User talk:Betacommand - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ryan Postlethwaite (talk | contribs) at 00:20, 29 May 2008 (→Conclusion of the AN thread: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:20, 29 May 2008 by Ryan Postlethwaite (talk | contribs) (→Conclusion of the AN thread: cmt)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

		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

James Amann

Removing criticism from a politician's article leads one to believe there's an agenda here

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 00:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

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

I placed a request for another issue in Bot requests that may be Misplaced Pages-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 Misplaced Pages: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 19:12, 24 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. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(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 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 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 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)

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)

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 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 20:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)