tools. I was not using a bot. so if I was fighting vandalism and use the same edit summary Im a bot? give me a break and do something productive, something Im trying to do. β^_command 23:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you can't make edits like this, period. You can't appear to be making automated edits from your account, and these certainly did appear to be automated. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Im sorry if you cant see the difference between automated and not, these where not automated and I dont care what you say Ill edit what I want to, end of story. β^_command 23:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears to me that the community has gone a bit overboard with its restrictions on Betacommand. It appears that we are saying that he can not make use of any of the semi-automated tools such as Vandel Proof, Twinkle, AWB, etc; thats seems excessive to me. As far as making repetative edits as a rate of 1 every ten seconds, that seems reasonable to me usings one of the semi-automatic tools. If he were running a bot I would expect to see edit rates in excess of 10 per second rather than 6 per minute. Let's be a bit more reasonable and not jump to the conclusion that Betacommand is ignoring the restrictions. Dbiel ^(Talk) 00:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, he can use VP, Twinkle or AWB. All except the latter give indication that they are semi-automated, not fully automated so there really isn't a problem (AWB edits are obviously a little bit different, but they would be evaluated on each individual run). When Betacommand edits with a repetitive edit summary, on a task that could easily be done with a bot, people start to ask questions and begin checking every single edit, hence why it was made clear that he shouldn't be making edits that appear to be automated. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Im sorry if you dont like the fact that I am being productive, Im not using a bot. I have not violated any sanctions, using simi automatic tools when Im checking diffs was never banned. If this was a bot id do a hell of a lot more to make it look like something else. I use the same summary for each edit as its the same kind of edit. stop harassing me and do something productive for once. β^_command 00:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a case of editing slowly enough to allow for checking (or agreeing to submit all tasks for approval, no matter how mundane or obvious you might think they are). Unless you can write a bot to check your edits, this restriction (which I don't entirely agree with, by the way) now means you have to do them at a speed where others can check to make sure you aren't, say, removing redlinked categories, or adding incorrect sort keys. If you could document somewhere that you have checked and repaired some of these past mistakes, then that would obviously help a lot. Carcharoth (talk) 00:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

As I discussed with Ryan earlier, I don't see how Beta has violated any of the terms he was restricted to. This "any edits that appear to be automated" is crap, really. That is open to far too much interpretation. His edits earlier were at a low epm rate, and we have no reason to believe that he was using some fully automated script/bot to do it. As he says, it was semi-automated (like AWB, Twinkle, Huggle, etc.). - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that it would be helpful if Betacommand took Ryan's notice as advice rather than bad faith. The simple fact is that people are going to ask questions when they see Beta making a bunch of edits of the same type at a reasonably high speed with the same summary. At least making an effort to point out that the edits are done with a semi-automated tool ("reverted vandalism using VandalFighter" or whatever) would save all of us a lot of pointless bickering and arguing. Unless one thrives on creating a scene, there is no reason not to put such a notice in. Two seconds of work to make it clearer that these edits are done with a semi-automated tool saves countless man-hours spent at the noticeboard. 72.205.14.47 (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that it would be helpful if you would make such comments with your logged in account, whatever account that may be. Anyhow, these weren't high speed. They varied from 3-6 epm, AFAIK. I can double+ that speed doing any task as simple as using Firefox tabs. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The value of somebody's comments depends on whether or not they're logged in? If you must know, my user account is AlphaAJ86, but I contribute so infrequently (oftentimes for good reason) that I don't bother staying logged in. But in any case, see what Rspeer says below. I'm trying to be pragmatic. Betacommand isn't allowed to use bots. I don't care if he's really good with browser tabs and can own anybody at manual editing speed. I don't care if he's got a semi-automated tool. But, to be honest, making edits that somebody might reasonably suspect were done by a bot - especially when it would be easy to indicate it was done with a helper tool - seems to be a rather immature game of "gotcha!" Do you want to see this game played out, or would you rather see it solved preemptively? 72.205.14.47 (talk) 01:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

People in this discussion are saying it may not be a bot because the editing rate was slow. Pywikipedia has the concept of "throttling". You can set the bot to edit at whatever speed you want, give or take the variance introduced by network delays. This kind of editing rate is in fact how most people are supposed to use it, unless they get BAG approval for a higher editing rate. So the editing rate of 3-7 epm doesn't tell you anything one way or the other.

Anyway, in my original comment, I'm just suggesting that the intent of the decision was that Betacommand should not make the kind of edits where we end up wondering whether it was a bot. It's not about "proof", exactly because this kind of thing is so hard to prove. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If you can't tell whether he's making semiautomatic edits or not, and there's nothing wrong with the edits, why does it matter if he's using pywiki or some other tool? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 19:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that. If they're good edits, and not obviously a bot, then who cares? Kelly ^hi! 19:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

ping

{{helpme}} Im caught in an autoblock can someone have FT2 check his e-mail? I sent a e-mail to him with the details. β^_command 16:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've let him know on his talk page. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think making this account IP block exempt handles the autoblock until FT2 can look at it. Gimmetrow 16:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

its actually needed on my alt account, User:Betacommand2. (Im only using this account to avoid changing its talkpage from a redirect. due to javascript issues with the PC that Im using I cannot use this account for long, each page load gives me about 8 popup warnings) β^_command 16:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Done there too. Gimmetrow 16:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppet question

I saw your conclusion on the Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning page, though I added more information that I believe confirms the username and the IP are the same, and was hoping you would look further at it. I also wonder what happens next. There has been a checkuser request that was a "possible" for this and now a "probably" on this case. The way the editor operates is a concern, especially given the turn it has taken. If this is a case of sockpuppets, are the user, the anonymous IP and the puppets blocked? Coupled with the personal attack and harassment of the last 24 hours, I honestly believe it should occur. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 21	19 May 2008	About the Signpost

Pro-Israeli group's lobbying gets press, arbitration case	Board elections: Voting information, new candidates
Sister Projects Interview: Wikibooks	WikiWorld: "Hodag"
News and notes: Russian passes Swedish, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Good article milestone	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 22	26 May 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections: Candidate questions	Single User Login opt-in for all users
Community-related news sources grow	WikiWorld: "Tomcat and Bobcat"
News and notes: Wikimedia DE lawsuit, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured sounds	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot vs Bot

Your bot is undoing all the edits of User:John Bot, which seems to be harmlessly adding a WikiProject to some talk pages. Is this intentional? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

yeah, john bot when crazy and was adding it to a lot of pages that it shouldnt have, I was asked to mass revert. β^_command 03:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Okie dokie. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Does that make it okay to also revert talk pages that were correctly tagged? (See Talk:PER1) People should check the edits of their bots. In both cases. --Pesco (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• But tagging all those talk pages for speedy deletion as {{db|bot error}} was not the right thing to do -- especially when John Bot correctly tagged many of those pages for the WikiProject Genetics. If the article didn't belong to that WikiProject, it would have been better to delete the WikiProject tag rather than tag the article for speedy deletion, as the latter creates unnecessary work for administrators. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot vs. Bot Number 2

this edit shows BetacommandBot undoing MBisanzBot's minor change from #151 to mdash. Did someone start a bot cage match and forget to pass out the popcorn? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot wars are almost as fun as Clone Wars. Enigma ^message 03:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

MBisanzBot made some major errors and I was asked to revert, BetacommandBot (talk) 03:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)