The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

2 days, no more input, all supports - I'll declare the result now -- Tawker 17:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Since there has been no comment on the request by User:Martinp23 to join BAG, I'm just going to appoint him shortly if there is no discussion. I've looked at his contributions and they seem great to me. I wanted to repost here just to make sure no one missed this if they had any issues. -- RM 22:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• It's not a particular prominent request though is it? Very easily missed. That said, I support anyway. --kingboyk 23:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  That's why I reposted it here. :) I was concerned that people missed it, but posting it here seemed like the appropriate thing to do. -- RM 23:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• I support as well. —METS501 (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support, but would like to see this thread open for 1 week closing on 22:56 28 March 2007 (UTC) to leave room for community input. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support (as the nominator). Now that we have the attention of persons interested, we'll leave this open as requested above. -- RM 02:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support from me too. — Ocolon 07:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support, but I'd like to remind Martinp23 of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Spelian and why a large amount of care is needed in approving bots. --ais523 09:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree, hence my stated objections to such a bot running :). I think that the best way for something like this to work would be to output a list of pages which appear to contain typos, and leave a human to fix them (or report to IRC?), hence my interest in getting a list of pages potentially affected. Of course, for this to work there would need to be a communtiy proposal and peole willing to work on the output :) Martinp23 12:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support, he is a fine user (and admin) with a good bot-related experience. Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 22:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There is a discussion at WP:ANI as to whether or not Betacommand should remain on BAG as a result of the actions of the recent controversy. Since this page is the appropriate location for that kind of discussion, I have pointed any further discussion to this page. I'm withholding personal judgement on this matter until I can look into it in more detail, but others may want to comment in the meantime. -- RM 13:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) --kingboyk 14:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps part of the reason behind it is this request, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/VixDaemon_4, where Betacommand speedily approved a clone bot of Betcommandbot. This may be considered an inappropriate conflict of interest. -- RM 13:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry I did not see an issue as tawker has approved clones of his bot before. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Betacommand here. I just posted the example without comment, but since someone else approved the bot, it is pretty standard to speedily approve these sorts of things. I don't think we've ever had a situation where a bot operator speedily approved a clone of their own bot, so at worst this is uncharted territory. Perhaps in future situations like these the BAG member should recuse themselves, just in case. -- RM 17:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

He speedily approved the clone before his own bot had been approved![1] [2] He'd also been running Bot 3 without trial approval, and then proceeded to run an automated task on his own account using the data acquired from Bot 3 in a way which caused community uproar. Add to this some prior history of being blocked for misbehaving in the area of bots and it's not the prettiest of pictures I'm very sorry to have to say. Approving a clone might have been OK if it had happened some time after his Bot 3 had been approved and shown to work, but unless I'm mistaken that wasn't the case. --kingboyk 18:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a note yes I was running task three without trial approval, BUT it was only editing subpages of WP:WPSPAM and thus had no real impact on anything else. the there were no real questions about whether or not to approve task three, but only when It would be approved. I did not use that data for my link removal spree. Other users have used that data to catch spammers and identify spam issues. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

As part of the review of these issues, I noticed some discrepencies in the block log where Betacommand unblocked himself with no reason given. I don't know anything more, but it looked odd. -- RM 19:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Check note from blocking admin I have no idea what your bot is doing, but something's wrong with edits like this, so I blocked it. Please fix the whitespace issues and unblock your bot afterwards. Thank you, Kusma (討論) 17:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:BN#Another bot deflagging and WP:BN#My findings (See Below -- RM). —METS501 (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copied from WP:BN

I never asked for link removal permission only statistical use of the bot Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes but you did it anyway and at such a rate that people have assumed it was automated (was it?). You were also removing the very links (Google) that I'd cautioned against listing as spam (on the basis that Google has an official interwiki link). --kingboyk 19:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed groups.google.com as that is not a reliable source or verifiable. msnbc.msn.com is a good link while groups.msn.com is not. and by User:BetacommandBot had no part in my link removal. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say, I'm comfy w/ the stats component of the bot running only (w/ no flag for now and rate limited) I'm going to unblock the bot and request that the stats purposes only be run (I've spoken w/ BC and have a copy of the code that will be run and it was a task that ran w/ no problems before) -- Tawker 19:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Update - a copy of the code now is in kingboyk's inbox. -- Tawker 19:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it? I haven't seen it yet, will check.

