Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:30, 15 March 2008

−6117 days left

If you are here to register a complaint regarding my edits, before doing so please note: There is a very clear policy regarding the use of non-free images. This policy is located at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria Read this talk page and its archives before registering your complaint. It is likely someone has already registered a similar complaint, and that complaint will have been given an answer. Read the policy Check and make sure the image has a valid source Make sure that the image has a valid Fair use Rationale (A guide can be found here) I will not add rationales for you. As the uploader it is your responsibility, NOT mine. I do not want to see images deleted All images must comply with policy A generic template tag is NOT a valid fair use rationale. If you're here to whine and complain that But <place image name here> is just like my image and isn't tagged for deletion I will tag that image too, I just haven't gotten around to it yet.

• 20060127
• 20060409
• 20060508
• 20060713
• 20060906
• 20061017
• 20061117
• 20061207
• 20070101
• 20070201
• 20070301
• 20070401
• 20070501
• 20070601
• 20070701
• 20070801
• 20070901
• 20071101
• 20071201
• 20080101
• 20080201
• 20080301
• 20080401
• 20080501
• 20080601
• 20080701
• 20080801
• 20080901
• 20081001
• 20081101
• 20081201
• 20090101
• 20090201
• 20090301
• 20090401
• 20090701
• 20090801
• 20090901
• 20091001
• 20091101
• 20091201
• 20100101
• 20100201
• 20100301
• 20100401
• 20100501
• 20100601
• 20100701

		The Original Barnstar
		Because of your repeated kindness and willingness to help others when nobody else will even know about it, I sincerely thank you. You've helped me build an army of... well, I'll just leave it there. :-D east.718 at 01:16, December 16, 2007

In the face of so much complains

Since BetacommandBot is the subject of so much controversy and you don't want images without fair use rationale, why don't you give a hand to the uploaders and provide these images with fair use rationale yourself.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, good point. Instead of adding {{fairuse}} to every picture, so you can have a picture-less world find the info of the picture yourself! _{I had to take the rude words out, so now it dont have its impact but still its point!} --{{123Pie|Talk}} 22:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys there's only 24 hours in a day. Betacommand couldn't sort out every image if he had 100 hours a day. There's many thousands of them. Misplaced Pages is big - very big. --kingboyk (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

My comment (This is going too far) was kindly deleted for "cross-posting", though I thought it could be of interested here too. But let me say that I also find the encounter with this bot very unpleasant, and I disagree with the way it works : no prior discussion, and a threat of speedy deletion, with no human being you can interact with. The amount of complaint is the sign that something is wrong. Baronnet (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

your comment on the bot page was not reverted. what was reverted is the crosspost to this page. things on that page get moved here. if you can call seven days "speedy". Yes I agree something is wrong, the number of users who do not understand/follow our non-free content policy. β 23:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid 7 days is speedy, since the bot targets images that have not just been uploaded, but also older ones, which the initial uploader does not necessarily watch every day. Some contributors may be on holiday, for instance. I think deletion of images that have been used for a long time should be discussed. Baronnet (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Baronnet not only does it notify you, it also places a notice on the talkpage of the article where its used. Im sorry if you want a discussion for older images, but our policy treats them the same. β 23:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The administrators have the last word, they don't delete blindly. The bot just informs. Cenarium (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

At too short a notice, in my opinion. There have been complaints in the past about a too radical and speedy deletion practice : Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand. But I understand that the matter will not be solved in a few lines here. There are deletionists. And I am rather a inclusionist. Baronnet (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I was unaware of this RFAR. This task of this bot was not in cause there. Cenarium (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree : this is a new debate, not the continuation of the RFAR. By the way, I suggest Image:Oxford University Logo.jpg (another non free image which has no fair use rationale) is tagged like Image:Nancy-Université.gif was. We shall see what the reaction is. Baronnet (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

