Betacommand;
Although I haven't asked him about it yet, would you consider
User:Lar as a trusted user to whom you'd be willing to release the BC source code? In the vent that he won't do, and rather than having a lot of probing guesses, how about some examples of who would be a trusted user? -
152.91.9.144 (
talk)
01:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the question of who Betacommand trusts or not is a bit of a red herring, really, and people should stop badgering him about it. Nevertheless, I've mailed him asking for a copy of the code, with the view to being able to comment when people say it's easy or hard, as well as perhaps, a backup of sorts, because the various tasks the bot does are very important (I confess I don't even know the exhaustive list of them but I know there are quite a few). Hope that helps. And tangentially, no, I'm not planning on ever standing for ArbCom. NO thank you very much, find another sucker. You guys should have elected Giano when you had the chance. :) If I'm ever damfool enough to change my mind, quote this and laugh at me, please... hopefully that would scotch the candidacy and that would be that. ++ Lar: t/ c 10:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, Item #7 in the list above ("I will not add rationales for you as the uploader it is your responsibility NOT mine") is inconsistent with the spirit of Wikipedia. It is, of course, the responsibility of the uploader to provide enough information to justify the use of a protected image. However, when one Wikipedian doesn't live up to his or her responsibility, it is better for the rest of us to take up the responsibility ourselves and improve the encyclopedia rather than to nag or kick our colleagues around. I think it is reasonable to hope that someone coming across an incomplete Fair Use rationale could at least determine if the rationale is EVIDENT (a book cover on an article about the book, for example) before putting the image up for deletion and throwing it in the face of the uploader. I base this opinion on the spirit of the policy statements at Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, and Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. We're all here for the same purpose, and that's to build an encyclopedia, not to discipline each other. -- Dystopos ( talk) 14:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree these "Nazi" bots should not be allowed to be disruptive of wikipedia operations.
"BetacommandBot will be an ongoing bot, run whenever I can run it, or feel like running it." (C&Ped from the bot userpage)
Seems kinda egotistical of the user who created this bot in my opinion.
I don't like contributing to wiki because of bots like this one as I feel bullied. Flood of SYNs ( talk) 21:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
This bot has challenged a number of photographs for which the copyright holders have given their permission for use in Wikipedia. It appears that the classification of copyright codes have changed over time. In all cases new codes have been used and a justification included.
If permission is granted, surely there is no need for repeated threat of removal.
The most resent photos are
I have deleted the warnings from these images.
DonJay ( talk) 02:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
There's a lot of noise on wikien-l about the bot in the past few days, but there are also some useful suggestions you may wish to take on board for the bot messages to give it better public relations while it goes about its important work - e.g. noting that the actual deletion is not automatic but is human-reviewed, the bot only tags images for admin attention; etc. We should be able to give the bot better public relations without changing its valuable work. And btw, keep up the good work :-) - David Gerard ( talk) 10:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Its so annoying, it trys to delete almost every image! -- Hicktunus ( talk) 16:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The bots are completely fucking annoying. The worst is when some asshole admin comes along and deletes the image, but the frame and caption are left in an article, with a now dead red link to a non-existent image. Real professional. There are likely thousands of editors who no longer bother to contribute to WP in a meaningful or constructive way simply because of the deletionists, and in particular deletionist bots. 139.48.25.61 ( talk) 17:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
[makes furnace noises] S-s-s-s-S-s-s-s... [scares BetacommandBot out of bed] -- Snuffleupagus 18:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I was curious as to why you added the WikiProject Religion template to this article. Has something extraordinary happened that has changed the direction the article should be taking? Thanks. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 05:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Betacommand. On User:Karaku's userpage it says he/she uses vandalproof. If this is correct, I suggest you 'de-approve' him/her. He/she violated several 3RR violations, and has been blocked several times. He/she hardly ever shows good faith, and is rarely civil. If you are to reply, please do so on my talk page. Thanks, - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
There now seems to be consensus of using a bot to follow the layout order of see also -> references -> layout. Maybe you can reply and update how your bot might work or if it's acceptable? Thanks! [1] [2] Mahanga Talk 19:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been thinking about the next phase you mentioned BCB woul be entering. If I remember correctly, it will comment out images from articles in which they have no FUR on the image page. I'm wonering if these couldn't be further split. Say first tagging all images that have a file link whose title is not in the image page. It would be an informational tag, much like our Wikiy or Cleanup tags and be cross-posted to the uploaders talkpage/article talk. After some period of time, say 30 days, BCB would scan the cateogry created by that info tag, and at that point, comment the image out of the article. Basically, it would give the uploader a chance to make sure the image is being used the way they wanted it and give article watchers the chance to fix the FUR/remove the image manually. How does this sound? MBisanz talk 03:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair use is claimed on (5), count 'em, five articles:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't fair use really only appropriate for the article Sea Org? Cirt ( talk) 10:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, if/when you get a chance to comment about this image's use, could you message my talkpage, and/or just tag the image with disputed fair use yourself? Cirt ( talk) 17:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I had uploaded a bunch of Asterix comics cover page images. I had scanned the images with a personal scanner. When I had uploaded the images, I had used whatever template was applicable and I think the images qualified under the fair-use policy. Do you think you can restore the images and I can then add the correct template with fair-use policies? Also, maybe you can consider changing some of the parameters for your bot as I added these images almost 2 years ago and other asterix comic page covers are still intact.. The images were deleted too quickly for me to take action as I am not a regular contributor to the wiki.
Thanks Nikhil Nikhil ( talk) 04:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Betacommand: I guess we'll try the template way — anything that shows the BirdTalk template on its discussion page. The category method just isn't working... Thanks! MeegsC | Talk 13:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: actions by BetacommandBot ( talk · contribs) - thank you! Cirt ( talk) 21:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Betacommand
I see that your bot is now busy removing redlinked category entries from articles, in addition to its other tasks. Just to take one as an example, I see that in this edit it removed Category:Conservative MPs from Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 5th Marquess of Salisbury. The edit summary was "removing Category:Conservative_MPs" - there weas no explanation of why this was done.
This was not helpful: the correct category is at Category:Conservative MPs (UK), and problems such as this are much more likely to be picked up if the categtory is a redlink than if it is simply removed.
I have just checked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot, and at the top of that page there is a very clear list of the tasks for which is aproved, and this is not one of them. I have also checked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, and can find no sign of any recent authorisation there.
I presume that I must have missed something, so please can you explain where and when BetacommandBot was authorised to perform this task this task. Thanks! -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I object to these edits: [3] [4] — Ashley Y 06:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi! How are you? I am a registered user of Vandalproof and have been using the application for the past couple of months. However, I havent been able to use the application for the past two days. Whenever I open the application, I get a message asking me to update to a newer version. However, the version I use is VP137. I dont understand the meaning of this message. Also, being a recent changes patroller, I find it very difficult to warn vandals without Vandalproof. Could you please help me? - Ravichandar 19:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 10 | 3 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
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) 07:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
You take all these comments, and don't get discouraged over them! I don't think I could ever deal with all this...you have quite the tough skin! Following the ways of Compwhizii...