I think we got some agreement by email that the application for the clone bot should be re-opened, and would probably be approved if the operator is in good standing. Betacommand's status as a bot operator is open to debate (I'll now move the thread from the bureacrat's noticeboard to here). --kingboyk 20:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Ram Man beat me to it. --kingboyk 20:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't get the code. I don't write Python anyway, sorry. --kingboyk 20:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Findings

[edit] Mets501

Throughout his bot-related history, I (Mets501) can see the following issues with Betacommand and his bot. In no particular order:

1. Betacommand has a history of blocks related to bot operations on his main account
2. BetacommandBot also has an extensive block history, including one case where Betacommand unblocked his bot with no explanation other than (because).
3. I do not find that Betacommand has a true knowledge of bot policy. He has...
   • Edited at speeds up to 51 edits per minute [3]. A little slack is OK, but this is way over the top.
   • Run an unauthorized admin deletion script on his own account [4]
   • Run a script on his own account to do a very controversial task editing at speeds averaging at about 35 edits per minute. [5]
4. As far as bot approval goes, he has
   • Approved a clone of his own bot before his own was approved (clone approved by Betacommand and later original bot approved)
   • Run a number of controversial tasks on his bot without ever requesting approval
   • Requested approval for an open-ended task, which was hardly intelligible [6]

METS501 (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Betacommand and the links on that page for a recent controversy regarding Betacommand and his use of scripts. —METS501 (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ram-Man

My findings are as follows (I'll post my full opinion below):

• In the WikiProject vs. Infoboxneeded template issue, I find no merit in the complaint. The two tasks are similar enough to be justified.
• While CSDCFD and Subst were approved tasks without discussion of the specifics (despite some people requiring this), it is not Betacommand's fault that procedure was not so neatly followed, so there is no fault here. However, many of Betacommand's bot applications have been vague on details and hard to follow. The approvals pages do not help explain what is being suggested. This is not ideal for a role model.
• An interwiki bot did run unapproved but not for long.
• One the issue of the bot updating User:Betacommand/Log, I find no merit in this complaint. This usage is fine.
• I agree with everything under #3 in Mets501's list. Betacommand was in the wrong in all of these cases.
• Looking at the block logs, nothing jumps out immediately as a problem, other than the problems listed in these findings.
• He speedily approved a bot clone before his own was approved, and then claimed above that it did not happen. Even if the bot would have been approved anyway, it was clearly a conflict of interest because it was not yet approved.
• I'm not convinced one way or another whether other unapproved tasks were performed. A scary number of edits have at least the appearance of being unauthorized.

-- RM 22:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"In the WikiProject vs. Infoboxneeded template issue, I find no merit in the complaint. The two tasks are similar enough to be justified." I would likely agree with you, but I can't find any other mention of "infobox" on this page. Could you point me in the right direction please? --kingboyk 22:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Check out link number 4 in my examples of edits to Betacommand below and the following discussion. —METS501 (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. So many diffs and points it's getting confusing :) That's not the most elegant edit I've seen (I'd prefer to see the {{infoboxneeded}} be a WikiProject parameter; and {{talkheader}} should be at the top if we can't delete the wretched thing) but the real issue, whether it's problematic, not really no. --kingboyk 22:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me state my opinion. I took a look at the type of problems I found. Most of them amount to running an unauthorized bot on the main user account. The fact that it wasn't on the bot account or possibly with different software doesn't matter to me. A bot is a bot. Betacommand has a history of bot misuse: interwiki, admin script, and the current spam link issue. While it is true that he has a number of useful bots, he has not shown responsibility in using *all* of his bots. The latest conflict of interest is the only BAG action that I know of that has been questioned. There are serious concerns about his inappropriatenss of being a role model as a member of BAG. Afterall, it wasn't that he ran tasks unapproved, but that all of the real serious bot offenses were direct violations of bot policy. I'm particularly concerned about the admin action. I was one of the BAG members who got involved in that dispute, but for some reason I didn't realize it was a automatically saving script and not being run manually. All he did was click a link, and bam it was gone, or so I understand it to be. So here I am faced with two questions: 1) Should he be able to run bots at all? and 2) Is he responsible enough to be a BAG member. His misuse of bots clearly indicates that he is not responsible, regardless of how successful his other bot work has been. I would be in favor of revoking all bot permissions, but that is not likely to gain consensus. I also personally feel that he should be removed as a member of BAG because he has fallen below the standards for bot membership. He has done a lot of positive work, for sure, but that does not permit us to ignore the negatives. I'm probably going to come out here with the strongest words, but the offenses are serious and Betacommand does not seem to understand that. Still, I support the less severe solution with the addendum that any future offenses will be dealt with without as much leniency. -- RM 23:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

