Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ

Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

This a centralized page of discussion pertaining to User:Δ, formerly User:Betacommand, and his bots User:BetacommandBot and User:Δbot (User:Deltabot). These discussions were previously on the Administrators' Incidents Noticeboard, but haved been moved here in the interests of space and navigation. This page is for participating and discussing in a civil manner all matters that relate to this user and his bots.

Please do not use this page to attack these users instead of participating in civil discussion.
This is not a complaints department. If you have a private matter that concerns this user, please discuss it with Δ on his talk page.

Relaxing or rescinding of community-imposed restrictions on User:Betacommand / Δ

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a clear majority supporting the creation of this simple, sorely-needed bot, performing a well-defined task in a limited arena, which will be developed and maintained in discussion with those whose needs it will meet. It is impractical to allow someone other than the bot coder to run the bot. Rd232 ^talk 11:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

---

Δ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Betacommand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wikipedia:A/R/CL#Request for clarification: User:Betacommand (perm)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Δbot

The Bot Approvals Group is currently considering a request for bot approval filed by Δ (talk · contribs) (formerly User:Betacommand). The request is for a low-key clerking task that is unlikely to cause any issues. However, there are community-imposed restrictions in place that would prevent this bot from operating -

Community consensus placed editing restrictions on Betacommand during late May, 2008. He is prohibited from running automated programs to make edits (or edits that appear to be automated), on either a bot account, or his main account. He is also placed on civility parole; any edit which is seen as uncivil by an uninvolved administrator may lead to a block. Failure to comply with either of these restrictions will lead to a block of up to one week at the discretion of the blocking administrator. These restrictions are in place until the community decide that the remedies are no longer appropriate.

• Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Betacommand must wait for a consensus supporting the request before he may begin.
• Betacommand must manually, carefully, individually review the changed content of each edit before it is made. Such review requires checking the actual content that will be saved, and verifying that the changes have not created any problems that a careful editor would be expected to detect.
• Betacommand must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time.
• Betacommand is placed under community enforced civility parole. If any edits are judged to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked by an uninvolved administrator. If not a blatant violation, discussion should take place on the appropriate noticeboard prior to blocking.

I am neutral on the matter. The bot task on the table seems uncontroversial and useful. The above restrictions could be entirely rescinded, or perhaps relaxed. If the community favours the latter, perhaps something along the lines of -

Δ is prohibited from running automated programs to make edits (or edits that appear to be automated) and from undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages without prior approval from the Bot Approvals Group or the community.

Δ is placed under community enforced civility parole. If any edits are judged to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked by an uninvolved administrator. If not a blatant violation, discussion should take place on the appropriate noticeboard prior to blocking.

This restriction replaces and supersedes the community*-imposed restrictions listed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2 (*Arbitration Committee remedies remain in effect unless amended or rescinded by the committee).

Thoughts? –xeno^talk 13:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

...well, a username that's actually easily typeable would have been nice :-) Is this how one shows that they want to play nicely with others? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Deltabot has been registered as doppelganger. –xeno^talk 14:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• I support the loosening of restrictions so far as is required to allow Δ to operate an approved bot. I've no opinion on the remainder of restrictions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support I have seen the area where the bot will work in and I agree that not only should there be a bot operated by him but he should also have his restrictions lifted in order to help clerk with us eventually. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • No way is BC/Symbol a suitable candidate to do clerking anywhere where there is likely to be tension. Scary! Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Except he isn't actually doing any clerking. Or any interaction with anyone on the SPI pages. Speaking as an SPI clerk active for over a year now, I would support loosening the restrictions to allow this one highly restricted bot through. NW (Talk) 18:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
      • My response was to Kevin's comment he should also have his restrictions lifted in order to help clerk with us eventually. That kind of comment scares me as there is no evidence that BC/whatisname has learned anything about why we have a whole massive sub-board devoted to dealing with him. Encouraging (and enabling) him to delve into areas where he is going to get into trouble really isn't helping anyone. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Firmly Oppose The restrictions were a response to BCs inability to play nicely when queries and issues were raised and their recent behaviour over the name change, the incorrect labelling of a non-vandalism revert as vandalism and their extreme resistance to putting a proper link between the old and new account show that getting along with other users and responding appropriately to criticism remains a significant challenge to BC/whatshisname. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose BetaCommand cannot be trusted with bots or any kind of automated edit, as he has repeatedly shown. I'm disturbed that he has changed his name and even placed this request without noting his previous name. He should be restricted from even making these kinds of proposals. Verbal chat 18:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose He's already (too) many opportunities to reform and he has burned us too many times. ElKevbo (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Seems too good to be true. --Rschen7754 19:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • If the restrictions were kept in place, with the exception of a SPI bot, I might reconsider. The proposal is too loose as it is. --Rschen7754 21:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm still very confused. How is it that editing only SPI pages (actually, only a SINGLE page right now) could ever lead to a large amount of disruption? There are a number of SPI admins and clerks who along with a few checkusers essentially handle the process entirely by themselves. They could use the help, and I cannot see a reason for him to be barred from helping, as he is the only one willing and able to help out. NW (Talk) 19:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, instead of modifying the restrictions in place, a simple exception could be made for this case:

Notwithstanding prior community-imposed restrictions, Δ (talk · contribs) is permitted to operate an approved bot for the express purpose of clerking WP:SPI and its related pages.

SPI is currently without a clerking bot and those who work there are left wanting. –xeno^talk 19:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

There is precedent for users running bots written by others. That could be a solution? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems like this bot will be a "work-in-progress", as it were (i.e. features being added in gradually, etc.), I'm not sure that would really be at all convenient. The exception route seems an easy enough pill to swallow, especially if one doesn't work at SPI. –xeno^talk 19:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

imo its the start of a slippery slope. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

He will only be editing pages in Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Any further approval, such as for userpage tagging, even if granted by BAG, should go through here as well. I think that's a fair restriction. NW (Talk) 19:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Because Betacommand is well known for honouring restrictions? Resolute 20:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose exception. BetaCommand is not the only person able to do this and is not indispensable to the project. If SPI people want a bot, great. They should find a trusted member of the community to do it. There have been too many previous second chances and recent poor behaviour indicates nothing has changed. Verbal chat 20:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, he is the only one willing to do this. We have been searching high and low since almost this time last year when Nixeagle disappeared, with no luck. NW (Talk) 20:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