Soxred93 |
talk
bot has given you a cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Betacommand, have you seen the earlier questions from MBisanz at that bot request? "If I could ask the question of which of BCB's 4-phase NFCC approach have been included in this bots approach? Will this bot follow the no-bot tag rules for userspace and usertalkspace?" Just letting you know in case you missed them. And on a personal note, can we please try and get something sorted out amicably? I do want to see a separation of the non-free image task from the other tasks, but if, as MZMcBride said here, the name of the bot was chosen to tally with my proposal, it would make sense that others code the other stuff that is needed. Unless you really want to do all the coding yourself. Carcharoth ( talk) 12:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I have reinstated the block on BetacommandBot ( talk · contribs), because the bot has:
I have posted a longer explanation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#Block_of_BetacommandBot_reinstated. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with you deleting my warning -- or deleting this after you have read it -- as long as you realize that I am an Admin. (Have a look.) And I understand you feel under a lot of stress but you need to temper your language. If you can't be civil -- take a break. Or someone may force you to. To repeat something that gets said dozens of times an hour, Wikipedia will be here tomorrow; there's nothing here that needs to be done now. -- llywrch ( talk) 23:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I had seen that your Bot had re-reverted an edit that it made on the Lenny Dykstra page, putting back in a category that did not exist anymore. I figured I would let you know about this, in case the bot has made other bad edits lately. Whammies Were Here 22:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
For all the crap that you've been facing for the past few weeks. Maxim (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC) |
Would you (all four of you) consider asking for a rename of this bot to User:NFCC Bot (10c)? The reason is that I hope the proposal at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria compliance will gain support, and part of that is a plan to create the following bot accounts to take on the roles of enforcing compliance of those aspects of WP:NFCC that can be checked by bots. User:NFCC Bot (3a), User:NFCC Bot (3b), User:NFCC Bot (7), User:NFCC Bot (9), User:NFCC Bot (10b), User:NFCC Bot (10c). Since the code proposed to run on User:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot is a clone of BetacommandBot's task of enforcing the bot-enforceable part of NFCC#10c, I think the rename I am proposing will help make things clearer. Could you post replies at User talk:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot? Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you please provide an explanation for this edit? At first glance it definitely looks like an instance of wikistalking, especially given your lack of previous edits on the article. Orderinchaos 02:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 43#Bot to rate WikiProject quality assessment on talk page as same as other project tags and previous discussion at Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_13#Assessment_bot - can you help me out with assessing the unassessed stuff for {{ WikiProject Theatre}} ? Cirt ( talk) 23:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Just curious why it logged a complaint then reverted itself: Image:ICAHD_logo_small.gif. It seems to have had a valid complaint -- there was no fair use rational listed there. -- MattWright ( talk) 08:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Please read and, is possible, discuss :). Thanks, Mart inp23 18:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Do you have any statistics on how many images tagged by BCBot (and friends) have been deleted, and how many have since been brought into compliance? Thanks, Bovlb ( talk) 19:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I've listed an arbitration case under this tentative name to resolve the longstanding conflict basically surrounding this issue. This is a message to inform you that you're listed a party there. Maxim (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Image:Heart 70s.jpg is an image which is available as a "self-made" over on Commons. The uploader, Sidneyjunior89, has had a number of his pictures called into question mainly for more detail on sourcing. His response was to blank his talk page and walk. Most of his pics are low quality building and landscape shots with a few flags and logos thrown in. That he took a picture of Ann and Nancy Wilson back in the mid 1970s is a bit of an oddball/far-fetched addition. I am finding this picture on a couple of online blogs and... comparing to the subject matter of the user's other uploads I am calling a foul on this image. I am not 100% on it... but my AGF for it is nil and it just doesn't seem right. 156.34.231.56 ( talk) 01:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
While cleaning up
Talk:W-inds., I noticed a syntax error at
#Infobox conversion, which I presume was intended to post an "Unspecified source for Image:1st Messgae.jpg," rather than clog up my User and Date stamps when posted
23:47, 24 May 2007. Ignore if this bug is already fixed at your end, similar to
08:55, 8 March 2008.
B. C. Schmerker (
talk)
09:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
So why is BCB going back and reverting hundreds of its image warnings? -Icewedge ( talk) 04:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
"I notice the image page specifies that..." is highly inappropriate. There is no "I" there. This bot is not a self-aware entity. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
It targeted an image that already had Fair Use Rationale: Image:Negasonic.jpg.-- Gonzalo84 ( talk) 15:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't see that you'd rep[lied to my comment (could I ask you to drop a note on my Talk: page when you do, please, just so I don't miss it — I'm jobhunting at the moment, so not really following my watchlist at the moment, sorry :o)
Wrt Image:1 New Israeli Sheqel (1994-1995).jpg, the image is non-free, and should be labelled as such. It just happens to be a non-free image that doesn't need a fair use rationale.
Could you please take a look at excluding {{ OTRS}}-tagged images from the bot? Repeated tagging of images that should not be tagged is a bug in your bot and could be construed as vandalism. Whilst I don't agree with the way in which you implement the copyright policy, I'm certainly willing to concede that it is "within the rules", as it were, and I'd just like to help optimise that. — OwenBlacker ( Talk) 18:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
BCB is stupid and pointless and ruins wikipedia. --{{ 123Pie| Talk}} 20:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi BC. Know you're busy, but think this won't take much of your time. Please will you visit the brief discussion at User_talk:Ale_jrb#VandalProof and approve/reject this request from a former problem editor who I will vouch for as a reformed member of the community. Many thanks. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Since the posting on the user talk pages is in some sense a courtesy rather than a reprimand, it might be good to change the edit summary from "notifying user of invalid Fair Use claim on $1" to "notifying user of incomplete Fair Use claim on $1". Usually all that is needed is to mention the page the image is used on, and the slight change in wording is more encouraging to the uploader. The message you leave on the talk page is clear enough that an incomplete fair use claim is not sufficient to stop speedy deletion, so there should be no trouble in softening the blow in the edit summary.
By the way, (as a BAG kind of guy) do you know if there is some sort of sample wikipedia where you can test a bot or test mediawiki code changes, where the wiki is at least roughly the same as en.wikipedia.org? For some bot requests it seems natural to just do a few edits on the real wikipedia, and assume you've thought of everything some crazy editor might have done, but for others it might be better to do a thousand edits and then check. Basically if the task is very narrow, or runs on fairly similar articles, then a few edits suffice, but if the thing is supposed to run on "new pages", then really, how can you predict what sort of line noise will be in such an article? Similarly, I test mediawiki patches on my wikis, but you can't really test things that require the huge infrastructure that is on en.wikipedia (all the templates for one, but also just the sheer number of articles). Perhaps one can just have the bot write the edits it would have made to a local file, maybe as a diff? JackSchmidt ( talk) 05:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
About the account Betacommand2 ( talk · contribs), do you use this account for Wikipedia:SOCK#Segregation and security reasons? If so, would you mind updating the user page to explicitly say this, as otherwise people might think you were contravening WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY? At the moment it just says "this is my Test & VandalProof account", but you have been using the account to take part in discussions. This has been discussed at the request for arbitration under Locke Cole's statement. Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Image:1 New Israeli Sheqel (1994-1995).jpg keeps getting marked, even though it has all the proper templates and information. If this bot tags this image again, I will block it for disruption and ignoring previous requests. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I converted the png image to svg here the old image has been deleted. βcommand 04:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 43#Bot to rate WikiProject quality assessment on talk page as same as other project tags and previous discussion at Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_13#Assessment_bot - can you help me out with assessing the unassessed stuff for {{ WikiProject Theatre}} ? Cirt ( talk) 23:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you running a bot on this account? Your recent edit speed seems unusually fast - eg, 50+ edits in a two minute period. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303 15:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Can your bot do anything useful with this list? — Random832 18:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I was wondering if you could remove or alter the following sentence in your instructions: 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. You have over 20 archive pages. Each of these pages has over 150 headers. The entire archives would take months to read through. I don't think it's reasonable to demand that from newcomers. I'd understand if you compiled an FAQ and required users to read that, but I don't think asking (usually new) users to read what would be several volumes if it were printed is reasonable. Thanks. Puchiko ( Talk- email) 21:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Please be more careful about how you operate your bot - Image:MystCover.png has a perfectly valid rationale, which was slightly damaged by a vandal, but the only real damage done was that the '}}' was removed from the end of the template. I have now fixed this. Please remember that it is entirely possible to write a perfectly valid rationale without using that template, though this incident seems to suggest that BetacommandBot is merely searching for the inclusion of that template. Talk Islander 15:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Stop posting complaints to User_talk:Paranoid. This is abusive. Paranoid ( talk) 17:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
You appear to be running automated scripts from your admin account. Exactly one edit per minute for the last 12 hours, and bursts of 30/min yesterday. Do you think that perhaps this might not be a good time to be skirting the limits of the bot rules?
AKAF (
talk)
13:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Betacommand, I know someone else asked you about a layout-related bot a while ago. The idea was to conform article appendices (if present) to the order recommended in WP:LAY. Three editors there are convinced that people will be offended if this is done by a bot, and I don't think the discussion's going anywhere. So here's my interim proposal: Can you create a script that does this, but which only applies it to (twelve thousand or so) articles tagged by the WPMED project? I think WPMED would support a standardization effort, and it would make a good "test case" if it was wanted wiki-wide in the future. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you change the concern that BCB adds from "invalid rationale per WP:NFCC#10c The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline." to "invalid rationale per WP:NFCC#10c because the following items are missing: The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline." (addition in italics). This is so that it would make grammatical sense. Stifle ( talk) ( trivial vote) 11:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
abort mission and try to get it right? Opiumjones 23 ( talk) 01:29, 9 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)
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 ( Talk) 00:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Hi, sorry to hassle you. I was just wondering if there was anything more I needed to do on the Flagbot BAG trial now that it's done its 50 edits? If it's just waiting for you or someone else to look at the edits then no probem, I'd just hate for things to be in limbo because I'd not done something, and it would be nice to get it run before Easter. FlagSteward ( talk) 11:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Betacommand. It appears that the unapproved bot running on your account is not functioning correctly.