As it happens, and as I hinted in my response to Mets' proposal, I would also support removing the bot flag and approvals, and having him reapply. If you wish to propose that as alternative remedies 1 and 2 I would support. Also, I think I've made it clear that by asking for resignation I'm politely saying "jump before you are pushed". Certainly you are right that Betacommand doesn't seem to understand the gravity of the situation. --kingboyk 23:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's see if we can get more BAG member input, but I will consider another proposal. The proposed solution works if he agrees to step down. If he does not agree to step down, forcing the issue may be appropriate. -- RM 23:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

One question - where was the CSD work approved? Yesterday I had to undelete about 300 categories used by WP:1.0/I, which were incorrectly listed in User:Betacommand/Datadump/Categories that were empty, and I cannot find anywhere where the bot is authorized to generate those links. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I generate those list via unused categories. there is no need for approval for that. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

His first approval can be found here. Basically, Betacommand asked for a broad approval of general tasks and then ran a manual trial to show everyone what he was doing. The person approving the bot must have looked at the work (which was Subst and CFD work) and thought it was fine and approved it without any additional discussion. During that approvals process, however, a number of people said that they opposed because the request was too vague. There is some question as to whether that task should have even been approved at all, but in good faith Betacommand did receive approval for the work and any fault is not with him but with the approval process. Now, if there are problems with the task he does, then that should be taken into account as well. As for CSD work, simply generating a list and posting it to a userspace page is not something that generally requires permission, since it does not affect anyone else. If it was a bot that was not already approved for something else, then we might have a problem. But an established bot can edit within their own userspace without issue, assuming that they follow bot policy, such as throttling, etc. If I am misunderstanding this issue, let me know. -- RM 12:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kingboyk

Just so that everything can be considered and the slate wiped clean at the same time, I ought to point out another controversy which stems from Betacommand's bots (although he didn't do the deleting it would be remiss of me not to mention it; it had slipped my mind earlier). Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#Check_your_wikiproject.27s_categories_for_deletions.21. --kingboyk 02:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I just generated a list of unused categories that were empty for more than four days. this was created for manual review and deletion of needed cats. if someone wasn't careful that has nothing to do with me. the few that I got around to deleting i manually reviewed each. and the list was generated using Special:unsedcategories so please don't blame that on me. and there was not bots involved. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 02:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. --kingboyk 13:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal from Mets501

I propose the following: I now support Kingboyk's proposal below. —METS501 (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

1. BetacommandBot be unapproved for all tasks except those which it has been specifically approved to do. Betacommand must post direct links to the approval on the bot's user page before doing any task.
2. BetacommandBot's flag be restored and the bot unblocked.
3. Betacommand is cautioned not to make any more bot edits on his main account.
4. Betacommand should be asked to resign from the Bot Approvals Group with no prejudice against immediate or long-term reapplication.

Please sign below if you agree or disagree with my proposal, and if you have any objections or additions please state them below.METS501 (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BAG members

• Agree as proposer. —METS501 (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• My opinion:
  1. Agree, but there is a case to be made for withdrawing approval for all tasks and starting again.
  2. If proposal #1 meets consensus, yes. If all approval is withdrawn, no.
  3. I think he already has been, but no harm in making it formal.
  4. Reluctantly I have to support this motion. As you say, that is without prejudice to standing for re-election immediately.

--kingboyk 19:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Agree. See my opinion above. I would consider supporting a stronger decision. -- RM 23:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please no polls they are evil. if you look at my post to the BAG talk page the blocking admin stated to unblock when issue was fixed. and My only objection is resigning as BAG. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not just a poll, it's a discussion. But if a significant majority of BAG members and users agree, then we'll go with the proposal. Also note that the proposal says that you be asked to resign. If you do not resign, I think we should discuss that issue separately. —METS501 (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The issues have to be discussed. The alternative is to discuss it off wiki and present a decision, but that would be rather irregular. --kingboyk 19:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The self unblocking issue can be explained with this. In any case this is not a poll and discussion should continue. I will review this more when I have time to dedicate to it 100%. -- RM 19:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Another note I have never used BetacommandBot for a controversial bot task without approval first. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Did the bot have approval for edits like 1? Or 2? Or 3? Or 4? Or 5? Or 6? Just to name a few... None of those are a cardinal sin by themselves, but it starts to add up. —METS501 (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

links:

1) an apparent error with AWB's subst command

2) AWB again substing with general fixes enabled

3) wasnt approved but very minor task of replacing an IP with its website

4) I thought that would be covered under my wikiproject tagging (exact same type of task)

5) there was a error with logging in (I was testing a python tool e-mail me if you would like the code)

6) there was an error with a template that i substed and I was going back to fix it

that should answer those questions. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 20:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

How is #5 explained by "there was a error with logging in"?. And where is the edit in #6? —METS501 (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

#5 I forgot to modify user-config.py to my account and thus logged me in as BCbot. #6 was an attempt to fix the smiley template substution error. see [7] for my manual fix. that was a rather difficult bug to catch I thought I fixed all the incorrect subst's Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 20:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you say that again about the #5 logging in? Why was pywikipedia set to edit under your main account anyway? You said "thus logged me in as BCbot" but actually you were logged in under your main account. Regardless of the account, however, where is the approval for that task? —METS501 (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I am developing a tool to find and help remove links in EL section, and its a manual tool similar to how AWB works by showing a diff to the user, It doesnt need BAG approval as it is a manual tool. but it is also coded in python. having it logged in as a bot was a mistake. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 21:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but 35 edits per minute is still way too high, manually approving edits or not. Frankly, I'm not sure how one could even approve an edit and have it saved and showing the next edit in under 2 seconds. You weren't logged in as your bot for those edits, but instead as yourself, which is another problem. —METS501 (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem I have is that I don't know for what tasks that the bot was approved. Has anyone made a list of them? If they have it will save me the time from trying to look them up. -- RM 20:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Substing, CSD, Wikiproject tagging. are the ones that have been fully approved and are loged. I have asked for approval to run a spam statical bot, (task 3) Im not sure where that stands. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 21:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Others (feel free to weigh in as well)

Alright, I feel free to weigh in as well; to provide a non-BAG-member point of view: <POV> As I see it, BAG-members ought to act as role models. This is important for the acceptance of the group and the approval process. Betacommand, I think you failed here when approving a clone of your own bot before yours was approved and when running unapproved bot tasks. The proposals of Mets501 are very fair, I think. 1. and 3. are a matter of course for any bot operator. This is not a punishment. 2. is a reasonable suggestion to make Wikipedia benefit from your bot again and I cannot imagine it isn't in your very own interest. So this is not a punishment either. Finally, 4.: You are not banned or blocked or thrown out. You can demonstrate that you understand and acknowledge your faults by resigning yourself, without force. This would be a noble and honest gesture. It would help a lot to rebuild your role model function and restore your acceptance. Take a tiny break, sleep over it, and I can imagine your reapplication will find support very soon. Everyone makes mistakes. The group needs experienced, qualified contributers like you. </POV> — Ocolon 22:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Very nicely said. —METS501 (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree. --kingboyk 22:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Besides just agreeing I'd like to say this: I've noticed that Betacommand sometimes writes with confusing language, misses proper punctuation, spells incorrectly, etc. I've also noticed that on talk pages that he sometimes gives very sharp responses to people in an almost uncivil manner. Nevertheless, his BAG activities seem to be mostly clean of these issues, and it's curious. That said, it is important to note that nowhere in the above has anyone posted any problems with his membership with the BAG. But being a role model is important, and thus the reason for the request for #4 (as I see it). The Essjay controversy is interesting. He did a lot of good bot work incidentally, but in the end his other activities were his undoing. Consistency is important. -- RM 22:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it's not clear I will say outright that reluctantly I do have problems with his membership of BAG at this time. I believe I'm not the only one who is trying to be delicate but who holds this opinion, either. I think if a driving examiner was caught going at 100mph in a 70 zone and already had a history of traffic offences he would be fired because he's not following the standards expected of his examinees. An admin who wheel warred would be desysopped, perhaps only temporarily. It's my opinion that Beta should resign, and it's up to him when he stands again if at all, but I do wish to emphasise that I hold this opinion because he has fallen below the standard required and not as a punishment. Beta has done some great technical work but at this time he's not imho somebody who should be deciding on other people's applications to run bots. I don't think any less of him as a technician or as an editor, and I admire the way he cleaned up the mess so efficiently and quickly, but I believe he's lost my trust for approving bots just now. --kingboyk 23:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%. It is not punitive in nature at all. —METS501 (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