And you still haven't found anyone. I suggest you keep looking. Verbal chat 20:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I hold no view on this (except that I highly respect all work that is done at SPI; I still sometimes stuff up something when filing a SPI, if not for a SPI clerk checking what I do). But I wanted to ask a question because it's not clear to me from this discussion (and it might not be clear to others) - is it that no one else is presently able to do the task or is it that no one else is presently willing to do the task?? In the case of the latter, is there any reason why? In the case of the former, would I be correct in assuming that is because no one else has the technical know-how or the tools for doing so? Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• This little incident happened just last month. His cfd was denied, so he decided to move the page to his userspace, then request deletion under u1. Creative, certainly, but perhaps not so reassuring from someone who has, in the past, used bots to attack people and been a sockpuppetter. 96.15.54.101 (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - the folks at SPI want the assistance of a clerking bot, Δ is clearly willing to provide such a bot and is willing to work within the strictures of BAG on gradual upgrades to cover other features sought for SPI clerking. Some major issues Δ has had in the past have centred on communicating with editors following user talk page tagging, but this specific bot task should not produce similar problems. Using a bot for unapproved tasks has also been an issue in the past, but I am willing to assume that Δ will not repeat those sorts of actions. As far as I know it is unquestioned that Δ's coding skills are at least sufficient to carry out the proposed task. Consequently, and following the philosophy that blocks / bans (and by extension, restrictions) are preventative and not punitive, I believe that the SPI area should be able to benefit from the assistance that Δ is willing to provide. EdChem (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support. SPI workload skyrocketed since the old bot went down. The new bot has nothing to do with slapping notices on user talk pages warning them about potential deletion of non-free media due to insufficient rationale. I don't see any COI (whether currently or potentially) because Betacommand (or his bot) doesn't initiate any of the SPI requests. The bot only performs a set of instructions and actions of what clerks have to do by hand at the moment because we lost the bot. There's no room for any abuse of process. Besides, will anyone want to opt-out when someone files an SPI case and mention you as part of the investigation? Very unlikely. In fact, I believe such notifications should be considered as essentials. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Strongest possible support - We need an SPI bot. We NEED an SPI bot. WE NEED AN SPI BOT. And I'll say it again. WE NEED AN SPI BOT. Beta is here. He is willing to run it. No one else is. I think we should embrace it. (X! · talk)  · @920  ·  21:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • why don't you run the bit if BC/thingymajig writes it? Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • "No one else is" Please show some validation of that claim? I have yet to see a request for one ont he bot requests board, which is the general avenue where people/groups wanting bots to automate tasks ask for them and is constantly monitored by alot of the bot owners and operators. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 00:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Someone asked 6 months ago, no takers. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Weak support - On general principles, this would be a strong oppose, but the adamancy of the SPI folks convinces me that they really need this and see Betacommand as their only available choice. Given that, I'd say make a very tightly focused adjustment in his restrictions to allow this, and let's see what happens. Yes, it's definitely putting his foot on the slippery slope, but doing this will provide the community with the chance to see if Beta has changed. My caveat would be that if things work out, we should deliberately avoid the impetus that will come to rush willy-nilly into relaxing his restrictions overall: each step should be a carefully considered one. Beta's decline took years, there's no reason that his rehabilitation (if it ever happens) shouldn't play out on the same time scale. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • BetaCommand is not the only person who can write bots. One of the SPI people can do it without overturning the will of the community. Verbal chat 21:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
    • And who would this person be? Seriously, if hu exists, just give me their name and I'll do the rest. NW (Talk) 01:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support This is a task which doesn't require interaction with other users (one of Δ's problem areas in the past), does not have the potential to disrupt the project (which was one of the accusations leveled at him in the past), and would dramatically benefit from a bot doing the drudgework. I'm not likely to support a wholesale removal of the restrictions on him, but for this I don't see any problems. Horologium (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Qualified support for second proposal - SPI clerking is the only area BC may operate a bot, and the issue will be reviewed at AN in 3 months time, then 3 months after that, and then 6 months after that. Minor issues found will stop the clock (that cycle needs to repeat), more serious but not major issues will reset the clock back to the start, and any major issue will result in the previous restrictions being reapplied over all of WP. If BC gets through a year (15-18 months) then he might have a case for a review of all restrictions, plus SPI has a bot it feels it needs. The review system allows oversight by parties not as desirous for an SPI bot, so there is less tolerance for "a mistake or two" too many. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support per usual rather low quality opposes. Honestly, if you're going to oppose, at least make it convincing .... really. Oh, and consistently good BC work. Opposers, ask yourselves if your work here has been more productive. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as currently worded. We've been down this road with Betacommand before, and he has abused the community's trust ten times too many for me to accept any proposal that relies on his honour not to abuse Wikipedia's policies or any restrictions placed on him. I would support only if an amendment to his restrictions makes it plain that his bot is to do only what it is explicitly approved for and that any abuse of a script, or any use of a bot on his main or bot account that does not fall within very clearly defined parameters of use would result in an immediate indefinite block/ban. That means no excuses, no justifications, no equivocation and no testing the limits. Betacommand has proven the honour system does not work on him, and I wonder if this community, especially his supporters, have the will to keep him under control? Specifically to his SPI supporters: Would you make excuses for him if he abuses the community's trust (yet again) because he sells you a convenience, or are you willing to enforce any restrictions that remian on him if that trust is abused? And this question is asked under the strictest definition of "zero tolerance" that you can imagine. Resolute 21:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support An SPI bot is desperately needed since the old one has been dead for months now, and the developer seems to either be gone from Wikipedia or just busy with other things. Betacommand has demonstrated his ability to edit helpfully and collegially since his unban and his unique abilities can be a huge asset here. Let him create his SPI bot. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Has he heck! You only need to look at his behaviour over the rename to see that all the old issues with BC/thingy are still there. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Spartaz, Verbal, ElKevbo, Rschen7754, and Resolute. This user still does not play nicely or exhibit good judgement.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I cannot see how this final warning to Δ as a result of removing two external links was not WP:POINTy in any way. –MuZemike 00:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose: Per Jeff G. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment – if the community will not allow Δ to run a bot for one project that does not touch anywhere else, then SPI will permanently go botless, and the community can figure out what to do with SPI. I will have no part in helping out as far as coding/testing a bot is concerned. –MuZemike 00:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per many others, This user has been given plenty of chances which usually ending with heated debates (Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand For some of the AN ones) or arbitration. Which in some cases were results from not abiding by the policies such as the bot ones or civility when he didn't get his way or if users questioned something. He isn't the only bot operator out there that can do this, I'm sure if the SPI clerks asked around (such as at Bot requests noticeboard)they would be able to find a willing body or so. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 00:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I asked six months ago, and rather gave up after that. I tried putting out some feelers to people I thought might be willing to help, but no bites. Since this mythical bot writer who would be willing to help just isn't turning up now, and hasn't for the past year+, can we just focus on the current request? NW (Talk) 01:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, lets focus on the current request. Which leads me to wonder: Why are we basing support of this request exclusively on the desire for a bot with apparently no consideration for an editor who has a long history of incivility, socking, running unauthorized bots, etc? He was desysopped for basically abusing the tools, and later community banned. I'd like to see some assurance that you guys are willing to shut him down if he does what he does best and oversteps his boundaries. I well remember how much shit he got away with because people deluded themselves into thinking his bots were indespensible. Turns out Wikipedia survived just fine with out him. Can we trust that interested parties in SPI won't turn a blind eye if previous abuses resurface? Resolute 04:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The previous SPI bot stopped editing back in December of last year, prior to that there where issues with its stability for months prior. Its been over a year and a half since Ive done bot work on this project, There is little room for errors here, and the only place where errors would occur are on the SPI pages. which leaves the community at very little risk. The SPI team has been seeking assistance for replacing their old bot since before it stopped editing. What better way than a very limited scope is there to demonstrate that I have changed? ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Support - I don't know how much my opinions matter here as I am neither an admin, a checkuser, or even a SPI clerk.. but regarding the amount of backlog there is(and I have seen the page this bot would be creating(it is currently maintained manually)), we really do need a bot here. I may not hold a right or title, but I have been working in SPI a long time, maybe not as long as others, but still a long time. I don't see how this bot would interfere and create disruption.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Strongest possible support SPI bot = needed; betacommand = willing; blocking = easy Assume some good faith, and let this proposal through. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. Hmmm. During the time Betacommand was blocked, wasn't he WP:SOCKing? I see a potential problem here if his bot can affect checkuser reports. I don't think he'd set up his bot to remove an SPI report against him, but I don't think the possibility should be ignored. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • As a checkuser that has blocked Betacommand's socks and publicly announced it on this noticeboard before, I would like to formally request some of what you are smoking. --Deskana (talk) 01:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support whatever modification/relaxation that is necessary to allow Delta/Betacommand to run the SPI bot. The SPI clerks and checkusers, many (and for checkusers, all) of whom are experienced administrators, are more than able to keep the situation in check if necessary. T. Canens (talk) 04:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Qualified support based on that he really can't hurt much with it editing one page under the watchful eye of the SPI admins. Deskana's idea below also would be good. MBisanz ^talk 05:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support It is difficult to overstate the needless mess and pain ßC caused over the full course of his bot fiascoes. However, it has been equally clear that the bots he operates make wikipedia run much better (when they aren't causing problems) and it has become clear that he has worked to change some of those habits which caused the problems in the first place. We need a clerking bot, ßC is willing to operate one, let us extend an offer. Protonk (talk) 05:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: As I said below, I am all for the bot, but I think Beta/Triangle should remain on the outer fringes doing technical work while a trusted admin/bot op (X! came to mind) operated the bot on their account. If, at some time, Beta/Triangle seems to be worthy of the position, then I say we give it to him, but not while he is under restrictions. Let those expire first. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Those said restrictions will never expire, thus I cannot wait it out. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 09:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I support this user being able to run bots again. I had even asked him on his talk page if he'd consider reactivating some of his previous bots, like BetacoomandBot. We should be more open to automating all these tedious functions that nobody wants to do. Kindzmarauli (talk) 05:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose and WP:TROUT to those who're focusing on the task instead of the troublemaker. There is absolutely no guarantee that anything but trouble will be forthcoming from the user formerly known as Betacommand. The 'pedia will be a better place if we write him off entirely and completely, and instead focus on recruiting a new bot coder who can actually play nice with others. Jclemens (talk) 06:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support lifting restrictions. ßetacommand, or Δ, has done good work and my recollection is that the core of the objections was that many who upload WP:NFCC flaunting stuff simply wanted that good work not done. Development by working via waldos is not at all practical, although others might also run stable code, if it's offered. And we need this sort of work done, that's the bottom line. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

  That's not entirely absurd, but it's not entirely correct. He's done good work, but (for example) refused to admit that his interpretation of NFCC#10c was clearly wrong, although possibly the best that could be expected from a bot. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

  I don't recall the specifics; I'm hard-core on 10a; specific links, or no dice. Simple redirects per moves count, but complex situations probably not. We've huge amounts of non-compliant nfc about and that's a problem. "Δ" means change and ß-tools are good. Jack Merridew 09:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The end does not justify the means. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I have always felt the spirit of WP:AGF allows folks a second chance, a third chance, and so forth, so long as someone continues to show reasonable evidence of good faith. Betacommand has certainly utilized a few of those aforementioned chances, but I do not believe "bad faith" is a good description of his attitude towards Wikipedia. Therefore, I support any reasonable modification of his restrictions to allow the operation of this bot, or future bots as approved by the community or the bot group. jæs (talk) 08:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• I oppose lifting any restrictions, but I support allowing Delta to use that one single bot for that one single purpose, and nothing more (yet). Let's see how that works out. --Conti|✉ 09:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • That is a lifting of restrictions. Verbal chat 12:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
    • It's adding an exception. The restriction remains in place. –xeno^talk 13:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
      • If you are adding an exception you are weakening the restriction. Verbal chat 16:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support: BC/Delta is willing to take on the bot-building challenge. As stated earlier, no one else seems to be except maybe X!, who is already maintaining a couple dozen bots. The specific bot we are discussing here doesn't need to interact with anyone other than Checkusers and Clerks. I think this represents and opportunity for BC/Delta to show he can be a net positive to the community. If he makes a good bot, SPI can run more quickly and effectively without the clerks having to do as much tedious, repetitive busy work. I don't think there's much he could do with the code (pretty hard to hide "if:casename=betacommand"; code doesn't lie). Furthermore I think the individuals he'd be working with (CU and SPI Clerks) are...uhh...well versed in detecting and responding to fishy behavior. Isn't that what SPI is designed to deal with in the first place? I think he's under enough scrutiny to prevent these kind of issues from occurring. Let him make the bot. If he does a good job, the community wins. If he does something fishy, block the bot (and him) and move on. There's no opportunity for net gain if the community does not provide a chance for it. N419BH 13:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support the adding of an exception to allow Δ/Beta dude, how do you type that? to run this specific SPI bot as approved by the bot approvals group and the code being made available as per the note for review. After reading/watching this go back and forth awhile, I'm not seeing much meat to any of the opposes beyond "its Beta" and "because of his past" without any diffs, etc to show any recent issues with socking (which would obviously result in his being blocked), policy violations, etc. He has not, in fact, been blocked in nearly a year and clearly as he is not banned, the community is willing to accept him. I think this particular operation is something that can easily be added as an exception to his current restrictions, and frankly it is desperately needed (as are more CUs but thats another whole issue). SPI is floundering like crazy right now and despite what some of those who oppose this have said, it is NOT an easy thing to code up a bot. I am a programmer by trade, and I took a look at the bot stuff, and said "hell no." Coding up an eCommerce web application is easier, by far, IMHO. And, as has already been noted, even among those who are crazy enough (no offense) to both enjoy coding bots and good enough to do one of this nature, not ONE has stepped forward to do it in almost a year. And in this thread, despite some of the unsupported and barely civil remarks made, in my opinion Beta has kept his cool which speaks more towards his sincerity than anything else. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 18:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Yes there is understandable concern about letting operate a bot. But if someone wanted to give a user another chance, and was asked to carefully define a task that would be appropriate, one could hardly design a better task. It affects a single page, one under constant watch, and doesn't require notification on user talk pages, plus it will be under the watchful eye of some of the most clueful editors in WP. Not to mention, it is sorely needed and no one else is stepping up.--SPhilbrickT 00:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose Betacommand has shown repeatedly that he can't be trusted to handle automated tools in a responsible matter, or for that matter, even handle himself in a responsible matter. Have we all forgotten the months and months of drama and multiple ARBCOM cases already? Apparently so. Jtrainor (talk) 08:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