abort mission and try to get it right? Opiumjones 23 (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Besides, many older uploaded images sometimes come from the uploaders own computers. I dowloaded most of my Buffyverse images years ago from now defunct sites or were removed from said sites. As for not having enough time to provide fair use for every photo, many of us don't have enough time to provide fair use for our targeted images. The truth, why should I care if Betta doesn't have enough time for that?.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Because he didn't make the policy, the Wikimedia Foundation did. User talk:Jimbo Wales is the page you want. --kingboyk (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Policy or not, if the person on a witch hunt can't be bothered to make an effort, we shouldn't be required to look the other way while they continue to draw mass criticism from peers. When these companies in question start making complaints, then the issue can be brought up. Every image in existence was created by somebody somewhere, and these sweeping generalizations are becoming a serious problem. Deleting pretty much the ONLY relevant images that could pertain to any article is only succeeding in making Misplaced Pages even more of a bland cesspool. What's the new order of the day, original MSPaints for every article? (Kanten (talk) 06:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

Oh my god people, suck it up and stop complaining. If you know how to write your fair-use rationales, BC will not delete a single image. He is designed to make sure fair-use rationales (the format, not the wording) are as per wikipedia policies, to ensure all components of fair-use are there, which the ultimate aim is to ensure wikipedia stays as close to the right side of copyright law as possible, to ensure that the images as a whole can remain on here! Fix the rationale, remove the BC tag, and you're done. And if you don't come on wikipedia weekly, or are able to relocate your image to re-upload, and do not write a properly formatted fair-use rationale per wikipedia policies, you have nobody else to blame. /rant. Timeshift (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your point, while essentially correct, would be better made without the strong language and the ranting. In addition, you are wrong to say "to ensure all components of fair-use are there". BetacommandBot only detects the absence of one aspect of fair use (namely, naming the article in which the image is used), and doesn't ensure anything about the other aspects of fair use. Humans are needed for that, though bots can help and are needed due to the sheer volume and backlog of images. Carcharoth (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well there you go, it's even easier than what I said to make sure BC doesn't tag your images. Timeshift (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't encourage people to evade the bots. The aim is to get correct rationales written in cases where an image is both needed and improves the article. Carcharoth (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not doing any such thing. I'm making the point that the complaints are groundless. Timeshift (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

They are hardly groundless. BC's implementation has been sloppy, ham-handed, and unnecessarily uncivil. I've been here to say it before and will say it again. Given that the management of improperly sourced images is so vital, why isn't there a team of interested and able editors backing up the effort by assisting image posters in preparing proper FURs by offering effective advice or model FURs? Some of that is in place now, but it should have been in place early on. This is supposed to be a community effort after all, not some sort of botocracy, and I don't see why we have to settle for BC's up-yours-learn-how-to-fish-and-don't-bug-me-as-I-do-my-noble-work approach. And no, its not hand holding - its co-operation between community members who have respect for one another. The range of editors runs the gamut from first timers to able veterans and its alarming to see even experienced editors driven to anger by a clumsy bot that is mindlessly rules-based without acknowledging (or making any meaningful effort to acknowledge) the people that make up the project. Wiggy! (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It is up to the fair-use image uploader to ensure they follow the rules. They are the one presented with the screen of information each time they upload a file. They are the ones responsible to ensure all conditions are met. Not anyone else. Timeshift (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Which goes straight to my point that this is a community based project where people help one another instead of mindlessly regurgitating dogma. I fail to see why that is such an alien concept to the rule-bangers. Wiggy! (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The real problem with the implemention done by BetacommandBot is that of policy; specificly the policy of applying a 7 day warning on images that have been uploaded ages ago and to do so in mass. It would have been far less of a problem if 7day warning had been changed to 30 days or more, simply due to the large number of images being tagged at one time. But that is a policy issue that Betacommand does not control. He is simply following policy and for once I can not fault him. For new images the short warning makes sense, for but older images it just does not any sense at all, especially when we have some delete happy admins that will delete simply because the 7day warning had expired. Dbiel 00:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not as simple as that. Your argument has the stink of "I was only following orders" and BC is in no way innocent of a role in creating an unnecessarily messy situation. If the policy was defective or needed a tune up, why in the world was it implemented with such slavish zeal? And then defended with what was at times unnecessary viciousness? Surely some more palatable consensus could have been reached before hand. It was absolutely no fun trying to write FURs while the policy was evolving and the bot was being modifed to follow suit. Wiggy! (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