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)
Per the Community proposal consensus (see Wikipedia: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✰ echo 16:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I have added the excessively-broad terms of the opt-out notice to my RfARB submission: see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Another_problem_with_BCbot. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 05:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's the thing that scares me about this. I'm not saying that BCB may have some civil problems, and there's probably a few times he should not have used his bot the way he did, and there may be confusion on what tasks BCB is authorized to do - there's areas where these are to be taken up and discussed individually. What is chilling is that those pushing BCB to meeting the requirements of the consensus (whether or not it's there) is very much in violation of the nature and spirit of voluntarism on WP. There's only one group of people that has the community-granted authority to demand a certain behavior from one specific editor, and that's the Arbcom, and even then, their authority sets up things an editor should not do, and then authority granted to admins to implements specific remedies should those those be violated. Even 99.9% of the editing population agreed to the above consensus that BCB incorporate nobots, without any blessing from Arbcom, it is impossible to require BCB to do so.
If people want change, they should be trying to get community consensus on the bots policy to have any bot that may alter a user's page to have nobots functionality ; this does not single out BCB, and also would likely need to have bot editor support, but it's not a specific action that is meant to be sanctioned at one user. Alternatively, if you feel BCB's behavior is unwarrented, you can go to ArbCom or even ANI; if you feel he's doing an inappropriate task, then to BAG. But to bypass these (or route around them, as I see that there's not yet a likelihood of ArbCom taking up the BCB current case) and claim community consensus to require an action from one specific person is a very chilling precedent, should people expect it to be enforced. This is not to say that that community consensus cannot be used at BAG or Arbcom or elsewhere to suggest appropriate changes in policy based on the fact that a large number of people want this feature; just that without these previously-approved community routes to dispute resolution and the like, there's too much potential for this type of demand to be abused. -- MASEM 15:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. There is strong community support for Betacommand's essential work. A few dissenters (what was it? 12? 13?) are proposing to stop him doing this. They cannot do that without substantial support. Let them raise that support. Then they will be taken seriously. -- Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
SELECT page_title FROM page WHERE page_id = '43091';
SQL Query me! 06:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
User:BetacommandBot/Opt-out, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BetacommandBot/Opt-out and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:BetacommandBot/Opt-out during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.— Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
User:BetacommandBot/Opt-out. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution. —
Arthur Rubin
(talk)
17:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Look, you do good work. I support you. You get a lock of flack from critics, I'll back you. But this
[10] is either trolling or baiting. Please knock it off, before I have to get the trout out. ;) --
Docg
23:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I've requested page protection at User:BetacommandBot/Opt-out. Please stop edit warring there. I'm warning both you and Bellwether. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you please, please, please stop calling the edits of others vandalism (as you did here and here, for example) when their edits are not vandalism by any definition that I am aware of? You are free to revert and disagree, of course, but calling established editors vandals isn't going to help anyone. -- Conti| ✉ 00:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Despite my prediction coming true, how about this proposal? The page and talk page are deleted, but then restored and moved to a different location to preserve the diffs and history of what happened there? Carcharoth ( talk) 02:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel ( talk) 15:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't like this bot, which threatened to delete Image:Nancy-Université.gif (the concern has been addressed, by the way). Deleters are already zealous ; if they are seconded by bots nowadays, Wikipedia will become hell. Being threatened of deletion by bots is frightening ! Deletion should only be able to be suggested by human beings, in my opinion. And not without any prior discussion on the discussion page :-o ! Speedy deletion is shocking when the image has been sitting there for almost 2 years. Without permanent watch from the uploader, a useful pic will be speedily deleted, which is a nuisance ; prior discussion would let someone else fill in the missing rationale. Seven complaints in 2 days on this discussion page is the sign that something is wrong ! Baronnet ( talk) 23:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Why has your bot tagged the infobox image for the above film for deletion when it already has a detailed rationale?? This aint on! Sue Wallace ( talk) 01:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I imagine this has been asked before, so this probably will qualify as asking again. Would it be possible to condense the amount of text the bot sticks into a talk page for each image? It currently looks to be on the order of 500 bytes of almost pure boiler plate, with only the name of the image changed.
Couldn't this be done as a template, and just stick the name of the image in as a parameter? It could even be done as in infobox-looking thing that went into the talk pages. Maybe something like {{betacommand-warning|imagename.jpg}} or the like would be sufficient.
I honestly can't see the benefit to the encyclopedia of having 30% of the entire database content consist of nothing but reams and reams of duplicated image warnings, when a 50-character transclusion should be more than sufficient in any case I can imagine. Yes, we aren't at 30% yet. But the bot is working hard at meeting that goal it seems.
I'm sure you will tell me to simply fix the images when I see them on my talk page. Sorry, I don't do images, and I see these warnings by the hundreds on the pages that I deal with around the encyclopedia. They are completely uninteresting to me; I would be perfectly happy if ALL images were deleted and prohibited, so that these warnings could then be stripped out of the text. Since that probably isn't going to happen, I'm just requesting that the size be reduced, and maybe they simply result in a category tag of ArticlesWithInvalidImages or the like. They are far more likely to be fixed if they show up in a category than simply salting tons of text all over the project. Loren.wilton ( talk) 23:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you change the concern that BCB adds from "invalid rationale per WP:NFCC#10c The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline." to "invalid rationale per WP:NFCC#10c because the following items are missing: The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline." (addition in italics). This is so that it would make grammatical sense. Stifle ( talk) ( trivial vote) 14:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Why should a robot be rewarded for doing what it was programmed to do? IMO, the "well-oiled machine" and Legion of Bot awards can stay, but, I believe the other three, mostly the Tireless Contributor barnstars should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.151.142 ( talk) 02:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Bad Bot.
Kept posting unsourced rumors of homosexuality.
Bad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.31.59 ( talk) 00:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if you have seen this yet: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#BetacommandBot bug - misparsing backlinks. Would you be able to shed any light on this? Carcharoth ( talk) 02:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I have added my name to User:AmiDaniel/VP/Approval. Dusti talk to me 19:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
What exactly does "rm per CfD" mean in this context? This template points to a category that exists, and is legitimate. Thought that category is flagged for deletion, I have disputed the deletion, which I believe results from a misunderstanding, and have, in any case, made changes to both the template and the category to remove any confusion about the legitimacy of the category. — Aldaron • T/ C 23:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Weird. How does this work? Some Featured Articles such as Common Raven and Superb Fairy-wren are not showing up with their little star on this list...Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 07:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 11 | 13 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 12 | 17 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
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) 22:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Purely out of curiosity, what does the preferences screen say BCB's edit count is? I've heard it's pushing towards a million, but I can't get any accurate data (it times-out Kate's tool, for instance). Happy‑ melon 20:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, I made one BetaCommandBot reversion, and 5 seconds later you warned me not to be a vandal. It's not even human to catch something like that so fast. And since you're a robot, then I can't possibly offend you by saying that I don't like your attitude. KnatLouie ( talk) 22:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I didn't know there were such tools available for tools to use. But to just let you know, I will have not uploading done on the site anymore. It's is an ended chapter. Sorry to have distrubed you. KnatLouie ( talk) 22:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith again Betacommand, your bot's destructiveness and your hostile behavior are wholly innapropriate. Superslash ( talk) 12:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a link to a posting by the game's owner on an official forum, and so is a legitimate self published source. Please omit it from your future automated edits. - Ehheh ( talk) 22:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I fully accept categories may be deleted - if you want one off my userpage, tell me which and I'll do the honours. Do not move mine around for me. MRM ( talk) 18:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Also mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Evidence: you've mentioned incidences of inappropriate use of the {{ nobots}} template as your rationale for not using that template for your bot. I found at least one instance of this here; can you point to any other such uses? -- bainer ( talk) 11:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if your bot, per. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 8 could go through Category:Unassessed education articles and assess the articles for quality? Cheers. Twenty Years 09:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I was reading the comments at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2/Workshop#Is_any_one_person_so_valuable_they_can.27t_be_blocked_or_sanctioned.3F and must say I agree with the idea that existing code shouldn't be forced public, which is why I've tried to advocate solutions where you (and other bot ops) decide who gets to see their code. I think a better argument instead of editing speed (which is more a function of bandwidth and processing power), would be that Bot code is owned by Bot ops, and that at the end of the day, we can't force them to give it up. We can set up forward looking rules, but not retrospective things. And I'm surprised at the Nobots tag abuse, that would also be an argument to avoid public release of code (as opposed to BAG private vetting).