Just a quick tally. As of this moment, we have 20 supports, 10 oppose (+ 1 IP oppose) and a handful of people sitting on the fence. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Redux

What we have here is a simple question: Should an editor who has been known to abusively use multiple accounts (sockpuppet) and who is know to have abused automated editing and bots, be allowed to run a bot on sockpuppet investigations pages? I'm generally skeptical of the poacher turned gamekeeper theory, but in this case it seems to be poacher turned poacher and gamekeeper. There is no way this should be allowed, based on his very recent sockpuppeting and problematic behaviour. Verbal chat 12:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Please check your facts, "very recently" is not accurate. Your poacher/gamekeeper analogy is also flawed in several different areas. If there future SPI cases involving me, it doesnt matter what actions I take the report cannot be suppressed, there are just too many eyes involved. If you read the whole discussion, one of the checkusers used the phrase I would like to formally request some of what you are smoking, meaning that the idea is crazy. Also depending on your field there are a lot of people who jump the fence, take a look at Kevin Mitnick, Chad Davis and others. So please review your information before making claims that are incorrect. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like clarification of the checkuser's statement, myself. I thought, at first, it was referring to the allegation that you could be trusted to act properly on the SPI page. For example, your indexing bot could be written to fail to index or even to de-index a sockpuppet case involving you. I don't think you'd do that, but I felt it should be brought up for consideration. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

My "claims" are entirely correct. You have not jumped the fence, but want the keys to safe anyway. Verbal chat 14:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Arthur, my comment was made out of frustration with respect to the fact that you would think Betacommand could possibly code the bot to remove an SPI case about him. I think the suggestion that Betacommand would do that is nothing short of insane. Aside from the fact that we've got a whole team of clerks that watch the SPI pages, Betacommand would essentially be burying himself alive. Betacommand may be a lot of things to a lot of different people, but he's not stupid. If you don't think that he'll do that (which you've now indicated you don't), then that's fine. Irrespective of Betacommand's past, his current situation, and what might become of his future, we desperately need an SPI bot and I trust him to run it. Bear in mind, this statement is coming from someone who has ran checks on him, blocked his socks, and even asked mailing list admins to have him removed from mailing lists. --Deskana (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Idea

Have Beta/Triangle create the bot and an already exsisting bot operator run the bot. Beta can provide technical advice, but the bot op would have the bot on their account. Beta would have no access. An SPI bot might be a good thing, but I feel it would be better if a trusted bot op were the one calling the shots with the bot than Beta/Triangle. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I assume that, as a checkuser, I would be a no-brainer candidate for this job. I'm willing to volunteer, if people like this solution. I'd need some technical help on exactly how to run it, though. --Deskana (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but i think a pre-exiting bot owner would be better, purely from the point of view they have the technical know-how and can understand the code to see what it actually does before running it and can quickly fix issues should they arise. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 01:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I take offense! No, not really. That works for me too, mainly because it means I can be lazy. :-) --Deskana (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Most users would need a fairly major crash course in my code design, If said bot operator existed why did they not step forward already to create this bot? Looking at this from a practical standpoint this just doesn't work well, in order for me to test new code I would need to write the code, email it to the operator, have them run the code, have it crash/error, have the operator email me their exact computer specs, full traceback, and any other related data, I would need to review it and then create a patch. This on a good day would take about an hour. On a typical day it would mean that there is a 12+ hour gap. If Im testing/running my own code this process goes down to about 20 minutes. When coding there are often stupid mistakes, missing ; unbalanced parens or something just as trivial that prevents a program from working. By forcing someone else into the normal loop it just makes it impractical. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 01:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I would recommend User:X! for the job. He runs a bot already (and some Toolserver stuff), so he has the technical know-how, is an admin and a 'crat, so he is trusted, and I think worthy of the position. That is just someone I picked off hand, not someone I know well. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure he has the time right now. He's working on a project. Certainly, you could ask him though. --Deskana (talk) 01:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of whipping a quick one up. (X! · talk)  · @118  ·  01:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how good an idea this is. First off, what are we trying to accomplish? The bot behavior itself would manifestly by determined by ßC's decisions. Operation would just mean that some other editor would have the social right to stop the bot, as opposed to all admins having the technical right to do so (which is true either way). Debugging or improving the bot would still fall to ßC, unless the operator were basically advanced enough to write their own clerking bot. Protonk (talk) 05:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually no. Since I haven't seen how the Beta's bot work, I will comment on what the old bot did. Basically the bot detects a new case is filed and transclude the case page onto main SPI page pending queue. Then goes all the comments and the clerk will determine whether to accept/decline CU, which this step can't be automated anyways because it's a clerk who makes the call and not the bot. Once the decision is made, clerk updates a field in the SPI template and prompts the bot to either archive it (in the case of decline) or move the case page from pending to CU-required (in the case of acceptance). When CU is finished (plus all the blocking & tagging), clerks will add the keyword "archive" in the template. When the bot detects this keyword appearing in the template, it will archive the case. Nowhere can I see Beta personally intervene with the process. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Protonk's point is that BC/Delta still has full control over the bot's code under this system; thus, the bot's behavior (i.e., what it does in response to instructions etc.) is still controlled by BC/Delta's programming decisions. T. Canens (talk) 07:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. I have no doubt that a reasonably competent programmer could grok the code itself, but we would only be using that person as a custodian. Protonk (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• I would Support this option as well - in fact I suggested it yesterday. I don't mind BC/thingy writing the code if another user takes responsibility for the actions of the bot. This is the perfect solution as the issue is the way the BC/thing interacts with other users whern criticised not his bot writing skills. And some of those opposing because they fear he would use the bot to suppress reports on himself need to get some perspective as there is no way that could pass undetected. Kudos to Deskana for offering to take this on. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Please take a look at deskana's response above about any possible COI/removal of cases about myself. As for user interaction the only users I will be really working with are the SPI clerks, and checkusers (which most have stated their favor for me to run the bot). ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 09:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry but I simply don't trust you to do this without direct supervision of the bot. Only last week you were edit warring with me and labelling me a vandal. This is the kind of activity that erodes trust. Otherwise, I'm happy for Deskana to look after the bot and monitor its actions as I trust him. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Delt/BC can write the bot if he likes and then donate the code to wikipedia and it can be reviewed and run by someone else. Verbal chat 10:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

As a bot operator myself, I know that this simply isn't practical. Writing a bot is often an interactive process, and sometimes you need to code on the fly while the bot is actually running. –xeno^talk 13:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

In view of that (almost certainly correct) note, I lean more against beta/delta as an operator of this bot, without a requirement that all bot code, including interim code, be published for review. (As far as I'm concerned, it could be run immediately after being published, before review, but publication needs to be required.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I have always had an open door policy with regard to my code, I dont publish it publicly for security reasons. When I write code its designed for a very specific purpose, those who are not familiar with my code and attempt to run it could cause a lot of problems. What my policy has always been, and will continue to be, is I freely give my code to those users who I know will not mess with the code or attempt to use it without knowing exactly what they are doing. (Basically I can trust the person not to fuck up using my code). Those users who want to see my code are always free to contact me about any program that I have developed. If you want to get a group of users together who know python and are willing to take the time for a crash course in pywikipedia and a fairly large custom framework we can try to work something out. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

In re: to Arthur's concern and further to Δ's comment, we could add a stipulation. –xeno^talk 13:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Notwithstanding prior community-imposed restrictions, Δ (talk · contribs) is permitted to operate an approved bot for the sole express purpose of clerking WP:SPI and its related pages. The source code of this bot shall be made available to the Bot Approvals Group and any administrator or trusted user who requests it.

And how would we ensure the code he is running is the same as that he discloses? And why all the secrecy anyway? What is a trusted user (plenty of admins fail that category!) Verbal chat 17:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

In the wrong hands the tools I develop can cause a lot of problems. When my NFCC bot was running it reached over 5000 edits an hour, now that kind of tool in the wrong hands can cause a major disruption, and I prefer to not give the vandals any more tools. I have other tools that would let vandals place goatse's on the main page if they where abused. I dont just hand powerful tools out to everyone (neither does wikipedia hand out sysop tools to everyone). Its a matter of trust. There are some children (age 9-13) that if you gave them a firearm they would probably kill themselves or a friend, however there are others that use firearms daily and can be trusted with them because they know what they are doing (hunters and others). ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 17:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Your hands are the wrong hands, as has been shown repeatedly. Verbal chat 19:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I have absolutely no argument that the bot is needed. I have no argument that <random-GreekLetter>Alpha|Beta|Gamma|Delta</random> has the programming skills to create/maintain it (and therefore also be able to completely eff things up badly). Personally, I currently run a bot that was programmed by someone else ... so that is, indeed, doable. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • If I might ask, which bot are you referring to? ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 16:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
    • This one :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Solution

User:X! has stated above that they are working on a bot for this. That makes this entire discussion moot, and there should be no weakening or lifting of BC/Ds restrictions. Verbal chat 17:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

what X is doing is creating crude replacement for part of what the bot will do. Ive spoken with him, and I know he is working on another major project. (CheckUser rewrite) So this is not moot. All he is doing is creating a stopgap bot until someone as the real time to develop a fully functional and fully featured bot. So its not a resolution, but rather a finger in the dyke. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 17:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Which still makes this moot, as you cannot run a bot and it addresses the concerns of the SPI folks who want to ignore the community consensus. Verbal chat 17:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Again you are making claims that you know nothing about. This will not address all the concerns. All X! is doing is filling in step one of a dozen plus step process to replace the down bot and make the SPI process better. You do not know what X! is developing, nor do you know what the SPI team need, so how on earth can you say it addresses all the things they need? You cant. What ever happened to assuming some good faith? You obviously intent to hold my past over my head forever. As I have stated, Ive changed and want to move on, Ive been away from automated processes here on en.wp for close to two years, and Ive been above board on everything for the last year, how much longer will it take to show people that I just want to go back to gnoming and be left in peace? This is a very very limited scope project and has little chance for disruption, and is the perfect way to demonstrate those changes. What else do I need to do? ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 17:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this another example of the new leaf you've turned over? It has already caused too much disruption. Verbal chat 17:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What ∆ said. This is not a permanent replacement. I have no intentions of writing the full-fledged SPI bot. Rather, I whipped this one up in about 2 hours last night. The table is but one part of the SPI bot process. What more, ∆ has been the one who has been working on this for the past howeverlongitsbeen for all the SPI team. He knows what needs to be done. I don't. Any amateur coder could look at the source and find tons of stuff to improve. It is just barely stable. ∆'s bot is (probably) much more stable, and he is dedicated to maintaining it. (X! · talk)  · @774  ·  17:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