the policy has been basically the same for about 3 years. yeah its been cleaned up, and clarified. But its the same non-free content policy that existed 3 years ago. BCBot as been tagging NFCC images for over 10 months now. 7 days is a gracious period. some Images are deletable in 2 days. But I think seven days is a reasonable period. β 01:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That's disingenuous at best. If it was true folks wouldn't be chasing around fixing logo tags that were just fine two years ago when first posted. Seven days is hardly gracious when you have to deal with a ton of images that are suddenly under the gun. And to suggest that seven days is sufficient flies in the face of all the user comments to the contrary. But I guess that didn't register ... Wiggy! (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Wiggy, I'm unhappy with your "only following orders" complaint. Betacommand does not share Wiggy!'s conviction that seven days is too short a time. If Betacommand agreed that seven days was unreasonable, then he could perhaps be faulted for tagging articles for policy violations. However, since Betacommand agrees with the policy, or if he believed that something else is more important than providing an extended response time (ie, avoiding lawsuits over copyright violations by providing WikiMedia with proof that their policy is actively enforced), then we can't fault him for "only following orders." Wiggy, I think you should stop implying that Betacommand should have gotten the policy changed because you think it is defective. May I suggest that you go to NFCC and propose the very changes that you wish Betacommand had proposed ten months ago? Consider this a friendly {{sodoityourself]] suggestion -- or at least a reminder that you cannot change WikiMedia policies by talking to Betacommand. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, not interested. I only came to this because so many of my contributions came under threat and my attempts to comply with policy were being undone as the policy was being cleaned up and clarified. I had my turn at making helpful suggestions in both polite and blunt ways and all that got me was variously ignored, rebuffed or headhunted. I understand the necessity of images being compliant. I'm disappointed in how it was handled and the abrasive manner in which so many contributors were treated. It was appallingly frustrating watching people struggling with the thing and basically getting bulldozed as they were being told to stop being so useless/helpless/clueless. I don't get the sense that "sodoityourself", or however you want to frame up constructive user input, was part of the playbook. If you are going to undertake a major change in how policy is enforced it follows that you should think it through and make the best job you can of it. Wiggy! (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Your bot sucks. Someone should consider the image using a brain first. You deleted an image of a screenshot of a program under the idea that it would not fall under fair use. There's.. no conceivable way that anyone would *bother* to violate the copyright on such an image, they would simply make a new image. The actions of your bot do not pass the laugh test. Removing images wholesale makes everyone poorer. JoshuaRodman (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Missing non-free use rationale

Images with missing non-free use rationales should not be tagged with "rationale disputed" but with "missing rationale", i.e. {{frn}}. – Ilse@ 18:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

BetacommandBot is incapable of making that distinction. Carcharoth (talk) 14:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Bot suggestions

I don't know if you actually read this page, but....

I suggest that you provide a "task shutoff" button and possibly a "task shutoff and revert run" button for all new tasks you use the bot for, even if you don't separate the bot into separate accounts for separate tasks. I mean, the bot clearly knows what it did, so it should be able to revert itself. It would be nice if you would allow admins to push the buttons. (If the bot monitors a page, I'm sure there would be no objection to making the page protected so that only admins could push the button.) Certainly "task shutoff" is less disruptive to your work than blocking the bot entirely. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have that, its called using my talk page. just ask Ryan I stopped the bot within 3 minutes of his posting here. there have been others with faster results. β 15:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't checked, but other admins have claimed you have refused to stop a bot when it works as you think it should rather than as a prospective blocking admin thinks it should, and that you don't respond to a stop request before the bot is blocked, even if you act on it. A button would be simpler. The "revert" button would simplify debugging, as well, even if it's only your button.