Sadly the Archtransit case does show that Admin can't be trusted (and by virtue OTRS). And of course there is the issue of why show 1500 people your code, when only a couple dozen could actually understand it. If some of the BAG reforms go through (making BAG a mini-Arbcom, etc), it might be interesting to see if the BAG could operate a protected section of OTRS where users could archive their code. MBisanz talk 19:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, your bot often puts messages with the header "Disputed fair use rationale for Image:(image)" on talk pages. I'm trying to find the templates for tagging the image in question and for notifying the user, but I'm having problems finding them. If you could point me in the right direction, it would be a help. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 22:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Would you have time to look at this? It might be totally wrong. If you could help with updating and gathering stats, that would be great. In particular, User:BetacommandBot/Non-Free Template Useage hasn't been updated since 12 March. Do you think you could start updating that again, even if only at more irregular intervals? Carcharoth ( talk) 11:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Wondered if you could advise me if I'm barking up the wrong tree by asking for bot assistance with this. It looks a good candidate to my untrained eye, as it seems a widespread and serious problem in mainspace +, with what looks to me to be a simple solution (removal of a redundant "px") which wouldn't occur to most Wikipedians who spot the error. If tackled by a bot, I'd suggest some explanatory wording, particularly as it'll probably fix a lot of userspace problems. Maybe something short/simple along the lines of "Bot fixing image size problem. More information available here"? Anyway, I'd be grateful for your input. -- Dweller ( talk) 15:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 13 | 24 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
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) 06:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I've decided to ask you first. You know what I asked. For anything I need to do please tell me. I hope the bot can help. Chubb enna itor 14:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
First, you should probably point out on both your userpage and your bot page that neither you nor the bot are deleting images as a joyride, that you are simply acting upon the will of policy and the WP:NFCC, and therefore you cannot be held liable for it. I think the silly issues that have popped up on the administrators' noticeboard may be a result of that misunderstanding. Plus people don't bother to read legalese these days anyway. Frankly I'm sick of looking at your talk pages and seeing people complain about how you're Devilspawn.
Second, could you send me links to some of your most hilarious experiences of people personally attacking you because of your bot? I imagine that after over a year you must have received some pretty ridiculous comments. :)
Keep up the good work.-- WaltCip ( talk) 02:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Your bot did some weird stuff at Category:Wikipedians in Apple Valley, Minnesota. It seems to have moved the content of Category:Wikipedians with approved alternate accounts instead of the content from Category:Wikipedians in Apple Valley, MN. I've gone ahead and fixed it up. --- RockMFR 17:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I got a message at an album site that I prepared on I Am What I Am (Milan album) that this active little bot got to, but the reference was to the image for the George Jones album, I Am What I Am. Guess it gots its wires crossed. :-) Shocking Blue ( talk) 15:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Is this the "school" of Wikipedia you subscribe to? Or do you genuinely fear retribution from companies for having "fair use" images of copyrighted works in articles? Or do you just like deleting stuff with your neat little bot? Please don't take offense... I've never had any of my uploads deleted by anyone, and I'm not upset with you; nor am I complaining about any specific instances. But I have noticed your pattern of deletions... Some are legitimate deletions, while others are what I'd call "what the heck, why not?" deletions. What exactly is your rationale for deleting images? Is it just if the uploader didn't describe his reasons fully or properly? An encyclopedia devoid of images is hardly an encyclopedia, and it's certainly not engaging for general audiences.
I myself edit articles that are clear-cut and factual; no opinion or speculation. No reason to delete images, because I create most of them myself. (Take a gander, perhaps there's something in my galleries that you'll want to delete.) When I upload something, I do it properly - I provide free licensing, or public domain reasons.
Don't you think that you could at least give the uploader the benefit of the doubt, and try to help them provide a rationale for uploading the image, instead of tagging everything for deletion? Would you agree that mass deletions are extremely counterproductive, especially for an encyclopedia?
Cheers, Fuzzform ( talk) 02:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
See for example User talk:Duncharris, where a contributor has moved along. Dunc's last contribution was in 2006, yet we seem to be expecting him to read the notice and act on it to save the images. There's got to be a better way: If the bot were to check Special:Contributions/Duncharris for recent contributions and find none, could it not somehow tag the image as an orphan needing adoption? LeadSongDog ( talk) 04:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Beta! We ran through the list you had BCBot make and discussed it at WP:MUSEUMS. You're right, it was amazing what stuff was categorized as museums. The edited list is at User:Travellingcari/Museums_Cats since I didn't want to overwrite the original. Whenever you/Bot have time, it's ready for the cats to be tagged with {{WikiProject Museums}}. Of course there's no rush. I also saw on an article that BCBot does/did handle the stub tagging of some projects based on previous proojects having classed the article as 'Stub'. If the Bot still does that can I get in the queue for that sometime in the future as I obviously don't want to tie up the bot now since I'm sure you have other projects. Thanks so much for your help with this process, ping me if you have any questions TRAVELLINGCARI My story Tell me yours 03:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I oopsed and deleted my sandbox where I had the list, luckily I moved it first. It's now at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Museums/Categories. Same list, same formatting. Thanks again! TRAVELLINGCARI My story Tell me yours 18:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
Thank you so much for all your help with the tagging for the Museums project. Your bot handled far more than we mere mortals can do to get all the appropriate articles tagged. TRAVELLINGCARI My story Tell me yours 19:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC) |
Whoa! Why have Mario Lanza, Bobby Darin, Chuck Berry, and Winona Ryder been tagged with WikiProject Museums? Ward3001 ( talk) 18:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Please see my comment here. When we ran the category list, we didn't catch that the walk of fame was on there. I'm coming to help de-tag these as they're not with in the scope. Sorry for that! TRAVELLINGCARI My story Tell me yours 19:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
We're working on a master list to fix this, again my apologies. I'll update here when it's done but please feel free to add to it. Sorry, Beta! TRAVELLINGCARI My story Tell me yours 20:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I reverted your changes to the "en dashes" in the article Hugh IV of Cyprus. The dashes used were correct - see En dashes. In the article the dashes were used to "To convey the sense of to or through, particularly in ranges (pp. 211–19, 64–75%, the 1939–45 war, May–November). Stellar ( talk) 09:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
What is the name of your Bot. It is now put as a piece of news in the newsletter but I don't know the link. Chubb enna itor 14:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry. Chubb enna itor 14:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I will love you forever if you change your bot message(s) to read what the fifth quote suggests. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Betacommand,
A number of edits to some userboxes I created (okay, adapted) just popped up on my watchlist. It seems that your bot just enacted the changes noted in this version of the working list for Categories for Discussion. That's fine; I have no issue with the change.
However, there were some errors in the way it was handled, demonstrated by This edit to {{ User wikiitsmall}}. By deleting the content between the <includeonly></includeonly> tags and leaving the categorization between <noinclude></noinclude>, the changes resulted in the template being classified under the new category without also classifying the users who have transcluded the template.
A quick look at {{ User wikiit}}, the parent template of the userbox, revealed the same problem. So if possible, would you mind going back and fixing it so that the proper category is included through transclusion? Otherwise, we're going to have a lot of empty categories....
Thanks! -- jonny- m t 07:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
<includeonly></includeonly>
and <noinclude></noinclude>
tags ensured that each of the templates were only categorized once, with their names sorted under "*" to separate them from the users they were categorizing, who in turn were sorted under {{PAGENAME}}. This is a common feature across all such templates and was present even before I created the smaller userboxes.[[Category:Category to be changed
--> [[Category:Category to change to
in the future. In this case, I'd greatly appreciate it if you would restore the lost functionality by putting [[Category:New category|*]]
back between the <noinclude></noinclude>
tags. If you can't or you're too busy, then please let me know and I'll see what I can do with AWB. Thanks! --
jonny-
m
t
05:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Hi Beta, I noticed your interesting subpage listing active admins [13]. Could you point me to the task description for this bot? Thanks AKAF ( talk) 15:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Betacommand! Could you please review [14] these applications? -- Kanonkas : Take Contact 13:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 15 | 7 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
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) 15:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Could you get your bot to update this report please? Thanks.-- Otterathome ( talk) 16:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. The bot made some changes at Template:User wikisk and something got broken. The user pages with this template turned completely messed. Could you repait it, please?