(ee/c) This style doesn't help. I can confirm that User:X! is indeed working on the CU project, and I'm inclined to accept and agree with BC's suggestion that it's unlikely he would also be able to devote the time needed to write and fine tune an active bot for the SPI clerking process in any urgent way. Can we draw a calm line under this thread and return to the issues? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC) (disclosure: I was asked to review this thread)

What more, my time is much better spent going to a "certain other project" for the "certain user group" that is active at "certain sock blocking place"... (I bet FT2 knows what I'm talking about) (X! · talk)  · @778  ·  17:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed; the next step is for an uninvolved admin to determine if there is consensus on whether ∆ can proceed. If not, the other options can be looked at. –xeno^talk 17:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

BC has misrepresented me. X! is working on a stopgap solution. Great. Use that to find someone that has the communities tust (or at least hasn't repeatedly abused that trust). Verbal chat 17:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for Closure

My analysis indicates several strong arguments for approving the bot, along with a few arguments for maintaining the status quo. I will qualify by stating that I have !voted "support".

Supporting Reasons (22 supports in my quick count):

• SPI clerking bot sorely needed
• User is willing to code it and maintain it
• User will be closely watched by CheckUsers and SPI Clerks
• Note: Many Checkusers and SPI clerks have expressed support of this proposal
• Bot will not be interacting with users

Opposing Reasons (10 opposes in my quick count)

• Past civility issues
• Past socking issues
• Bot could be coded to suppress evidence of additional socking

Conclusion: I believe the community has expressed a consensus toward the following:

"User:Δ is allowed to develop and operate a SPI Clerking bot. He is to continue conversing with the Clerks and CheckUsers to ensure this bot fits their needs. He will provide the bot's code upon request to any administrator, SPI Clerk, or CheckUser. All active remedies concerning User:Δ and User:Betacommand remain in effect."

Have I summed this up correctly? Can we close the thread? N419BH 18:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose No, it shows that there is no consensus for lifting or relaxing the sanctions. BC/Delta should not be allowed to run this, or any other, bot. Also, the code should be supplied at the very least to any trusted user, and there should be a mechanism to show it is the same code as is running - independent of BC/D. There is no consensus at all for your wording..Verbal chat 18:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

By !vote count, it's a rather substantial majority. Not enough if this were a RfA, but this isn't one. By arguments presented, I'd say it's a clear consensus, though as I am not an admin and am furthermore involved I cannot close this. What's the worst he'll do? Screw up, make a mess, and one click of rollback along with a script will undo everything the bot ever did after a certain point. I think he's smart enough not to mess around on the page where all the CheckUsers hang out. N419BH 18:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You're ignoring the rather large consensus that applied the sanctions and restrictions in the first place, and the fact that this editor is a known abuser of bots, editors, and multiple accounts, who claims above his tools could cause havoc and only he can be trusted. It's a shame he can't be trusted. Verbal chat 19:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Support closing with proposed wording. Consensus is emerging. This isn't an RfA. It's AN. Consensus can happen at 69%. (X! · talk)  · @820  ·  18:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

No comment on the consensus, but the proposed wording is fine with me. (X! · talk)  · @801  ·  18:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC) original reason removed, final decision added

Third oppose reason should be discounted, it's fairly absurd. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 18:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It was nevertheless expressed by several individuals, and therefore needs to be mentioned. N419BH 18:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I didn't mention anything about it. (X! · talk)  · @820  ·  18:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that consensus seems to be emerging to allow Δ to proceed, but I see no reason to introduce new verbiage; the latest boxed exception seems clear enough. –xeno^talk 18:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - While agreeing the task (no-brainer) the conditions may be over-broad leading to concerns. But... the bot is not responding to arbitrary templates and edits on-wiki. It's patrolling for fixed events in the SPI subspace such as new cases or well-defined tasks required by templates, and commands given by SPI clerks and checkusers who monitor the bot's actions. It is not a bot that is likely to run rampant.

So one option might be to simply agree that BC will be given an exclusion for the purposes of developing and testing this bot, and subject to the condition that its behaviors and substantial changes to its operations must be endorsed/requested by Checkusers and not just "his own whim". However if conditions are required or the existing ones relaxed, these might be worth a look:

Conditions suggestion

Betacommand's (Δ's) conditions are amended to allow Δ to suggest and operate automated tools, under the following conditions:

1. The exact expected behavior(s) of the bot are to be well defined on-wiki, so that the community can be clear exactly what actions the bot will take, and any automated or semi-automated decisions involved.
2. The proposal must ensure that edits will be of a good quality and that user communications by the bot and responses to issues will be appropriate and timely,
3. Code and specification must be kept free and open source (except as agreed for project benefit, in which case free and disclosed to all Bot Approval Group members),
4. Variations to the specification or operation after approval (including changes by Δ to messages, templating, and user interaction) must be specified and well defined, and require approval on-wiki with at least 24 hours for consultation and consensus.
5. Tools that require human supervision or decision-making must have their editing decisions supervised or directed by another user than Δ unless the community agrees. (An exception is more likely to be made for slow or infrequent rates, non-contentious, or clerical tasks, where supervision is largely mundane and does not require much judgment, or where risk is low.)
6. Any new or modified tool (or use of an existing tool for a new task or in a modified manner) must be approved on a case-by-case basis on each occasion. (Modification here means any change to its functioning and actions on the wiki). Failure may lead to a revoke of this permission.
7. Δ's civility conditions are unaffected.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Nothing wrong with letting this sit a bit more. AN has (quite pleasantly, actually) morphed into a lower traffic board. Protonk (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree; let's not unnecessarily rush to a conclusion.

And do I understand correctly from the above that X! is working on a bot to accomplish this same task? If so, doesn't that make this a moot conversation? ElKevbo (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Only a subset and as a stopgap, but that should give enough leeway for a suitable candidate to be found - so yes it does make this moot. Verbal chat 19:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Best don't assume any work or input on the SPI clerk side from User:X!. He hasn't committed to that and has his hands full on other rather more complex code-writing for the project. What he's done on this is a small part of what's needed and even on that it's only a crude stopgap. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Verbal, we have said this many times. We already attempted to find a candidate 6 months ago. 6 months passed since then, no volunteers. Unless you want to call the 6-month period as "not enough time given" for discussion, it's time for you to drop that argument and move on. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

And you still haven't found anyone. It's time you drop the argument of lifting well justified and supported community applied restrictions imposed against a frequent abuser of editors, abuser of multiple accounts and abuser of bots and automated edits. X! has offered a temporary solution, while you try harder to replace the bot. Verbal chat 21:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The idea that someone would try to do something underhanded or untoward with an automated process while under the watchful eye of an entire team of people devoted to rooting out sneaky behaviour just strikes me as bizarre. And finding someone with enough personal time available that they are willing to donate towards developing complicated automated processes for areas that probably don't interest them is not easy. At this point, I think you have made your position quite clear - it may be best to step back to see if consensus has been achieved yet. –xeno^talk 21:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that that angle is a bit of a red herring. Even if BC tried to hide an SPI against him for whatever reason, the initiator of that request would likely be at ANI a half second later, while other problematic behaviours would already be evident. FWIW, I would support FT2's conditions proposal though I remain uneasy with how easily past transgressions are overlooked because SPI wants a convenience. Resolute 22:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

We spend 6 months and you still think we didn't try hard enough to replace the bot? Not convincing at all. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 22:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth I spent a year trying to find someone to do some improvements to some code, and it isn't easy even if you ask everyone, all the time. On other tasks I'm going to have to teach myself coding because free coders who can implement these kinds of sophisticated tasks aren't hanging round waiting for the doorbell to ring and a year to learn will be quicker. It isn't necessarily easy to fill a competent coding gap. Low risk bot, close supervision, little harm due to ease of "pulling rug", close scrutiny, and well defined clerical tasks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about you, Ohana, but BC's history. The question is not "do we need this bot?", the question is "can we trust this user?" As I said, I'm willing to give him the chance under the right terms, but surely you can understand why people are uneasy given the history. Resolute 02:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I remain uneasy with how easily past transgressions are overlooked because SPI wants a convenience - that very accurately describes my view although I fall on the side of not wanting to allow this proposal to succeed. We're compromising our principles for the sake of expediency and that's a terrible path for us to go down. ElKevbo (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Betacommand does good work, I'd support lifting the ban entirely - it is easy enough to put it back if things don't work out. This sounds like a type of bot that has little chance of causing controversy, and so should be the perfect first step to removing the ban. Prodego ^talk 21:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Support N419BH's motion to close, and their closing statement. I'd add that this gives Δ a clear way to demonstrate to the community that they have been "rehabilitated", without substantial risk to the community. If it works out, great: SPI benefit, the community benefits. If it doesn't work out, SPI suffer but the damage to the community is limited. TFOWR 22:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support motion to close per N419BH. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support motion to close This covers all the supports and a lot of the opposes. --Rschen7754 01:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support closing as specified. I really don;t see how it can cause us any harm. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support closure per N419BH. The need at SPI greatly outweighs any concern I may have that this user will try to do malicious things with his bot, especially with a whole team of sockpuppet investigators watching him. Kindzmarauli (talk) 05:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support closure per TFOWR. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Strong oppose I see no reason to trust this user or to override community consensus. Verbal chat 09:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Discussion on closure

So we couldn't discuss what is clearly a very contentious issue even for two days? ElKevbo (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

OPPOSE This was closed far too quickly and I have invoked IAR to re-open. KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 20:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

SUPPORT This has been open for a good while and the close was good IMO, ignoring the rules won't alter consensus decisions. Off2riorob (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Reverted reopening. There was very strong consensus for closing the issue, thus, reopening was going against consensus. (X! · talk)  · @898  ·  20:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It's obvious to me that those opposed to the issue were also implicitly opposed to prematurely closing the discussion. I don't understand what's wrong with allowing discussion and closing this before the discussion has run its course and everyone has had a chance to have their say is distasteful, unnecessary, and only adds further controversy to an already-controversial issue. (Personally, it's hard not to read it as a "fuck you, we don't care about your opinion" to the minority, but that's probably just me.) ElKevbo (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