Also, something I thought of since I wrote that; if you had the bot create an edit summary indicating which task it's performing, even if only by task number within your task list, it would make it easier for people to see whether it was actually doing an authorized task. (Removing redlinked categories has not and has never been authorized, unless they've gone through CfD. However, it's almost impossible to tell if a category has gone through CfD, so you may have accidentally performed authorized actions. ) If you create edit summaries, that probably only requires changing one line of code. (Note that I haven't checked whether you actually do that. If you do, my apologies.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Something fishy?

On Jan 15 (yes i know quite a while ago) your bot left a message on my page about "Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Pete smyser-scene-is-clean.jpg". However I don't recognize the image name and am fairly certain that I never uploaded it to begin with. Could the bot have made a mistake? If not, is there a way to get at the date the image was uploaded and the IP that was used ? Hirudo (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Being curious, I looked it up. You edited an advertisement out of the cover on April 23, 2006. It was originally uploaded by Peacemover on April 6, 2006. It appears to be an advertisement (not a cover, precisely) for The Scene is Clean by Pete Smyser. Beta probably couldn't have looked it up; it required an admin looking at the deleted content. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

VandalProof

• I see you're the one who approves a lot of the requests for this program. I also filed a request, under my username User:Cro0016, which is now a doppleganger, as i got a Change of username. However, I was never notified whether I was declined or accepted the use of this tool, and I don't know why. Could you have a look for me? I know you're busy, I'd appreciate it if you could have a quick look. I filed the request before my username change, under User:Cro0016. What should I do? Steve Crossin (talk) 10:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Just in case you didnt notice, can you check this out? Its in the link above. Steve Crossin (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, I just realised the error I made, if you have a minute, could you check the Awaiting Approval list? I put my username in the wrong section, but It's been fixed. Could you quickly look, please? Steve Crossin (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Your bot acting strangely

Hi Betacommand. It appears that the unapproved bot running on your account is not functioning correctly.

1. It breaks the link here: ]
2. This edit of another user's comment leaves the comment incomprehensible, and a categorisation on an article talk page of this type makes no sense:]
3. Also do you think it might be a good idea to avoid user sandboxes? They're not usually targets of general-purpose bots: ]
4. Also this edit I don't understand at all:]

This is just from randomly looking at your edits in the last couple of hours. Please be more careful. AKAF (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

added numbers to points β 15:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

1. thanks for the heads up that is the first time I have seen that error. I did not notice it during editing.

2. that was an improper cat link see this.

3. there was a issue with category capitalization which I have been fixing, those should be fixed regardless of the namespace.

4. on List of historical autonomist and secessionist movements I added spaces in the section titles and changed Category: Secessionist Organizations to Category: Secessionist organizations