So the picture to illustrate Between the Lines, an LGBT paper, is being targeted becaused supposedly its fair use rationale is not good enough. I don't see this robot targeting articles about mainstream newspapers which also use a picture of a typical front page in them. I think this robot is prejudiced against gays. Donnabella ( talk) 22:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Every image i have ever uploaded has been deleted by this robot because of errors in the fair use rationale. Don't take it personally - this robot is EVIL INCARNATE!!! But is useful for maintaining copyright in cases that need it. Have a read through the policy and try again. All the best Meow meow - purr purr ( talk) 22:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
This bot is currently tagging articles with a {{WikiProject Museums}} template. However, I'm not sure that Mario Lanza, Bobby Darin, and Chuck Berry fall into this category. I think something's going wrong somewhere. Paul20070 ( talk) 18:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Museums#Wikipedia:WikiProject Museums/Categories. Thanks :) -- Quiddity ( talk) 20:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for delivering the Newsletter for Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity . We will approach you every time we need to circulate the new issue. Do you have a special page for your own bot requests ? - Tinucherian ( talk) 05:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems not all the members got it, see User_talk:Yllosubmarine. You want to look into the matter? It would be nice if You could sort out the problem, so WP:NOVELS doesn't have to change to another bot next month to deliver a newsletter. Hoping for the best, feydey ( talk) 19:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Betacommand;
Although I haven't asked him about it yet, would you consider
User:Lar as a trusted user to whom you'd be willing to release the BC source code? In the vent that he won't do, and rather than having a lot of probing guesses, how about some examples of who would be a trusted user? -
152.91.9.144 (
talk)
01:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the question of who Betacommand trusts or not is a bit of a red herring, really, and people should stop badgering him about it. Nevertheless, I've mailed him asking for a copy of the code, with the view to being able to comment when people say it's easy or hard, as well as perhaps, a backup of sorts, because the various tasks the bot does are very important (I confess I don't even know the exhaustive list of them but I know there are quite a few). Hope that helps. And tangentially, no, I'm not planning on ever standing for ArbCom. NO thank you very much, find another sucker. You guys should have elected Giano when you had the chance. :) If I'm ever damfool enough to change my mind, quote this and laugh at me, please... hopefully that would scotch the candidacy and that would be that. ++ Lar: t/ c 10:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, Item #7 in the list above ("I will not add rationales for you as the uploader it is your responsibility NOT mine") is inconsistent with the spirit of Wikipedia. It is, of course, the responsibility of the uploader to provide enough information to justify the use of a protected image. However, when one Wikipedian doesn't live up to his or her responsibility, it is better for the rest of us to take up the responsibility ourselves and improve the encyclopedia rather than to nag or kick our colleagues around. I think it is reasonable to hope that someone coming across an incomplete Fair Use rationale could at least determine if the rationale is EVIDENT (a book cover on an article about the book, for example) before putting the image up for deletion and throwing it in the face of the uploader. I base this opinion on the spirit of the policy statements at Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, and Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. We're all here for the same purpose, and that's to build an encyclopedia, not to discipline each other. -- Dystopos ( talk) 14:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree these "Nazi" bots should not be allowed to be disruptive of wikipedia operations.
"BetacommandBot will be an ongoing bot, run whenever I can run it, or feel like running it." (C&Ped from the bot userpage)
Seems kinda egotistical of the user who created this bot in my opinion.
I don't like contributing to wiki because of bots like this one as I feel bullied. Flood of SYNs ( talk) 21:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
This bot has challenged a number of photographs for which the copyright holders have given their permission for use in Wikipedia. It appears that the classification of copyright codes have changed over time. In all cases new codes have been used and a justification included.
If permission is granted, surely there is no need for repeated threat of removal.
The most resent photos are
I have deleted the warnings from these images.
DonJay ( talk) 02:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
There's a lot of noise on wikien-l about the bot in the past few days, but there are also some useful suggestions you may wish to take on board for the bot messages to give it better public relations while it goes about its important work - e.g. noting that the actual deletion is not automatic but is human-reviewed, the bot only tags images for admin attention; etc. We should be able to give the bot better public relations without changing its valuable work. And btw, keep up the good work :-) - David Gerard ( talk) 10:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Its so annoying, it trys to delete almost every image! -- Hicktunus ( talk) 16:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The bots are completely fucking annoying. The worst is when some asshole admin comes along and deletes the image, but the frame and caption are left in an article, with a now dead red link to a non-existent image. Real professional. There are likely thousands of editors who no longer bother to contribute to WP in a meaningful or constructive way simply because of the deletionists, and in particular deletionist bots. 139.48.25.61 ( talk) 17:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
[makes furnace noises] S-s-s-s-S-s-s-s... [scares BetacommandBot out of bed] -- Snuffleupagus 18:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I was curious as to why you added the WikiProject Religion template to this article. Has something extraordinary happened that has changed the direction the article should be taking? Thanks. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 05:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Betacommand. On User:Karaku's userpage it says he/she uses vandalproof. If this is correct, I suggest you 'de-approve' him/her. He/she violated several 3RR violations, and has been blocked several times. He/she hardly ever shows good faith, and is rarely civil. If you are to reply, please do so on my talk page. Thanks, - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
There now seems to be consensus of using a bot to follow the layout order of see also -> references -> layout. Maybe you can reply and update how your bot might work or if it's acceptable? Thanks! [1] [2] Mahanga Talk 19:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been thinking about the next phase you mentioned BCB woul be entering. If I remember correctly, it will comment out images from articles in which they have no FUR on the image page. I'm wonering if these couldn't be further split. Say first tagging all images that have a file link whose title is not in the image page. It would be an informational tag, much like our Wikiy or Cleanup tags and be cross-posted to the uploaders talkpage/article talk. After some period of time, say 30 days, BCB would scan the cateogry created by that info tag, and at that point, comment the image out of the article. Basically, it would give the uploader a chance to make sure the image is being used the way they wanted it and give article watchers the chance to fix the FUR/remove the image manually. How does this sound? MBisanz talk 03:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair use is claimed on (5), count 'em, five articles:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't fair use really only appropriate for the article Sea Org? Cirt ( talk) 10:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, if/when you get a chance to comment about this image's use, could you message my talkpage, and/or just tag the image with disputed fair use yourself? Cirt ( talk) 17:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I had uploaded a bunch of Asterix comics cover page images. I had scanned the images with a personal scanner. When I had uploaded the images, I had used whatever template was applicable and I think the images qualified under the fair-use policy. Do you think you can restore the images and I can then add the correct template with fair-use policies? Also, maybe you can consider changing some of the parameters for your bot as I added these images almost 2 years ago and other asterix comic page covers are still intact.. The images were deleted too quickly for me to take action as I am not a regular contributor to the wiki.
Thanks Nikhil Nikhil ( talk) 04:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Betacommand: I guess we'll try the template way — anything that shows the BirdTalk template on its discussion page. The category method just isn't working... Thanks! MeegsC | Talk 13:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: actions by BetacommandBot ( talk · contribs) - thank you! Cirt ( talk) 21:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Betacommand
I see that your bot is now busy removing redlinked category entries from articles, in addition to its other tasks. Just to take one as an example, I see that in this edit it removed Category:Conservative MPs from Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 5th Marquess of Salisbury. The edit summary was "removing Category:Conservative_MPs" - there weas no explanation of why this was done.
This was not helpful: the correct category is at Category:Conservative MPs (UK), and problems such as this are much more likely to be picked up if the categtory is a redlink than if it is simply removed.
I have just checked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot, and at the top of that page there is a very clear list of the tasks for which is aproved, and this is not one of them. I have also checked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, and can find no sign of any recent authorisation there.
I presume that I must have missed something, so please can you explain where and when BetacommandBot was authorised to perform this task this task. Thanks! -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I object to these edits: [3] [4] — Ashley Y 06:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi! How are you? I am a registered user of Vandalproof and have been using the application for the past couple of months. However, I havent been able to use the application for the past two days. Whenever I open the application, I get a message asking me to update to a newer version. However, the version I use is VP137. I dont understand the meaning of this message. Also, being a recent changes patroller, I find it very difficult to warn vandals without Vandalproof. Could you please help me? - Ravichandar 19:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 10 | 3 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
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) 07:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
You take all these comments, and don't get discouraged over them! I don't think I could ever deal with all this...you have quite the tough skin! Following the ways of Compwhizii...