"I don't understand what's wrong with allowing discussion and closing this before the discussion has run its course and everyone has had a chance to have their say" - the discussion appeared to have run its course, with plenty of discussion, lots of people, and a clear conclusion visible. Who had not had a chance to have their say? More to the point, since WP:NOTAVOTE, what is it that they could have said that would have induced many people to change their minds? Unless there is some suggestion of canvassing, I see no reason to believe that letting the discussion run for 7 days instead of 2 would make any difference whatsoever, except to increase the majority, which seemed the trend. If you want to try and persuade those who supported closure in these circumstances that they were wrong, well fine, but your statement above suggests you have nothing of substance to add to what has already been said. consensus does not require unanimity. Rd232 ^talk 21:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

There was a very strong consensus as determined by an uninvolved administrator. The discussion ran for two days (see timestamps for the first post and the closing admin's post) and viewpoints were discussed. At this point continued debate is not going to change the consensus expressed. It's time to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Also note no one is reprimanding you for your Good Faith move to reopen the debate. It's simply a matter of the debate has run its course and a strong consensus has emerged. N419BH 20:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Honestly every decision where the opinions of the minority aren't incorporated could be interpreted as a big "fuck you" to the minority. Preferably we would be able to settle on some compromise solution, but that isn't the way the decision ended up. As for the 7 days vs 2, I agree. This should have left to sit longer. There wasn't too much of a rush. That said, it isn't the end of the world. Protonk (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

As a hypothetical, in what possible way could the minority view be practically incorporated in a compromise solution? Rd232 ^talk 08:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, not very many ways in this scenario. I don't see "have ßC write the bot and someone else run it" as a compromise, but another compromise might have been to allow the bot to be run, but hold an RfC in 3 or 6 months time after the bot gets going proper to give some structured feedback. But if the minority view is "ßC never operates a bot again ever" then there are not many avenues to compromise. Protonk (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, as an interested party who just stumbled upon this discussion, I would say there is one very important issue with this proposal that have not been addressed: Betacommmand/Delta's poor record in handling criticism over problems with his bots. Whenever a problem was brought to his attention, Delta would often ignore the complaint, or respond with a terse, condescending comment. It was for this exact problem which led to his first bot being taken from his control, & was a major reason for his now revoked community ban from Wikipedia. And having seen his practice of "trouting" Admins for not protecting images on the Front Page by slapping a large image on WP:AN (here is one example), I sincerely believe that he hasn't learned anything. I believe that complaints about problems with this bot -- both reasonable & bogus -- would simply lead to more WikiDrama & resurrection of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand. Yes, he is available to write bots, & he probably is capable of writing quite good ones; however, I most emphatically believe that there are far more capable people who should run it due to his poor interpersonal skills. (And I'd like to point out that I'm very surprised that no one on either side of this discussion thought to mention this problem with Betacommand/Delta.) -- llywrch (talk) 02:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

For the record, the very first oppose said "responding appropriately to criticism remains a significant challenge to BC/whatshisname." My understanding of the subsequent discussion was that on balance the view was that the need for an SPI bot is high enough to outweigh the risks; risks which are considered relatively low because it is a focussed task in a specific arena where visibility of any misdoings would be high. Rd232 ^talk 08:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Huh? I'm pretty sure that most people in this discussion recognize this as a primary problem w/ ßC--after all, if he didn't have a communication problem vis a vis bots, we wouldn't need an AN thread just to get the BAG thread going. The whole decision has been a balance between dealing with what problems may crop up against the obvious good which will come of ßC coding bots again. That's assuming you don't think he's changed. Protonk (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

  Will I be allowed to say "I told you so" when he reverts to his true nature, getting Wikipedia volunteers at each other's throats over his antics, or quitting because of him? As badly as a coder is arguably needed here, the price for his services is too high & it will take an appalling amount of time to fix the damage that resulted. BTW, once word gets out that the descision to let BC/Delta to run a bot again was closed after two days, the 20-odd folks who supported this will learn what grief is; there is still that much ill will against him. -- llywrch (talk) 04:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

  Feel free. I'm going to WP:AGF and see if he can program something awesome. Note that this bot doesn't have to talk to anyone, it's just clerking. Also he's been unbanned for a year. N419BH 04:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose early close Per User_talk:Rd232#ANI_Betacomand_discussion, the closer has ignored people who didn't specifically vote, which is incorrect as I shouldn't have to remind anyone here, and has said there was only one oppose to closing - clearly the at least 9 other opposes should have been included. The discussion should be reopened and run for a reasonable time (at least 5 days). Verbal chat 10:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • "he closer has ignored people who didn't specifically vote" - no I didn't, I said " 6 explicit supports for N419BH's motion to close + 4 implicit supports (for closure), against 1 explicit oppose and 1 "let's wait a bit" (>12 hrs before my close)". I didn't count supporters/opposers of the motion itself (for which there was a clear majority), unless they commented in the Closure section. Clearly, the "implicit" part directly contradicts your claim. Rd232 ^talk 11:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: part of the reason I closed the discussion was because it had got quite messy, the discussion was no longer moving forward, and the trend was clearly drifting towards a support for the proposal. The only thing I can suggest at this point is that possibly an RFC on this issue would be a better way to handle its complexity and volume of opinion than an AN thread. Whether it's worth doing now is another question, but I would personally support creating one if the general view was that it was worth the effort, because of the controversy associated with this case. At least, it would permit a re-opening of the issue in an organised way, summarising previously made points - much better than merely re-opening the current TL:DR thread, which I cannot see as producing any other outcome than the current one. It might seem a lot of effort for a bot approval, but clearly feelings are strong on the matter, so it could be justifiable. (In case it isn't clear, I'm imagining the possible RFC on a standalone page, with clearly stated positions and proposals (like the BLP RFC but hopefully shorter!), not just a new thread with an RFC tag in it.) Rd232 ^talk 11:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

rd232 is right. Additional discussion is not going to change community consensus. It's time to drop the WP:STICK. N419BH 13:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

@llywrch: I can't speak for anyone else, but I commented with a "weak support" to allow Betacommand to do this one task, and I am very aware of his past history, specifically his problem with dealing with criticism and complaints; also, I consistently commented in the past in favor of various sanctions against him. In this case, his "audience" will be a very tightly focused one and the task quite specific, so I didn't rate that particular factor highly in reaching my judgment. I assume that some others who !voted "support" made their own evaluations on a similar basis; that is, I don't think that all the "support" comments were coming from people who were in the "pro-Betacommand come hell or high water" camp in the past.

As for the close -- the trend was clear, I suppose it could have sat around for another couple of days, but it was likely that all it would attract would be more "yes it is"/"no it isn't"-type discussion. We'd finished the argument phase, and had descended into the "automatic gainsaying" phase. 'Close was good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

One other note: I fully understand that the ardent opposition to this is based on the "fool me 47 times, take a hike" theory, which I actually agree with, but it seems to me that if Betacommand has turned over a new leaf, this is an excellent way to find out, in a very sharply delineated circumstance. I will reiterate my concern that this baby step not be considered to be a mere pro forma action to give Beta automatic entree back into the community: instead, each new step needs to be incremental, and be as closely considered as this one was. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't !vote per se; I did, however, !vote supporting the proposal to close the discussion.

• I didn't !vote in the original proposal because I was so close to neutral. I do remember one at least of the many shit-storms arising from Beta and bots, and my memory was clouding my ability to make an objective decision based on now, not then.
• I !voted in the closing proposal because - frankly - it reflected consensus very well, and - if I'm honest - reflected how I should have !voted earlier.

By the time the close proposal was made few if any new faces were commenting. We were rehashing arguments already made, and I don't honestly believe many new faces or new arguments were going to emerge. TFOWR 14:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue wasn't "fool me 47 times, take a hike"; the issue was that most of the blocks issued to BC/Delta were quickly undone & defended with the rationale, "he's doing important work, so how he acts doesn't matter". Had a few of the early blocks been left to run their course, I believe there is a chance they would have served as a clue stick & encouraged him to change. Instead, a number of Wikipedians jumped to defend him -- some citing WP:AGF, as one has done above -- only for BC/Delta to become convinced he had a blank check to behave however he wanted. And as I pointed out above, the way he handles a trivial issue -- promptly protecting images used on the Front Page -- shows he has not changed. Any Admin who discovers BC/Delta's bot malfunctioning & in need of a block knows that he will lose a sizable chunk of his life in the resulting debate, & will avoid that hassle simply by looking the other way. -- llywrch (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