throughout I was making red cat links into blue. β 15:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, obviously I misunderstood some of those problems, I didn't understand about the header spacing, and was confused as to why they were turning up in the diffs. The talk page problem (2) was that you removed the description/discussion of the potential categorisation from the middle of a sentence, and added it to a category at the bottom of a page. This made the sentence make no sense. The bot needs to know that category redlinks on talk pages can be part of a discussion on categorisation, and thus do not follow the same placement rules as in article space. I would think that they should be in-place replaced rather than moved to the bottom of the page, as you seem to be doing. Regards AKAF (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Like I have stated before its not a bot. I understand what your trying to say but you dont seem to understand it yourself ] places a page in foo, while ] is what should be used in discussions and creates a link. on that talkpage the user did not include : in their link and thus that category did not appear in the text, instead it was already at the bottom of the page. β 16:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Betacommand has this all running OK here now (on his account, not the bot account). But he still need to submit a proper bot request for this and discuss it more widely before moving this sort of thing back to his bot account. Betacommand, if this is one of those short, throw-away scripts that you don't intend to submit a bot request for, and ony ever intend to operate manually on your non-bot account, why not do that more in future and avoid overloading the main bot account with short, one-time script-based runs? Carcharoth (talk) 08:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not something for a bot account, its very similar to an AWB type run. if this was a larger scale fully automatic script I would file a BRFA, but since this was a simi-auto, I did not bother. β 08:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Thanks for explaining. I was unaware of the inline category use stuff (obviously). Thanks for taking the time out to explain. AKAF (talk) 09:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand, please can you re-read WP:BOT, which stresses that with a bot or any other form of mass-editing, consensus should be sought before the work is done, not afterwards: "Contributors intending to make a large number of assisted edits are advised to first ensure that there is a clear consensus that such edits are desired." This applies even the job is not done from a bot account.

These edits seem like they may in principle have been a good idea, but it would have been better to seek consensus first — and that if you had done so, some problems might have been avoided. Please, before you do any further such work on categories can you explain what you propose to do and invite comments? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand's recent edits have simply been fixing non-existent categories by changing them to existing categories. He is working from a list of redlinked categories with capitalization errors. The list is here. Now for all the things people can fault BC for, I do not believe arguing about consensus over fixing (not removing) redlinked categories is going to be a productive battle (who is arguing that the incorrectly capitalized categories were better for the encyclopedia?). Do you find this task (which is not being performed automatically) to be controversial? I ask because I have always assumed that correcting redlinked categories when they are simple mispellings/variations of existing cats is the proper thing to do. Thanks. - AWeenieMan (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the edit in point 1 above, BC has fixed a cat but broken the link. BHG's concern is not with the "right thing to do", it's with making mass edits where the operator may not be paying attention to each and every one and verifying the results (my words). Would you have made this change yourself and felt you'd succeeded? Franamax (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Franamax, that is indeed my concern. Of course I like to see the links fixed, but I don't like seeing new problems introduced along the way.

I can well understand that problems like that might not be foreseen in advance, but there is a much better chance of them being spotted if other people can scrutinise the plan. Instead, it seems that over 1,000 such edits were made, rather than doing a short test run first. Plenty of people have Betacommand's talkpage watchlisted, so I'm sure that even if all he did was to post a note here, he'd have had some feedback.

If he had done a small test run, one of the points I would have made is that I understood that there was no consenus in favour of alphabetically sorting categories, so a bot shouldn't be doing that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point, and perhaps my reading was incorrect, but my interpretation of BHG's comment was that there should be consensus for the task (my apologies if I misinterpreted this). And to be honest, BC fully acknowledged that he missed that one. It happens to the best of us. I agree that I might not have made that edit, but I don't think it is productive to go any farther than admitting the mistaken edit. And the same goes for the inline category links. But that is just my opinion. I see a lot of net good here (and one example of a bad edit) and would like to think there are bigger fish to fry (but to each his/her own). - AWeenieMan (talk) 04:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