Soxred93 |
talk
bot has given you a cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Betacommand, have you seen the earlier questions from MBisanz at that bot request? "If I could ask the question of which of BCB's 4-phase NFCC approach have been included in this bots approach? Will this bot follow the no-bot tag rules for userspace and usertalkspace?" Just letting you know in case you missed them. And on a personal note, can we please try and get something sorted out amicably? I do want to see a separation of the non-free image task from the other tasks, but if, as MZMcBride said here, the name of the bot was chosen to tally with my proposal, it would make sense that others code the other stuff that is needed. Unless you really want to do all the coding yourself. Carcharoth ( talk) 12:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I have reinstated the block on BetacommandBot ( talk · contribs), because the bot has:
I have posted a longer explanation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#Block_of_BetacommandBot_reinstated. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with you deleting my warning -- or deleting this after you have read it -- as long as you realize that I am an Admin. (Have a look.) And I understand you feel under a lot of stress but you need to temper your language. If you can't be civil -- take a break. Or someone may force you to. To repeat something that gets said dozens of times an hour, Wikipedia will be here tomorrow; there's nothing here that needs to be done now. -- llywrch ( talk) 23:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I had seen that your Bot had re-reverted an edit that it made on the Lenny Dykstra page, putting back in a category that did not exist anymore. I figured I would let you know about this, in case the bot has made other bad edits lately. Whammies Were Here 22:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
For all the crap that you've been facing for the past few weeks. Maxim (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC) |
Would you (all four of you) consider asking for a rename of this bot to User:NFCC Bot (10c)? The reason is that I hope the proposal at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria compliance will gain support, and part of that is a plan to create the following bot accounts to take on the roles of enforcing compliance of those aspects of WP:NFCC that can be checked by bots. User:NFCC Bot (3a), User:NFCC Bot (3b), User:NFCC Bot (7), User:NFCC Bot (9), User:NFCC Bot (10b), User:NFCC Bot (10c). Since the code proposed to run on User:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot is a clone of BetacommandBot's task of enforcing the bot-enforceable part of NFCC#10c, I think the rename I am proposing will help make things clearer. Could you post replies at User talk:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot? Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you please provide an explanation for this edit? At first glance it definitely looks like an instance of wikistalking, especially given your lack of previous edits on the article. Orderinchaos 02:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 43#Bot to rate WikiProject quality assessment on talk page as same as other project tags and previous discussion at Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_13#Assessment_bot - can you help me out with assessing the unassessed stuff for {{ WikiProject Theatre}} ? Cirt ( talk) 23:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Just curious why it logged a complaint then reverted itself: Image:ICAHD_logo_small.gif. It seems to have had a valid complaint -- there was no fair use rational listed there. -- MattWright ( talk) 08:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Please read and, is possible, discuss :). Thanks, Mart inp23 18:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Do you have any statistics on how many images tagged by BCBot (and friends) have been deleted, and how many have since been brought into compliance? Thanks, Bovlb ( talk) 19:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I've listed an arbitration case under this tentative name to resolve the longstanding conflict basically surrounding this issue. This is a message to inform you that you're listed a party there. Maxim (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Image:Heart 70s.jpg is an image which is available as a "self-made" over on Commons. The uploader, Sidneyjunior89, has had a number of his pictures called into question mainly for more detail on sourcing. His response was to blank his talk page and walk. Most of his pics are low quality building and landscape shots with a few flags and logos thrown in. That he took a picture of Ann and Nancy Wilson back in the mid 1970s is a bit of an oddball/far-fetched addition. I am finding this picture on a couple of online blogs and... comparing to the subject matter of the user's other uploads I am calling a foul on this image. I am not 100% on it... but my AGF for it is nil and it just doesn't seem right. 156.34.231.56 ( talk) 01:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
While cleaning up
Talk:W-inds., I noticed a syntax error at
#Infobox conversion, which I presume was intended to post an "Unspecified source for Image:1st Messgae.jpg," rather than clog up my User and Date stamps when posted
23:47, 24 May 2007. Ignore if this bug is already fixed at your end, similar to
08:55, 8 March 2008.
B. C. Schmerker (
talk)
09:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
So why is BCB going back and reverting hundreds of its image warnings? -Icewedge ( talk) 04:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
"I notice the image page specifies that..." is highly inappropriate. There is no "I" there. This bot is not a self-aware entity. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
It targeted an image that already had Fair Use Rationale: Image:Negasonic.jpg.-- Gonzalo84 ( talk) 15:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't see that you'd rep[lied to my comment (could I ask you to drop a note on my Talk: page when you do, please, just so I don't miss it — I'm jobhunting at the moment, so not really following my watchlist at the moment, sorry :o)
Wrt Image:1 New Israeli Sheqel (1994-1995).jpg, the image is non-free, and should be labelled as such. It just happens to be a non-free image that doesn't need a fair use rationale.
Could you please take a look at excluding {{ OTRS}}-tagged images from the bot? Repeated tagging of images that should not be tagged is a bug in your bot and could be construed as vandalism. Whilst I don't agree with the way in which you implement the copyright policy, I'm certainly willing to concede that it is "within the rules", as it were, and I'd just like to help optimise that. — OwenBlacker ( Talk) 18:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
BCB is stupid and pointless and ruins wikipedia. --{{ 123Pie| Talk}} 20:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi BC. Know you're busy, but think this won't take much of your time. Please will you visit the brief discussion at User_talk:Ale_jrb#VandalProof and approve/reject this request from a former problem editor who I will vouch for as a reformed member of the community. Many thanks. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Since the posting on the user talk pages is in some sense a courtesy rather than a reprimand, it might be good to change the edit summary from "notifying user of invalid Fair Use claim on $1" to "notifying user of incomplete Fair Use claim on $1". Usually all that is needed is to mention the page the image is used on, and the slight change in wording is more encouraging to the uploader. The message you leave on the talk page is clear enough that an incomplete fair use claim is not sufficient to stop speedy deletion, so there should be no trouble in softening the blow in the edit summary.
By the way, (as a BAG kind of guy) do you know if there is some sort of sample wikipedia where you can test a bot or test mediawiki code changes, where the wiki is at least roughly the same as en.wikipedia.org? For some bot requests it seems natural to just do a few edits on the real wikipedia, and assume you've thought of everything some crazy editor might have done, but for others it might be better to do a thousand edits and then check. Basically if the task is very narrow, or runs on fairly similar articles, then a few edits suffice, but if the thing is supposed to run on "new pages", then really, how can you predict what sort of line noise will be in such an article? Similarly, I test mediawiki patches on my wikis, but you can't really test things that require the huge infrastructure that is on en.wikipedia (all the templates for one, but also just the sheer number of articles). Perhaps one can just have the bot write the edits it would have made to a local file, maybe as a diff? JackSchmidt ( talk) 05:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
About the account Betacommand2 ( talk · contribs), do you use this account for Wikipedia:SOCK#Segregation and security reasons? If so, would you mind updating the user page to explicitly say this, as otherwise people might think you were contravening WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY? At the moment it just says "this is my Test & VandalProof account", but you have been using the account to take part in discussions. This has been discussed at the request for arbitration under Locke Cole's statement. Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Image:1 New Israeli Sheqel (1994-1995).jpg keeps getting marked, even though it has all the proper templates and information. If this bot tags this image again, I will block it for disruption and ignoring previous requests. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I converted the png image to svg here the old image has been deleted. βcommand 04:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 43#Bot to rate WikiProject quality assessment on talk page as same as other project tags and previous discussion at Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_13#Assessment_bot - can you help me out with assessing the unassessed stuff for {{ WikiProject Theatre}} ? Cirt ( talk) 23:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you running a bot on this account? Your recent edit speed seems unusually fast - eg, 50+ edits in a two minute period. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303 15:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Can your bot do anything useful with this list? — Random832 18:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I was wondering if you could remove or alter the following sentence in your instructions: 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. You have over 20 archive pages. Each of these pages has over 150 headers. The entire archives would take months to read through. I don't think it's reasonable to demand that from newcomers. I'd understand if you compiled an FAQ and required users to read that, but I don't think asking (usually new) users to read what would be several volumes if it were printed is reasonable. Thanks. Puchiko ( Talk- email) 21:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Please be more careful about how you operate your bot - Image:MystCover.png has a perfectly valid rationale, which was slightly damaged by a vandal, but the only real damage done was that the '}}' was removed from the end of the template. I have now fixed this. Please remember that it is entirely possible to write a perfectly valid rationale without using that template, though this incident seems to suggest that BetacommandBot is merely searching for the inclusion of that template. Talk Islander 15:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Stop posting complaints to User_talk:Paranoid. This is abusive. Paranoid ( talk) 17:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
You appear to be running automated scripts from your admin account. Exactly one edit per minute for the last 12 hours, and bursts of 30/min yesterday. Do you think that perhaps this might not be a good time to be skirting the limits of the bot rules?
AKAF (
talk)
13:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Betacommand, I know someone else asked you about a layout-related bot a while ago. The idea was to conform article appendices (if present) to the order recommended in WP:LAY. Three editors there are convinced that people will be offended if this is done by a bot, and I don't think the discussion's going anywhere. So here's my interim proposal: Can you create a script that does this, but which only applies it to (twelve thousand or so) articles tagged by the WPMED project? I think WPMED would support a standardization effort, and it would make a good "test case" if it was wanted wiki-wide in the future. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you change the concern that BCB adds from "invalid rationale per WP:NFCC#10c The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline." to "invalid rationale per WP:NFCC#10c because the following items are missing: The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline." (addition in italics). This is so that it would make grammatical sense. Stifle ( talk) ( trivial vote) 11:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
abort mission and try to get it right? Opiumjones 23 ( talk) 01:29, 9 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)
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 ( Talk) 00:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Hi, sorry to hassle you. I was just wondering if there was anything more I needed to do on the Flagbot BAG trial now that it's done its 50 edits? If it's just waiting for you or someone else to look at the edits then no probem, I'd just hate for things to be in limbo because I'd not done something, and it would be nice to get it run before Easter. FlagSteward ( talk) 11:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Betacommand. It appears that the unapproved bot running on your account is not functioning correctly.