While I think the bulk of your comment has a lot of merit (we do make obvious carte blanche for some editors and they behave accordingly), leaving unprotected images on the main page is not a trivial issue. It is a security hole through which any person (usually the unprotected images aren't even semi-protected) could arbitrarily insert content onto the front page of one of the biggest websites in the world. The solution is trivial: write a bot which accepts a queue of images, uploads them locally and protects them before pushing them to the main page, but the problem is not. But more generally, I wonder how your assessment holds up a year after ßC's block and return? He hasn't been allowed to operate outside a pretty limited sphere of activities and he certainly hasn't been operating a bot. Does this sound at all like the scenario you describe? Protonk (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It's one thing to monitor for security holes, & post notices on WP:AN about them; it's another to insist that to properly convey the message a large, page-filling image of a trout must be used. And when the Admin handling the chore points out that the security hole existed for an unavoidable moment while the problem was being handled, wouldn't the proper response be to say something along the lines of, "Okay thanks"? rather than (1) to be unnecessarily defensive about monitoring for unprotected images, & (2) complain that the Admin wasn't handling the chore in the proper way? (That is the impression that this incident, which I linked to above, left me.) I'm not the only one to have thought the incident could have been handled far more gracefully: another Admin closed the thread with these thoughtful words: "I just want to clarify that I do not think anyone updating the main page is doing a bad job. Hope no one took it that way." (emphasis original) I'm not looking to hassle BC/Delta; I've got far better things to do with the time I can spend on Wikipedia. I sincerely doubt he has learned anything from being blocked & then returning, not even that there is a problem, & nothing that I've seen has convinced me otherwise. And I still stand by my demand above: if you let him run a bot the way he wants to run it, while I won't stop you, I want to be able to say "I told you so." Maybe even in the same size of space that his trout image takes up. -- llywrch (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Proposal: Per the comments above, an actual RfC should be run to determine whether this should go ahead or not. The close was improper. Verbal chat 14:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • How exactly was it improper? Say why is was improper, not just that it was improper. (X! · talk)  · @641  ·  14:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • (ec) If you want to continue beating the dead horse and open a RfC go right ahead and do that. There was strong support for the motion to close. Note the motion allows a SPI bot only, no other bots are allowed. Continued discussion is not going to change community consensus. This bot is a good bot for Beta/Delta to run specifically because it does not need to interact with users. People are capable of change if we give them the chance (See User:Jack Merridew). Furthermore, the only people Delta's bot will interact with have expressed their support of Beta/Delta running said bot. N419BH 14:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: FWIW, it occurs to me that I hadn't actually explicitly said that I have no horse in this heated race at all; and with the contesting of the closure, I guess it's worth saying. I haven't (AFAIR...) interacted with beta/delta, commented on or otherwise had anything to do with the bot saga, and I have no particular interest in SPI. I purely happened by and saw a thread that looked like it was ready to close. Rd232 ^talk 14:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think that anyone is accusing you or anyone else of a conflict of interest and if it seems like I have then please accept my apologies as that was not my intent! ElKevbo (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Although I am one of the primary instigators of this "Whoa, closed too soon!" discussion, I do not support an RFC or further action. I think the point has been made even if it hasn't been received. And to be completely clear, the point is not that the discussion was closed with a decision contrary to my opinion but that it was closed so quickly. I agree that it is unlikely that the majority opinion would change if the discussion were open longer but that's not the point. The point is that process matters and allowing everyone time to have their say - even if it may not necessarily change things - is important. It's important because voicing our opinion is the only power that some of us have and denying people that ability is damaging in so many ways that I don't really know where to begin. To put it simply, there are many benefits and very few detriments to allowing conversation to continue whereas closing discussion prematurely has few benefits and many detriments. Process matters and it saddens me that some people don't, won't, or can't understand that. ElKevbo (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Δbot has been open for public comment since 12 July (and indeed is still open for comment, if anyone feels the need - the exception granted above does not necessarily mean that the bot will be approved). At the present time, only the slightest of exceptions has been made to the existing community-imposed restrictions. The bot is being written and operated in a very secluded corner of the wiki on request from users who are aware of the history. Any further bot requests from Δ will require additional community discussion, and any suggestions as to how that future potential discussion should be conducted are welcome (perhaps at WT:BRFA or WT:BAG). –xeno^talk 16:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Outside Comment Must we have a discussion on whether or not to close the earlier discussion?--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 15:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on discussion of closure

I think that the discussion of the discussion is obviously flawed... i mean, look at it! It's not even split into support and oppose sections! (X! · talk)  · @845  ·  19:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Heh. :) -- llywrch (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Well how about the below? Rd232 ^talk 21:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Further discussion to take place at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Δbot as required. Anyone who has anything new to say, or merely wants to express their opinion, can do so there. Rd232 ^talk 21:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

• The BRFA should be a place where people can make technical comments or requests, not serve as a forum for people invested in the social issues of the request (either pro or con). It is best to just let things peter out. No need for more closure sections or new comment sections. If someone has a technical comment or concern, they can go to the BRFA. Otherwise it doesn't help to rerun the discussion at another venue. Protonk (talk) 22:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Umm... community comments and social issues is exactly what BRFA is for. From WP:BOTPOL: "The decision to approve a request should take into account the requirements above, relevant policies and guidelines, and discussion of the request." (emphasis added) AN is for discussing bans and restrictions. BRFA is for discussing the social issues with a bot. (X! · talk)  · @088  ·  01:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Then this whole discussion should have happened at the BFRA. So let me rephrase. BFRA is for discussing social issues with a bot, but this whole discussion will have been a waste of time if we just go on to the BFRA and recapitulate the past discussion for the sake of doing so. Protonk (talk) 03:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been determining whether there is consensus to lift/relax or provide an exemption from community-imposed restrictions. Now that this has been done, the BRFA can potentially be approved. It won't necessarily be, and social aspects can still be discussed there if there is some new information or argument that has yet to be presented... And for what's it's worth, this proposal about the proposal about the discussion about the discussion was a bit of a light-hearted joke, (I think). –xeno^talk 13:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually the proposal was serious, in noting that there is an appropriate outlet for new information relevant to the issue, should any arise. The format was prompted by the preceding jokey exchange, which was possibly unwise... Rd232 ^talk 16:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

BRFA is intended to discuss the policy and technical aspects of the bot itself - the restrictions on any editor should not be taking place there. A the conceptual aspects of a bot can be approved there, but the actual implementation depends in this case on restrictions being lifted. I can't say I saw a lot of people saying "yes, lift". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You should look again, because that's what the consensus was, for a tightly-focused exemption on the restrictions. I believe ArbCom is well on its way to approving that as well, if they haven't already. [2] Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, incorrect venue to discuss community sanctions and editor restrictions. Verbal chat 15:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Moved from WP:AN.

Arbitration Enforcement Request notification

Please be aware of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Δ. 67.80.250.138 (talk) 08:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Over there, there's the line "This seems evidently stale, given that the rules have been superceded by the new Arbcom motion, which has explicitly authorized Δbot." Where is that action recorded? Who was responsible for it? This goes beyond the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 4#Provisional suspension of community ban: Betacommand, with "(iii) prohibited from operating bots or running automated scripts of whatever nature". What seems to have happened is that Betacommand, who has somehow been released from his community ban, Arbcom ban, sockpuppet ban, and bot ban, is apparently being allowed a new identity and is running a 'bot again. And, as usual, he immediately screwed up and the 'bot did something unwanted. Also Δ (talk · contribs), the new identity of Betacommand, is not a change of name, it's a new account. So the long block history of Betacommand Betacommand (talk · contribs) and the mentoring restrictions [3] aren't associated with the account. --John Nagle (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Found the actual Arbcom motion.[4]. Betacommand, previously blocked for using sockpuppets, is being allowed to use a 'bot to edit records associated with sockpuppet investigations. What's going on here? --John Nagle (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

See [5] for some background on the "account swap" and the above #Relaxing or rescinding of community-imposed restrictions on User:Betacommand / Δ. –xeno^talk 18:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

John, you're just fulfilling my prediction that there'd be blowback once news of this new ruling leaked out to the larger Wikipedia community. Y'know, if people worked half as hard to retain some of our truly valuable editors as they did to bring this person back & running a bot, Wikipedia would be a far more collegial & pleasant environment to work in. (Well, maybe not; but I for one would be half as cynical.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I seriously don't know what you are all worried about. He will be banned within a year - you only have to look at his contribs to see he has not changed one bit, certainly not in personality or community skills, and doubtfully in coding or operations skills. His spelling has even got worse, if that's possible. His choice of the incremental change symbol as his new username is deliciously ironic tbh, as in many math problems, it by necessity, becomes a vanishingly small quantity. He's already breached many of his conditions in subtle ways, he is already interpreting his release conditions in ways others had never imagined, and is unsurprisingly calling WP:HARASSment at every turn. Sound familiar? The way he acheived his rename was, shall we say, creative, and his template announcing it on his userpage is just a very typical flip off of the community, it was all very 2008 watching that episode unfold. He just recently 'accidentaly' editted using his bot account, he is running all sorts of god knows what scripts at god knows what speeds to help 'cleanup' the pedia, supposedly checking all his work. And when acting like a human and interacting with other humans, particularly the ones asking him to do stuff he doesn't like, he still has all the same ... skills ... he had when booted out. The only thing I worry about is that nobody is bothering to monitor him. In my first time checking on him in months when he came back, to my total lack of surprise, I found on the first page of his recent 50 contribs an example of him reverting 'vandalism' that wasn't WP:VANDALISM. Again, sound familiar? I didn't bother pointing it out at the time, everyone was just jolly glad they now had someone to code a clerking bot and I didn't want to spoil the party getting all Jeff butterfly Goldblum in people's grilles, and there certainly seemed to be no appetite for reminiscing in that thread and comparing our memories with the all new 2010 model. Even with a fancy new name, and a new zest for getting on and improving the pedia (he says that a lot now it seems), he's a dead man walking tbh, and it's really time that the people who already know this just took a chill pill, and let his supporters worry about what he's going to mess up until he's done for again. Unbanning him is hardly the biggest mistake this new arbcom has made, but it's going to be Top 5 I reckon, come election time. MickMacNee (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have the evidence MickMacNee, email it to me & if it checks out I'll drop the hammer on him myself. I've pissed off more powerful Wikipedians than him & his enablers, & I'm still around. -- llywrch (talk) 04:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

All the info you need is at the abovementioned Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Δ. 67.80.250.138 (talk) 01:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You mean this? Not only has it been dealt with, it doesn't match the allegations MickMacNee made above. -- llywrch (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

New unauthorized bot-like activity.

Here's some new bot-like activity.[6]. Some program is being used to turn http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rick_McCrank&diff=prev&oldid=378641360 into <ref name=autogenerated2>[http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0566898/ Rick McCrank]</ref>. This is well-intentioned, but inept. A reference to IMDB which previously looked bad has been turned into something that looks better, but isn't quite right. The reference text is just "Rick McCrank", and doesn't mention the source, IMDB, at all. There's obviously some automation here, since the name "autogenerated" appears. The edit comment is simply "Cleanup".

Other edits include adding and removing whitespace, and converting some whitespace to  [7]. Most of these changes are unnecessary, such as converting "==Title==" to "== Title ==". That just runs up edit counts and generates big diffs to no purpose.

Here's a big deletion [8], where the "77 Wonders of Znojmo" were deleted with the deceptive edit comment of "Cleanup". There, it looks like some links to nonexistent images triggered the deletion of a sizable block of text.