See, the thing with mass edits is, when you make one mistake, even though you acknowledge it, you leave open the question of how many similar mistakes were made. Now someone has to go back over all your edits to check, especially if you're not willing to do it yourself. That's not just BC's problem, it is inherent to all automated editing, there's always the question of confidence in the operator, that they're personally viewing the results. It's no different than me whacking away at some spelling change, say Sakatchewan to Saskatchewan, and I'm messing up each time I correct that spelling. You see one example where I obviously didn't do it right. Now what - are you going to check all my edits where the summaries say "sp."? Check a few, you see I've messed up a few other places and they are (top) - do you start to lose confidence in my abilities? You ask me and I say, oh yeah, I see now I made a mistake one place, but I don't have to go back and check, it's good, someone else will notice the error I introduced. Still confident in me? Franamax (talk) 04:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't, in my opinion, the sort of task that would need prior approval. It appears to me, as usual, Beta is taking heat for simply editing. The only example that was an actual error is the first one, and that link wasn't properly formatted to begin with. If it was, it wouldn't have been broken by the edit. Each of these examples appear to have spawned from a previous user error. We don't see Beta on those users pages making a little fuss over their mistakes. Is this a big deal? Not in the slightest. Each of these examples shows that there was need for correction already, so he added no extra work to anyone. Kind of like BCBot tagging OTRS images that have inappropriate dual licenses. It tags for something else, but draws attention to the real problem. BC may have made a mistake, but it just drew attention to an already existing mistake. Lara❤Love 03:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Lara, this isn't "taking heat for simply editing", it's feedback on the use of automated process for mass editing. One of the issues to be considered in any task such as this data is not always correctly formatted, and the question of how to deal with errors in the data is always one of the time-consuming bits of any programming task. I don't know if anyone has the energy to review ~1200 edits, so we don't know how widespread the problems are ... but a test run of about 50 or 100 could have been scrutinised.

That's all; it's good idea, but best implemented with community involvement per Misplaced Pages:BOT#Assisted_editing_guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus on proposal

Per the Community proposal consensus (see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand/Archive 3#Community proposal), please implement the recognition, acknowledgement and following of the {{bots}} and {{nobots}} tags by BetacommandBot on user and user talk pages. Please follow up here once this has been done. Please do this in a reasonable amount of time (as in, not a month later or as in, not at all thereby ignoring community consensus on this proposal). Thank you. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ 16:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not a community consensus. If you want this to happen, you're going to have to get a wider community consensus that this should happen for all bots, not just one. The discussion you point to does not get enough eyes for you to start demanding this and you certainly aren't a neutral party to start forcing Betacommand to do things. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The proposal was up for a week on the main Betacommand discussion page before being moved to the archives. Secondly, it's not me "forcing" him to do anything, it's the community. If you failed to take part in that discussion, that's your fault. A week later, the consensus says otherwise. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ 16:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As I have stated the no bots template is a joke and I refuse to ever use them. I currently have a very good way to opt out and that is the only method that I plan on using. the no bots template has been known to be abused and I refuse to support such a poorly thought out method. and if you consider 13 people consensus I feel sorry for you. Because I dont consider it that. β 16:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Allstar, this is not community consensus and as I said, get wider attention if you want want to force this - not on some random board that few people even watch. Betacommand does not have to abide by this as it's just a few users saying what they want, by no means a wide community consensus on the matter. Stoop enforcing things to have know right to be doing. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A very similar thing was brought up at WT:BOT and squashed very very quickly. β 16:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to engage in arguing over it. Just do it. It's consensus. I'll give it 2 weeks before taking from here, to somewhere else. Thanks. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ 16:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

With the greatest respect Allstarecho, you have no authority to do anything here so please stop making threats. Betacommand doesn't have to do anything. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

He has as much authority as you do to claim it wasn't consensus. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It sure looks like community consensus to me and I expect Betacommand to abide by that consensus. Maybe we need to involve a bureaucrat in this if it is your and Betacommands intent to resist this? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Umm, Ryan blocked BCB on March 4 over an unapproved task, so I'm fairly certain their not in league together to resist consensus. And Crats have no special power to interpret consensus outside of RfAs and RfBs... Your looking for WP:DR. MBisanz 05:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

13 people on an obscure noticeboard does not a consensus make. If you want an enforceable consensus, you either need to put notices on various community noticeboards (Village Pump and AN, for example) to draw greater community participation, especially considering the only people who watch AN/B, in most cases, hold biased opinions one way or the other, or propose it on one of those boards. Also, some of those 13 seem to have misunderstood the proposal, based on their comments. Lara❤Love 03:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