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)
Per the Community proposal consensus (see Wikipedia: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✰ echo 16:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I have added the excessively-broad terms of the opt-out notice to my RfARB submission: see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Another_problem_with_BCbot. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 05:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's the thing that scares me about this. I'm not saying that BCB may have some civil problems, and there's probably a few times he should not have used his bot the way he did, and there may be confusion on what tasks BCB is authorized to do - there's areas where these are to be taken up and discussed individually. What is chilling is that those pushing BCB to meeting the requirements of the consensus (whether or not it's there) is very much in violation of the nature and spirit of voluntarism on WP. There's only one group of people that has the community-granted authority to demand a certain behavior from one specific editor, and that's the Arbcom, and even then, their authority sets up things an editor should not do, and then authority granted to admins to implements specific remedies should those those be violated. Even 99.9% of the editing population agreed to the above consensus that BCB incorporate nobots, without any blessing from Arbcom, it is impossible to require BCB to do so.
If people want change, they should be trying to get community consensus on the bots policy to have any bot that may alter a user's page to have nobots functionality ; this does not single out BCB, and also would likely need to have bot editor support, but it's not a specific action that is meant to be sanctioned at one user. Alternatively, if you feel BCB's behavior is unwarrented, you can go to ArbCom or even ANI; if you feel he's doing an inappropriate task, then to BAG. But to bypass these (or route around them, as I see that there's not yet a likelihood of ArbCom taking up the BCB current case) and claim community consensus to require an action from one specific person is a very chilling precedent, should people expect it to be enforced. This is not to say that that community consensus cannot be used at BAG or Arbcom or elsewhere to suggest appropriate changes in policy based on the fact that a large number of people want this feature; just that without these previously-approved community routes to dispute resolution and the like, there's too much potential for this type of demand to be abused. -- MASEM 15:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. There is strong community support for Betacommand's essential work. A few dissenters (what was it? 12? 13?) are proposing to stop him doing this. They cannot do that without substantial support. Let them raise that support. Then they will be taken seriously. -- Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
SELECT page_title FROM page WHERE page_id = '43091';
SQL Query me! 06:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
User:BetacommandBot/Opt-out, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BetacommandBot/Opt-out and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:BetacommandBot/Opt-out during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.— Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
User:BetacommandBot/Opt-out. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution. —
Arthur Rubin
(talk)
17:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Look, you do good work. I support you. You get a lock of flack from critics, I'll back you. But this
[10] is either trolling or baiting. Please knock it off, before I have to get the trout out. ;) --
Docg
23:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I've requested page protection at User:BetacommandBot/Opt-out. Please stop edit warring there. I'm warning both you and Bellwether. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you please, please, please stop calling the edits of others vandalism (as you did here and here, for example) when their edits are not vandalism by any definition that I am aware of? You are free to revert and disagree, of course, but calling established editors vandals isn't going to help anyone. -- Conti| ✉ 00:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Despite my prediction coming true, how about this proposal? The page and talk page are deleted, but then restored and moved to a different location to preserve the diffs and history of what happened there? Carcharoth ( talk) 02:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel ( talk) 15:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't like this bot, which threatened to delete Image:Nancy-Université.gif (the concern has been addressed, by the way). Deleters are already zealous ; if they are seconded by bots nowadays, Wikipedia will become hell. Being threatened of deletion by bots is frightening ! Deletion should only be able to be suggested by human beings, in my opinion. And not without any prior discussion on the discussion page :-o ! Speedy deletion is shocking when the image has been sitting there for almost 2 years. Without permanent watch from the uploader, a useful pic will be speedily deleted, which is a nuisance ; prior discussion would let someone else fill in the missing rationale. Seven complaints in 2 days on this discussion page is the sign that something is wrong ! Baronnet ( talk) 23:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Why has your bot tagged the infobox image for the above film for deletion when it already has a detailed rationale?? This aint on! Sue Wallace ( talk) 01:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I imagine this has been asked before, so this probably will qualify as asking again. Would it be possible to condense the amount of text the bot sticks into a talk page for each image? It currently looks to be on the order of 500 bytes of almost pure boiler plate, with only the name of the image changed.
Couldn't this be done as a template, and just stick the name of the image in as a parameter? It could even be done as in infobox-looking thing that went into the talk pages. Maybe something like {{betacommand-warning|imagename.jpg}} or the like would be sufficient.
I honestly can't see the benefit to the encyclopedia of having 30% of the entire database content consist of nothing but reams and reams of duplicated image warnings, when a 50-character transclusion should be more than sufficient in any case I can imagine. Yes, we aren't at 30% yet. But the bot is working hard at meeting that goal it seems.
I'm sure you will tell me to simply fix the images when I see them on my talk page. Sorry, I don't do images, and I see these warnings by the hundreds on the pages that I deal with around the encyclopedia. They are completely uninteresting to me; I would be perfectly happy if ALL images were deleted and prohibited, so that these warnings could then be stripped out of the text. Since that probably isn't going to happen, I'm just requesting that the size be reduced, and maybe they simply result in a category tag of ArticlesWithInvalidImages or the like. They are far more likely to be fixed if they show up in a category than simply salting tons of text all over the project. Loren.wilton ( talk) 23:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you change the concern that BCB adds from "invalid rationale per WP:NFCC#10c The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline." to "invalid rationale per WP:NFCC#10c because the following items are missing: The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline." (addition in italics). This is so that it would make grammatical sense. Stifle ( talk) ( trivial vote) 14:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Why should a robot be rewarded for doing what it was programmed to do? IMO, the "well-oiled machine" and Legion of Bot awards can stay, but, I believe the other three, mostly the Tireless Contributor barnstars should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.151.142 ( talk) 02:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Bad Bot.
Kept posting unsourced rumors of homosexuality.
Bad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.31.59 ( talk) 00:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if you have seen this yet: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#BetacommandBot bug - misparsing backlinks. Would you be able to shed any light on this? Carcharoth ( talk) 02:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I have added my name to User:AmiDaniel/VP/Approval. Dusti talk to me 19:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
What exactly does "rm per CfD" mean in this context? This template points to a category that exists, and is legitimate. Thought that category is flagged for deletion, I have disputed the deletion, which I believe results from a misunderstanding, and have, in any case, made changes to both the template and the category to remove any confusion about the legitimacy of the category. — Aldaron • T/ C 23:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Weird. How does this work? Some Featured Articles such as Common Raven and Superb Fairy-wren are not showing up with their little star on this list...Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 07:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 11 | 13 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 12 | 17 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
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) 22:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Purely out of curiosity, what does the preferences screen say BCB's edit count is? I've heard it's pushing towards a million, but I can't get any accurate data (it times-out Kate's tool, for instance). Happy‑ melon 20:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, I made one BetaCommandBot reversion, and 5 seconds later you warned me not to be a vandal. It's not even human to catch something like that so fast. And since you're a robot, then I can't possibly offend you by saying that I don't like your attitude. KnatLouie ( talk) 22:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I didn't know there were such tools available for tools to use. But to just let you know, I will have not uploading done on the site anymore. It's is an ended chapter. Sorry to have distrubed you. KnatLouie ( talk) 22:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith again Betacommand, your bot's destructiveness and your hostile behavior are wholly innapropriate. Superslash ( talk) 12:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a link to a posting by the game's owner on an official forum, and so is a legitimate self published source. Please omit it from your future automated edits. - Ehheh ( talk) 22:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I fully accept categories may be deleted - if you want one off my userpage, tell me which and I'll do the honours. Do not move mine around for me. MRM ( talk) 18:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Also mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Evidence: you've mentioned incidences of inappropriate use of the {{ nobots}} template as your rationale for not using that template for your bot. I found at least one instance of this here; can you point to any other such uses? -- bainer ( talk) 11:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if your bot, per. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 8 could go through Category:Unassessed education articles and assess the articles for quality? Cheers. Twenty Years 09:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I was reading the comments at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2/Workshop#Is_any_one_person_so_valuable_they_can.27t_be_blocked_or_sanctioned.3F and must say I agree with the idea that existing code shouldn't be forced public, which is why I've tried to advocate solutions where you (and other bot ops) decide who gets to see their code. I think a better argument instead of editing speed (which is more a function of bandwidth and processing power), would be that Bot code is owned by Bot ops, and that at the end of the day, we can't force them to give it up. We can set up forward looking rules, but not retrospective things. And I'm surprised at the Nobots tag abuse, that would also be an argument to avoid public release of code (as opposed to BAG private vetting).