This is all on Betacommand's user account Δ (talk · contribs), not his bot account. Please check the contributions for other damage. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing Delta's edit history, if he's editing with a bot it's a very slow one: changes are being made at a rate of once every several minutes, versuses the objectionable several edits every minute. However, a look at his edit history revealed these problematic edits. Exactly why does he need these configurations to Twinkle? I have reverted these changes & protected the page until an explanation in satisfactory detail is provided. (In other words, document your changes.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Betacommand's prior editing restrictions, listed in full here, contains the following:

"2: For one year, you are ... (iii) prohibited from running automated scripts of whatever nature"

This motion was carried 11 July 2009. It has now expired. If you'd like, you can ask for an amendment to Betacommand's restrictions to indefinitely prevent him from using automated tools, but the restriction on him using automated tools placed 11 July 2009 has expired. The amendment to these restrictions did not contain language extending the ban on automated edits. Betacommand is within his rights to use automated editing tools. User:Δ/monobook.js needs to be unprotected, pending clarification (if desired) from ArbCom. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm .. the first edits groups some references. That seems .. functional (the chosen name could indeed be chosen better). The second repairs 'xx inch' to 'xx&nbsp;inch'. Which is making it displaying correctly and consistently, seems like a good change (and adds some other whitespace). The third one deletes more than it says, indeed; the basis does the same as the second, plus it deletes an, what seems to me, an inappropriate listing. In basis I do not see anything wrong with those three edits, John Nagle. An exception might be that the restrictions stop Δ from using an automated script (which indeed does part of the edits), but it seems that that restriction is gone. Where is the problem if that latter is true? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

BC/D is still under the community-imposed restrictions listed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2#Other_restrictions/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2#Community-imposed_restrictions which have not been rescinded.. No comment as to whether anything applies here. –xeno^talk 21:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• This is a case where community imposed sanctions and ArbCom are not in concert. For example, ArbCom instituted a 4 edit per 10 minute throttle. That throttle has expired, but the community one hasn't? I should think ArbCom's decision outweighs the community's. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• The ArbCom motion specifically suspended the community ban on Betacommand, not superceded it. If required, I could find the discussions where BC attempted and failed to have his ban lifted prior to his approaching ArbCom. Therefore, if folk wish to wikilawyer this issue, it would be reasonable for an admin to re-instate the community ban - now that the ArbCom motion had expired - and invite consensus for its lifting. BC/Delta may be wise to consider this perspective, in that a resumption of the behaviours and issues that lead to the indefinite ban may more quickly result in it being re-instated since there has been no consensus to have it lifted - merely put aside by an ArbCom motion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with your comment regarding the perspective. However, this approach also leaves Betacommand in a permanent grey area; effectively, he must maintain himself as if under all restrictions else face re-institution of the restrictions. Honestly, I think ArbCom needs to step forward and make it very clear what Betacommand can and can not do at this point, and what activities would invite review. I think at this point nobody knows for sure, much less Betacommand himself. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• LessHeard vanU is correct. The community ban is still in effect (which was discussed at length by ArbCom in both actions). ArbCom simply carved a specific exception into the community ban. If this is outside of the exception, it should be hashed out by the community. I believe ArbCom made this clear, and if it was not clear, I hope it is now. Cool Hand Luke 04:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Llywrch, did you have a reason to believe that the rest of the content you removed was also violating the restrictions, or was there another reason for removing ~48000 bytes of his monobook, most of which was unrelated to twinkle? I just noticed that on his talk page, you stated, "It is not my responsibility to understand the code, but it is yours to document it." - I'm sorry, what? It is most definitely your responsiblity to understand it. A community sanction about automated tools does not give you the right to blunder about in an area you haven't taken the time to understand or seek assistance with, arbitrarily deleting whatever you feel like just because you can. Can you explain the reasoning behind your decision not to ask a neutral user what to delete, please? Ale_Jrb^talk 21:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it is his responsibility to show he is not violating any of the restrictions placed on him. He provides the comments needed, he gets the ability to edit the file back. And one does not need Twinkle to edit Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it is your responsiblilty to understand what he is showing you, and if you don't, seek clarification. It is: a) obvious that he has not used twinkle recently, even if it is installed, and b) obvious which parts of the monobook were twinkle, and should thus be removed if that's what you're doing. If it isn't obvious to you, then you must get someone to help you. You don't crack a walnut with a sledgehammer because you don't know how to use the walnut-opener - you find someone who does. Please reverse your actions, and I will then remove the relevant part of the monobook so the discussion regarding that can proceed. Ale_Jrb^talk 22:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think delta's monobook should have been touched by someone that doesn't understand what it even was. I say it should be unlocked and replaced and delta should be allowed to simply explain what it is. Off2riorob (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm unsure what the point of this action was. What part of the monobook.js allowed for automated edits? What specific restrictions were the edits to the monobook.js in violation of? Also, what part of "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed" describes your statement that ßC needs to justify the changes then he "gets" to use the file? Protonk (talk) 22:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I've unprotected. The removed portions of the monobook.js that I recognize (apart from Twinkle) are not related to automated editing, and the portions I don't recognize look like "ease of use" features rather than automated scripts. --Carnildo (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's just lock him up and throw away the key

This is tiresome. The admin action has been reversed. If you think that User:Llywrch committed some unforgivable sin then there are other venues to explore. Protonk (talk) 01:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

When I discovered that Llywrch had protected User:Δ/monobook.js, I posted to his talk page against that action [9]. I could understand if User:Llywrch wished to centralize discussion here on this board, and had closed that discussion with that in mind. But, that's not what happened. Instead, Llywrch chose to close the discussion by way of insulting me (accusing me of being incapable of understanding who deserves good faith). He can do what he wants with his talk page, and frankly I don't care about the insult. Junior league stuff far beneath him, and I'm surprised he descended to such drivel. But, what shocked me was his apparent intent to never assume good faith when it comes to Betacommand. To quote, "Waiting to hear from someone who understands who deserves good faith -- & who does not". Apparently Betacommand is not entitled to be treated under the terms of WP:AGF. Since some of the editing restrictions have been lifted, there's been a growing upswing in attempts to attack Betacommand. Even here, I find it upsetting that an announcement was made on this board without an attempt by either Nagle (the OP above) or Llywrch who protected the monobook page to inform him of the discussion here. Is there some restriction I am unaware of that prohibits Betacommand from enjoying common courtesy, from enjoying WP:AGF? Should we just be done with this charade and permanently block him since so many people are out for his head on a platter? Or, alternatively, recognize the insane amount of scrutiny this editor has been under for the last year, having not been blocked in a year despite this intense scrutiny, and recognize that the restrictions he has been asked to hold to have in fact been held to. In short, when does Betacommand stop being steam rolled and treated like a cretin, and start enjoying some of the protections from insipid attacks that others enjoy here without question? I'm surprised Betacommand hasn't pulled a Steven Slater and said to hell with this place. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Yea, the monobook was not dropping any wheels off. Off2riorob (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC) The only civil thing that can be said in response to Hammersoft's rant is that Hammersoft is routinely & incredibly uncritical of anything Betacommand/Delta does. Hammersoft would help Betacommand/Delta's greatly if he stopped defending him period. -- llywrch (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC) One might conclude that, yes. But it's not the case. I have also NOT stood up for Betacommand when I felt he was in the wrong. What sickens me is the lynch mob mentality that has been used for a long time to railroad Betacommand out of here. He is not without faults. He has numerous faults. More than I can readily count. But, regardless of his faults it does not give leave for people to attack him as he has been, with such an incredible amount of hatred. For example, it's blatant how biased you are against him. Yet, you felt it right and proper for you to be the one to institute protection on his monobook.js page. That was a serious failure on your part. As administrator Ale jrb and User:Off2riorob noted, you were out of line. If you want to truly do the right thing, then unprotect his monobook,js and let someone more neutral handle it. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Yea, if your overly involved then don't use your tools. Off2riorob (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC) "Overly involved"? If anything, I've stayed away from him as much as I can, & done as little about him as I can. Please look at my response to NickMacNee above. I never received a response from him, & the response from the Anon IP was unhelpful, so I didn't act. Had I truly been prejudiced against Betacommand/Delta, I would have blocked him on that complaint. I'm being more than fair: he can still edit, & AFAICS can still run his bot to his heart's content. Unlike too many people with a remarkable case of myopia, I simply don't care if he edits Wikipedia or not. -- llywrch (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Llywrch, I think as well that if you did not understand what was going on in the monobook, that you then had no reason to unilaterally revert it, let alone to protect the page (.. and that without warning first). For as far as you describe your understanding of the code, he may have written 48000 bytes of comments there. Also note, there is a difference between automated edits and assisted edits. Have you looked what the script does, Llywrch? I think that asking for an explanation first, and maybe giving delta a suggestion to explain a bit using e.g. edit summaries, would have been in place. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC) And now two adminstrators and another editor have found fault with Llywrch's actions. Ball's in your court, Llywrch. --Myopic editor (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Hammersoft, that sort of agressive comment provides nothing relevant to the discussion and does nothing to defuse the situation. If I were not assuming good faith, I might see it as intended only to needle at and generally annoy another user. I would retract it if I were you, tbh. Ale_Jrbtalk 22:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC) My intent is not to needle Llywrch in any derogatory way. My intent is to encourage him, as was done by other people above, to undo his actions. They are clearly out of line. Your suggestion that I retract the comment is no different than my suggestion he retract his actions. I'm curious as to what your evaluation of "Unlike too many people with a remarkable case of myopia" is? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Honestly? I somewhat agree that many of the users on both sides of this rather-pointless-yet-ongoing debate get altogether too involved - on both sides. Regardless, that appears to me an offhand possibly over-the-top choice of words, and I wouldn't have said it, but it wasn't a comment made (as I read it, and I freely admit I may well be wrong) solely to further an argumentative tone in the discussion, which has incidently wandered somewhat off-course. Basically, in a discussion, saying 'ball's in your court' is rather an agressive challenge to the other person, in my opinion. I don't think it helps here. Edit conflict: your addendum? Just no. It really is different. The comment I'm referring to makes no polite suggestion that the action should be reversed - it is blatantly confrontational. Ale_Jrbtalk 22:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Here I agree with Ale jrb, Hammersoft. Your conclusion/perception that Llywrch's actions or remarks are out of line should, in my opinion, not be a reason for you to remark in a similar way. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC) I do defend Betacommand; Llywrch is right in that. I do it when I see it necessary. I don't do it when he's in the wrong. I'm also one of the few people who don't give a rats ass what someone thinks and is willing to point out a wrong has been committed, even if that generates hatred towards me. "What is right is not always popular. What is popular is not always right". That quote is of unknown origin, but applies very well here, and for me. Since I don't give a damn if I'm popular, the equation remains "what is right is right". Llywrch's actions were out of line. It can hardly be expected that I can bring attention to that without, in some sense of the word, being confrontational. By the very definition of confront, I must confront in order to express disapproval with the decisions and actions. Is my intent to deride, insult, belittle, or otherwise add fire? No. All that said, I find it very odd that I find myself being chastised for saying "Ball's in your court", but no reprobation has occurred with regards to Llywrch's implication that I lack the ability to understand who deserves good faith, that my initial statement in this thread was a "rant", and an implication that I am myopic. I think that's enough meta discussion on the nature of my intent and Llywrch's comments. I hope anyways. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Hammersoft, if that is how you feel, then raising that, as a separate issue, on Llywrch's talkpage would be the first step, and a second step would be an appropriate noticeboard. I understand that you are upset, but that is a separate issue from this. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Umm, I'm not upset. If I am, it's because I'm being chastised for something that was never intended to be insulting, yet llywrch get's a free pass to insult at will. I don't care if he's given a free pass. But, if he is, I at least deserve the same. If you feel my comment was uncivil or violated WP:NPA, feel free to report it at the appropriate board. Otherwise, can we please drop the meta discussion about the intent of my comments? This is not the Hammersoft noticeboard. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC) I am not the one feeling insulted by Llywrch. And I am not giving him a free pass, I think my comments above clearly showed that I would like either an explanation, and probably a reversion of the action by Llywrch. But as I said, you suggest that you raise the civility points regarding Llywrch somewhere else, an we keep the delta-discussion here. I'm still waiting for an explanation on that part from Llywrch. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC) I suggest a long block of Llywrch since he has rather obviously demonstrated poor judgement and got it wrong badly, and doesn't seem to understand or accept that. Jon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.53.12 (talk • contribs) Christ, people waste so much time trying to micromanage this guy's actions... can't we just let him alone? If he does something damaging or disruptive, reenact the ban. If not, then we're up one contributor. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This thread went deeply off tangent, but the original point remains; do we just block Betacommand and be done with it or do we treat him as we do other editors, minus the current standing restrictions? Right, every opportunity is being taken to launch attacks against Betacommand. It's feeding frenzy. Regardless of your opinion of him, it should be blatantly obvious that such a situation is untenable. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think we are going to answer that here. But my guess is, neither. He isn't (shouldn't, perhaps) left on a hair trigger, but at the same time, no one is going to forget the parade of troubles ßC created before he was banned. The result is not going to be perfect. Some editors will act out fo frustration that what they thought was set in stone as a solution was actually quite fluid. Others will forgive and forget. Still others will be too new to even remember the original unban discussion (let alone the ban). Whatever the case, we aren't well served by debating it here. Protonk (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