So you're of the mind we should have announced it on MediaWiki:Sitenotice then? Come off it. There was a clear consensus reached, and I very much doubt we would have gotten much more in the way of participation had it been spread around even further. And again, where was everyone when this discussion was held? You even commented on other topics on that same noticeboard, but never said a word about it not being the appropriate forum for it. Community ban discussions are held on WP:AN/I, and this is really no different. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

But a lot more people watch AN/I who have no prior history with a given community ban discussion than people who watch AN/B who have no prior history with BC. I'd say keep the current poll and just extend the end date, advertising it in the relevant places. MBisanz 03:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The link provided doesn't go to a specific section. Where is the discussion? Mr.Z-man 03:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It was shifted around from the archive I think to Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Betacommand#Community_proposal MBisanz 03:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct. It has been moved back to AN/B. Everyone saying it being on an "obscure" noticeboard should consider that the thread was at AN/I before someone decided to move the threadt to AN/Betacommand. Notice was given to everyone that the thread was moved. Since that's where the main discussion was moved to, that's where the proposal was held. It was open a week. It was archived with consensus. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ 03:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

And my rough count on the Archive3 page was 68 distinct editors (before my brain broke). It's not exactly an "obscure" notice board. Becoming less obscure by the hour possibly. Also, I don't read anywhere on the bots-nobots templates where it says to use this template to control bots, but bots will ignore it anyway. Franamax (talk) 04:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't have been moved off of AN/I at all. Not every BC thread needs to be moved to his subpage so quickly, particularly a proposal that should get community consensus. And why am I to care about how many people edited the page during the time of Archive 3? Was I in that archive? Probably, but I didn't look at the page for about a week, and I missed the poll. So that doesn't mean much. 13 people voted. Maybe that was consensus in 2003, but it's not now... not for something on this scale. However, to be fair, had I seen the pool, I probably wouldn't have voted, as I would have considered it pointless. You can't demand that one bot follow something that's optional. It's already been pointed out that nobots is not required, so you can't required it of only one bot. That's a proposal to be made for all bots. We've been over this. Lara❤Love 04:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that 13 people on a subpage is a weak consensus. But I do think the community could require things of bots on an individual basis (ideally at BRFA). For instance, we required the first anti-vandalism bot to forgo the Bot flag. MBisanz 04:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

if you guys want opt-ed out of BCBot notices here is a page to do so. But this is a double edged sword, if you choose to opt out you cannot comment about BCBot, failure to follow the terms of the opt out will result in you being removed from the opt-out. β 04:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Correction, opting out doesn't mean we can't comment about BCBot. Let's just clear that right now. Secondly, I don't want an "opt out" from notices from the rogue bot, I want "opt out" from the bot touching my user/user talk page period, to include not removing redlinked cats. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ 04:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Allstarecho, those are the terms of the opt-out, dont like it? then dont opt out. β 04:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop being silly. You can't say "if you opt out, you can comment on my bot". Please. This is Misplaced Pages. Anyone can comment on anything they want to comment on. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ 04:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

And I have the right to follow policy and remove/notify all users per policy. Dont like it? tough, I have stated and continue to state that I never have and never will support nobots. I have a method for users to opt out. That is the method that I will use. dont like it, go fly a kite. β 04:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

BCB edit data

Hi Beta, thanks for the edit history you supplied at ANI/B. Is there any easy way you could do a join between (I believe) the rev_page field and page.page_id to get the page_title and send that along? I'm not too fussed if you don't, I can always hit the API 187,000 times if I really have to have the article names (I do use &maxlag:) I was just wondering if you had a more lightweight way to do it (or a partial list from archives) on the toolserver. Thanks! Franamax (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

question, what do you need that data for? β 22:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

To match up the bot activity with article titles. Obviously the article is encapsulated in the page_id you supplied, visually it could be more informative to see the article name as well. I have no idea whether it will add anything or not, just thinking it would be a pretty fast query to run with direct access to the DB rather than through API. Franamax (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)