Sadly the Archtransit case does show that Admin can't be trusted (and by virtue OTRS). And of course there is the issue of why show 1500 people your code, when only a couple dozen could actually understand it. If some of the BAG reforms go through (making BAG a mini-Arbcom, etc), it might be interesting to see if the BAG could operate a protected section of OTRS where users could archive their code. MBisanz talk 19:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, your bot often puts messages with the header "Disputed fair use rationale for Image:(image)" on talk pages. I'm trying to find the templates for tagging the image in question and for notifying the user, but I'm having problems finding them. If you could point me in the right direction, it would be a help. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 22:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Would you have time to look at this? It might be totally wrong. If you could help with updating and gathering stats, that would be great. In particular, User:BetacommandBot/Non-Free Template Useage hasn't been updated since 12 March. Do you think you could start updating that again, even if only at more irregular intervals? Carcharoth ( talk) 11:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Wondered if you could advise me if I'm barking up the wrong tree by asking for bot assistance with this. It looks a good candidate to my untrained eye, as it seems a widespread and serious problem in mainspace +, with what looks to me to be a simple solution (removal of a redundant "px") which wouldn't occur to most Wikipedians who spot the error. If tackled by a bot, I'd suggest some explanatory wording, particularly as it'll probably fix a lot of userspace problems. Maybe something short/simple along the lines of "Bot fixing image size problem. More information available here"? Anyway, I'd be grateful for your input. -- Dweller ( talk) 15:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 13 | 24 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
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) 06:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I've decided to ask you first. You know what I asked. For anything I need to do please tell me. I hope the bot can help. Chubb enna itor 14:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
First, you should probably point out on both your userpage and your bot page that neither you nor the bot are deleting images as a joyride, that you are simply acting upon the will of policy and the WP:NFCC, and therefore you cannot be held liable for it. I think the silly issues that have popped up on the administrators' noticeboard may be a result of that misunderstanding. Plus people don't bother to read legalese these days anyway. Frankly I'm sick of looking at your talk pages and seeing people complain about how you're Devilspawn.
Second, could you send me links to some of your most hilarious experiences of people personally attacking you because of your bot? I imagine that after over a year you must have received some pretty ridiculous comments. :)
Keep up the good work.-- WaltCip ( talk) 02:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Your bot did some weird stuff at Category:Wikipedians in Apple Valley, Minnesota. It seems to have moved the content of Category:Wikipedians with approved alternate accounts instead of the content from Category:Wikipedians in Apple Valley, MN. I've gone ahead and fixed it up. --- RockMFR 17:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I got a message at an album site that I prepared on I Am What I Am (Milan album) that this active little bot got to, but the reference was to the image for the George Jones album, I Am What I Am. Guess it gots its wires crossed. :-) Shocking Blue ( talk) 15:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Is this the "school" of Wikipedia you subscribe to? Or do you genuinely fear retribution from companies for having "fair use" images of copyrighted works in articles? Or do you just like deleting stuff with your neat little bot? Please don't take offense... I've never had any of my uploads deleted by anyone, and I'm not upset with you; nor am I complaining about any specific instances. But I have noticed your pattern of deletions... Some are legitimate deletions, while others are what I'd call "what the heck, why not?" deletions. What exactly is your rationale for deleting images? Is it just if the uploader didn't describe his reasons fully or properly? An encyclopedia devoid of images is hardly an encyclopedia, and it's certainly not engaging for general audiences.
I myself edit articles that are clear-cut and factual; no opinion or speculation. No reason to delete images, because I create most of them myself. (Take a gander, perhaps there's something in my galleries that you'll want to delete.) When I upload something, I do it properly - I provide free licensing, or public domain reasons.
Don't you think that you could at least give the uploader the benefit of the doubt, and try to help them provide a rationale for uploading the image, instead of tagging everything for deletion? Would you agree that mass deletions are extremely counterproductive, especially for an encyclopedia?
Cheers, Fuzzform ( talk) 02:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
See for example User talk:Duncharris, where a contributor has moved along. Dunc's last contribution was in 2006, yet we seem to be expecting him to read the notice and act on it to save the images. There's got to be a better way: If the bot were to check Special:Contributions/Duncharris for recent contributions and find none, could it not somehow tag the image as an orphan needing adoption? LeadSongDog ( talk) 04:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Beta! We ran through the list you had BCBot make and discussed it at WP:MUSEUMS. You're right, it was amazing what stuff was categorized as museums. The edited list is at User:Travellingcari/Museums_Cats since I didn't want to overwrite the original. Whenever you/Bot have time, it's ready for the cats to be tagged with {{WikiProject Museums}}. Of course there's no rush. I also saw on an article that BCBot does/did handle the stub tagging of some projects based on previous proojects having classed the article as 'Stub'. If the Bot still does that can I get in the queue for that sometime in the future as I obviously don't want to tie up the bot now since I'm sure you have other projects. Thanks so much for your help with this process, ping me if you have any questions TRAVELLINGCARI My story Tell me yours 03:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I oopsed and deleted my sandbox where I had the list, luckily I moved it first. It's now at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Museums/Categories. Same list, same formatting. Thanks again! TRAVELLINGCARI My story Tell me yours 18:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
Thank you so much for all your help with the tagging for the Museums project. Your bot handled far more than we mere mortals can do to get all the appropriate articles tagged. TRAVELLINGCARI My story Tell me yours 19:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC) |
Whoa! Why have Mario Lanza, Bobby Darin, Chuck Berry, and Winona Ryder been tagged with WikiProject Museums? Ward3001 ( talk) 18:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Please see my comment here. When we ran the category list, we didn't catch that the walk of fame was on there. I'm coming to help de-tag these as they're not with in the scope. Sorry for that! TRAVELLINGCARI My story Tell me yours 19:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
We're working on a master list to fix this, again my apologies. I'll update here when it's done but please feel free to add to it. Sorry, Beta! TRAVELLINGCARI My story Tell me yours 20:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I reverted your changes to the "en dashes" in the article Hugh IV of Cyprus. The dashes used were correct - see En dashes. In the article the dashes were used to "To convey the sense of to or through, particularly in ranges (pp. 211–19, 64–75%, the 1939–45 war, May–November). Stellar ( talk) 09:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
What is the name of your Bot. It is now put as a piece of news in the newsletter but I don't know the link. Chubb enna itor 14:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry. Chubb enna itor 14:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I will love you forever if you change your bot message(s) to read what the fifth quote suggests. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Betacommand,
A number of edits to some userboxes I created (okay, adapted) just popped up on my watchlist. It seems that your bot just enacted the changes noted in this version of the working list for Categories for Discussion. That's fine; I have no issue with the change.
However, there were some errors in the way it was handled, demonstrated by This edit to {{ User wikiitsmall}}. By deleting the content between the <includeonly></includeonly> tags and leaving the categorization between <noinclude></noinclude>, the changes resulted in the template being classified under the new category without also classifying the users who have transcluded the template.
A quick look at {{ User wikiit}}, the parent template of the userbox, revealed the same problem. So if possible, would you mind going back and fixing it so that the proper category is included through transclusion? Otherwise, we're going to have a lot of empty categories....
Thanks! -- jonny- m t 07:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
<includeonly></includeonly>
and <noinclude></noinclude>
tags ensured that each of the templates were only categorized once, with their names sorted under "*" to separate them from the users they were categorizing, who in turn were sorted under {{PAGENAME}}. This is a common feature across all such templates and was present even before I created the smaller userboxes.[[Category:Category to be changed
--> [[Category:Category to change to
in the future. In this case, I'd greatly appreciate it if you would restore the lost functionality by putting [[Category:New category|*]]
back between the <noinclude></noinclude>
tags. If you can't or you're too busy, then please let me know and I'll see what I can do with AWB. Thanks! --
jonny-
m
t
05:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Hi Beta, I noticed your interesting subpage listing active admins [13]. Could you point me to the task description for this bot? Thanks AKAF ( talk) 15:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Betacommand! Could you please review [14] these applications? -- Kanonkas : Take Contact 13:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 15 | 7 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
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) 15:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Could you get your bot to update this report please? Thanks.-- Otterathome ( talk) 16:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. The bot made some changes at Template:User wikisk and something got broken. The user pages with this template turned completely messed. Could you repait it, please?
So the picture to illustrate Between the Lines, an LGBT paper, is being targeted becaused supposedly its fair use rationale is not good enough. I don't see this robot targeting articles about mainstream newspapers which also use a picture of a typical front page in them. I think this robot is prejudiced against gays. Donnabella ( talk) 22:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Every image i have ever uploaded has been deleted by this robot because of errors in the fair use rationale. Don't take it personally - this robot is EVIL INCARNATE!!! But is useful for maintaining copyright in cases that need it. Have a read through the policy and try again. All the best Meow meow - purr purr ( talk) 22:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
This bot is currently tagging articles with a {{WikiProject Museums}} template. However, I'm not sure that Mario Lanza, Bobby Darin, and Chuck Berry fall into this category. I think something's going wrong somewhere. Paul20070 ( talk) 18:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Museums#Wikipedia:WikiProject Museums/Categories. Thanks :) -- Quiddity ( talk) 20:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for delivering the Newsletter for Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity . We will approach you every time we need to circulate the new issue. Do you have a special page for your own bot requests ? - Tinucherian ( talk) 05:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems not all the members got it, see User_talk:Yllosubmarine. You want to look into the matter? It would be nice if You could sort out the problem, so WP:NOVELS doesn't have to change to another bot next month to deliver a newsletter. Hoping for the best, feydey ( talk) 19:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)