name change

As Δ (Delta) has been allowed a name change I was thinking this page name should be changed also. As I have seen it is not the normal to continue to refer to users by their old names. Off2riorob (talk) 08:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Prob because most people don't know how to type a delta on a keyboard. And is anyone surprised one bit by this behavior? — Rlevse • Talk • 09:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Rlevse: WP:REDIRECT ?? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the page should be moved to his new name as all editors are allowed that usual and the old name should become a redirect to the new name.. are there any objections to this? Off2riorob (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, and perhaps a work around for "Delta" which some including me have typed out recently? LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I assume "Δ" won't cause problems for browsers etc (I assume not, since it's already in the URL for Δ's userpage etc)? So this proposal would be:

• Move Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ;
• Retain Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand as a redirect;
• Create a redirect, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Delta.

TFOWR 18:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking perhaps Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ (Delta) perhaps as the main page name. Off2riorob (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Why bother? Ideally this board would be deprecated altogether. Renaming it kind of gives the impression we think BC/D will continue to require his own noticeboard. –xeno^talk 18:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• If there is support for that then I have no objection to that either. Off2riorob (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• The evidence is that he does still need his own board.... Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, so at least lets allow hm the normal issues of renaming it to his new name and creating the redirects. Off2riorob (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Δ content policing again

Δ is once again going ballistic with content policing according to his idiosyncratic standards. A few examples:

New Zealand dollar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), eight blanket reverts within 24 hours: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]

Banknotes of the Indonesian rupiah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), six reverts within 24h: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]

Ranks in Gerakan Pramuka Indonesia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), three in 24 hours: [24] [25] [26]

While this behaviour might be tolerable if he were actually enforcing clear-cut policy, his primary justification seems to be WP:OVERUSE, an essay he himself wrote (!), and an extreme interpretation of even that. For the specific case of fair use images of banknotes in currency pages, his blanket removals go against the existing consensus that these images are OK, and they are strongly disputed by many members of the community, as per the long discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Currency notes. For Banknotes of the Indonesian rupiah, he has repeatedly removed the images despite considerable evidence that they are in fact PD! And to top it off, he uses highly misleading edit summaries, eg. describing clearly sourced and attributed fair use images as "copyvio", and regularly threatens users who revert his changes with being blocked.

This behavior is not tolerable, and us tolerating it harms Wikipedia. It's time to restrict him again or, preferably, just ban him entirely and be done with it. Jpatokal (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

My experience on Banknotes of the Indonesian rupiah, is that he ripped the article apart by removing all of the images (without notifying any relevant parties - Indonesia Wikiproject, numismatics, etc.), then reverted no less than six times, in clear violation of 3RR based only on his personal interpretation of 'overuse'. His behaviour towards others - slapping me with warning templates, reverting first discussing later, is in clear contrast to what he tolerates himself, as shown by his removal of warning and discussions above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.117.177 (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

If copyvio is claimed, or overuse of fair use images, or unexplained 'fair use', then the point is, that the burden is on the person who wants to include the images. Yes, that needs first a full removal of ALL images, but unexplained re-insertions are not to be done, the images have to stay out until proper proof is given. Those removals are hence exempt from 3RR as the insertions are against a part of non-negotiable parts of policies. As far as I can see, that is NOT done, and Delta here is in the right with the removals. Properly clean up the pages, clean up the images, make a selection of what to re-include, and to be safe, discuss the re-insertion, and then perform that. Also, 'considerable evidence' is not enough, it needs to be proper evidenced, and images can not be used as such until that is properly done. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

In short, no. WP:3RR only allow exceptions for "Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy." (emphasis in the original) This is quite clearly not the case:

1) None of the images above were copyvios by any standard, Δ just likes to use that word in his edit summaries. (And if they were, the correct response would be to tag them for deletion, which Δ has not done.)

2) WP:OVERUSE is an essay, not policy.

3) WP:NFCI explicitly lists currency as one of the approved uses of fair use images. There is no consensus on how many per article are permissible; all of the latest Δ's claimed violations were well within the latest WP Numismatics proposal of obverse and reverse of each current note.

To put it another way, if Δ's reverts were indeed "unquestionable", there would not be lots of editors like me questioning them! Jpatokal (talk) 11:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's worth pointing out at this stage that the WikiProject's opinion of the matter is not massively important. If the WikiProject guidelines say one thing, and the NFCC say another... J Milburn (talk) 11:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Hmm .. almost .. the Foundation has clearly stated that the use should be minimal, and that part is not negotiable. OVERUSE is an essay based on that principle and the underlying policies (WP:NFLISTS). Yes, there is appropriate use of non-free images, but that they are allowed does not mean that you are allowed to overuse them (images have to comply with both WP:NFCI ánd WP:NFLISTS, claiming that they comply with WP:NFCI alone is not enough). Overuse may be a questionable term, but if that is claimed, either it has to be solved, or all have to be removed and a selection has to be made. Asking an editor who may not know the specific topic to solve the problem is not a solution, barring that, the editor should remove all and ask relevant people (generally, the uploader) to solve the problem. Undiscussed re-insertions of that are disruptive.

Copyvio may be the incorrect term, but basically, fair use of images is still copyvio. You are using a copyrighted image, just that law allows the use of them under fair use (but the Wikipedia board has decided that they will go further than that, since fair use images are still not free!).

And yes, there will be more people who complain when their images are rightfully removed, than that there will be editors who are rightfully removing them, of course there will be 'lots of editors like me questioning them'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)(update --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC))

That gives a ridiculous amount of leeway for any editor who claims that anything violates any policy on the flimsiest grounds to delete anything. For example, ANZ Bank claims the copyright on a certain shade of the color blue. Using this color without permission would be a copyright violation -- does this give me the right to remove all images from Wikipedia that use that shade, or a sufficiently similar shade, as decided by me? And if my edits are reverted, can I revert them back with impunity (since I'm exempt from 3RR) and report anybody who counter-reverts to ANI (as Delta likes to do)? Surely you will agree that this would be ridiculous -- but how is it any different from what's happening now?

WP:NFC's minimal rule states "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." (emphasis mine) In my opinion, one image of a currency note does not convey "equivalent significant information" as one of image of each note, but obviously Delta disagrees. Are you really telling me that drawing this line is "unquestionably" easy? If yes, what is the limit -- one, two, four, ten? What if the notes come from different series and look radically different? What if there are three or four series in circulation?

What's particularly pernicious is that, if Delta removes a fair-use image from an article, it becomes an orphan and is automatically deleted in a few days. There is currently an RFC to settle the policy issue of how currency note images can be used, but this means that, even if the RFC decides in favor of keeping the images, they will be long gone before the discussion is complete! Jpatokal (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Jpatokal, yes, that is the case. If someone finds a copyright violation here on Wikipedia, it would be wrong to leave it there. WP:COPYRIGHT is NOT negotiable. And so are parts of WP:NFC. And there are a few more of those policies which are not negotiable. It is just a few, most of the things that we mass delete or blank are by our own free choice - not implied by forms of law, or by the Foundation. We have mass blanked such articles, deleted such images, and articles and images are deleted or blanked on a daily basis because of that. Yes, if one editor finds a certain kind of copyright violation, and would go around deleting that, then yes, that editor would be right, that is not disruptive editing, however, if an editor then knowingly reverts that, then that should be reverted on sight. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating. As it happens, the blue boxes on your home page may violate ANZ's copyright, so I've taken the liberty to changing them to a safer shade of pink. Admittedly my eyes may not be quite what they used to be, so maybe it's not exactly the same shade, but better safe than sorry right? My action in defense of WP:COPYRIGHT is not disruptive, after all, so don't you go reverting them back now. Jpatokal (talk) 11:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Ive reverted you, any further WP:POINT actions and you will be blocked. Colors cannot be copyrighted. see Threshold of originality. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 11:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)