(ec) There is, unfortunately, another aspect of this: trust. (In the interests of full disclosure, I should mention that I commented on Betacommand's RFC as well, though I do not have any negative feelings about Betacommand. I had one comment about a brief interaction that troubled me, and I listed it there. It is not relevant to this, but for full disclosure I wanted to mention that I commented there.) As a user - not an admin, not a bot owner or operator, just a user - I'm not sure that I trust Betacommand's judgement, and that's a hard thing to say about an admin and a user who's contributed so much to the project. Right now, so many of us are reeling over a different hard hit to the project, and we're really (as users, again) looking for admins, bot operators, and people in positions of leadership (as surely both of those are) to be totally above reproach. I do not, unfortunately, have that level of confidence in Betacommand at the moment, and I hate saying that.

I do not, for a single moment, believe that Betacommand acted in bad faith. Unfortunately, I do believe that he exercised extremely bad judgement. When someone has shown bad judgement, it is in their best interest to divest themselves of positions of leadership and immediately begin to rebuild the community's trust in them. I have, unfortunately, been in that situation off-wiki, followed someone's advice to do exactly that, and am a better person for it (and in fact have had many people tell me that the situation actually strengthened their respect for me).

While I am not advocating that Betacommand should resign as an administrator - at this point, no one has enough information to recommend that and it seems premature - I do believe that the best thing to do for Betacommand to rebuild trust is to resign from the BAG, come 100% clean about any and all tasks that his bots were doing (which, in fairness, I totally believe he has already done) and commit himself to allowing his bots to run approved tasks and rebuild his strength in the community for a few months. During that time, I would strongly encourage him to focus on moderating his tone, and focus on strengthening his personal interactions. I do not believe that he's intentionally short with people, but I do believe that he thinks quickly and writes that way, and the end result is interpreted as rude. Slow down, take your time, and be polite. This too, shall pass. No one has suggested punitive actions, and I don't believe anyone should. If they do, I would not support them, now would most of the community. Trust can be rebuilt. In this case, I don't think it will take all that long, or be all that uncomfortable. Philippe Beaudette 23:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This is by far the most thought out response. You could replace everything I said with this. I totally agree with this, especially this line: "I do not, for a single moment, believe that Betacommand acted in bad faith. Unfortunately, I do believe that he exercised extremely bad judgement." And we're all just users here. Members of BAG and admins represent the community and must act accordingly. -- RM 23:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. —METS501 (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with essentially all of the above comments, which I consider to be considered and well-balanced all round. Alai 03:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

One of the problems seems to be that it's not clear exactly what the bot's been approved to do. this is BetacommandBot's approval for something (later this was referred to as CfD and substing work), but it's not clear what exactly User:Freakofnurture approved the bot for, whether it was approved for automatic or semi-auto work (that's unclear from the closing comment), and even if it was the final comment by Freakofnurture that approved the bot. The flagging request (the second link shown) explicitly appears to be approval for substing and CfD, but still makes it unclear whether the edits are automatic or semi-automatic. To unconfuse matters, I'd prefer it if the BAG explicitly make a statement concerning these approvals. (This whole matter has been something of a demonstration of why WP:AGF is a good idea; I don't think anyone's been acting in bad faith, but there have been mistakes made and possibly some errors of judgement (on my part to some extent as well as by Betacommand).) --ais523 09:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This request should be resubmitted. It was approved during a time when the approvals process was less formal and had less eyes. Of course this is not necessarily a problem in and of itself, since a lot of bots are running and have run with the same or less approval. The key difference here is that there was a lot of opposition to this bot and it was approved despite that opposition. -- RM 12:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Betacommand's proposal

1) Upon request I will publish my bot code or AWB settings for clarity.

2) BCBots actions will be limited to SUBST, CSD, WikiProject Tagging, and spam stats.

3) I ask for a simpler method than a full BRFA for similar task IE {{infoboxneeded}} something rather quick. I can make a post on a page to be determined, and if I get no objections within say 36 hours, I can go ahead with that variation of approved task.

4) If there are any new task that are significantly different from the current method. I shall file a BRFA.

5) [8]

6) I shall resume BAG when the objections have been solved and the rest of BAG agrees that it is appropriate.

7) I shall remain an active user on WP:BRFA and the bot request areas.

Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 01:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not qualified to judge whether your other items are appropriate, and frankly think that should go to people other than I. But I do want to say that I strongly support your decision to step aside from BAG for a while and think it shows a maturity and clarity of decision making that I'm very pleased to see, and I respect you for doing it. Philippe Beaudette 01:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I want to make a note as this was already misquoted on ANI. I am stepping aside and becoming an inactive member of BAG. I am not withdrawing from it. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 02:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Your correction is noted and appreciated. I will not make a determination as to whether stepping aside is better than resigning. Not my decision. Either way, it's a big step. Philippe Beaudette 02:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that you should resign, and seek re-election when you feel ready, rather than merely becoming inactive for a while. Can you explain why you feel that "stepping aside" is sufficient? (This isn't a loaded question) Also, have you learnt anything from this experience? (an experience which no doubt must have been horrible for you) --kingboyk 02:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Seeking re-election will never be approved no mater what I do or say, I tend to take a lot of crap for what I do fighting vandals, spammers, and NN groups. and as such even though I am correct in those actions It makes too many people angry. stepping aside will accomplish the same goal, while allowing BAG to determine when I become active again. that cuts down on the anti-beta crowd's ability to reek havoc. and yes I have come to a greater understanding but this is not the place to expound on that (sorry I missed the original post) Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting to any of the ideas on the table, I also wanted to say that your decision to step aside from BAG is a positive one. Respect. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to echo, I too think that was a wise decision. I will think about your proposal some more before commenting on it. —METS501 (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to you resuming your work there when the objections have been solved and the rest of BAG agrees that it is appropriate. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a member of bag, but this is a wiki, and this proposal looks very good, it resolves and clarifies most if not all of the issues that are around. New things that are not part of what beta has said, could possibly be added to this proposal. I really do think this resolves most of the core issues. (one being, exactly what was his bot approved for). —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 02:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as point 3, how about this page? It seems like BAG frequents here enough, that one time quick jobs could be mentioned here. Its just an idea, and would keep the instruction creep down. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 02:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's really a need for a new method. Creating an approval page is quick and streamlined, and very simple requests like that usually get approved within a couple of hours, if not minutes. I can point to examples if you like. —METS501 (talk) 03:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that creating an approval page is easy, and if you are very clear about what you want to do and you have all your ducks lined up approval is very fast. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah sounds about right, making those pages can't take that long, though its been a while since I have ran an active onwiki bot, my bot is on IRC helping counterspam folks find spam. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 03:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of different issues raised by this (counter-)proposal, none of which seem especially vexacious to deal with individually, but which I reckon would be better "unbundled", and dealt with separately, rather than having any appearance of a "package deal" of some sort. The most pressing issue seems to be the BAG membership/activity question, on which the two proposals each suggest a resolution, and where the two differ. However, this difference is I think, one more of appearance than of practical effect: if Betacommand steps down from the BAG, he won't be able to act to approve or disapprove bot requests, until the rest of the BAG agree to reinstate him; if he becomes inactive from the BAG pending agreement of the rest of the BAG to resume... then essentially the same result. On the difference in appearances, I'd have to say my personal preference, and my judgement as to what's to the long-term good of the project, is for the "cleaner break" resolution. A "weaker-seeming" step (while as I say, functionally equivalent) would appear much less clear-cut, and accordingly do less to maintain general confidence that the BAG membership is "like Caesar's wife" in bot-related matters: as near to being beyond reproach as can reasonably be managed. Alai 03:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A concern about the above

Reading Betacommand's proposal above, I'm left with the impression that he still doesn't take the concerns expressed seriously. This is in part demonstrated by his assertion that he'll "step aside" temporarily instead of stepping down, and that he will be inactive until "the objections have been solved". This doesn't sound like a mea culpa, his language suggests that the objections are the real problem, not his actions. This is further bolstered by his assertion that it "cuts down on the anti-beta crowd's ability to reek havoc". The "anti-beta crowd"? This language is very inflammatory and suggests that a larger problem exists. If the BAG is comfortable with this, then I trust their judgment, but I'm not confident that BC has responded to their concerns in the manner they believe he has. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 09:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll be the first BAG member to make a statement on the proposal. To summarize: I agree with Chairboy and Alai. I have a problem. One one hand Betacommand could be a user who is hoodwinking all of us in the same way that Essjay did by claiming to be someone he was not. On the other hand, Betacommand's proposal could be extremely sincere and represent his understanding that he could lose some of his ability to help out and he is showing remorse and trying to save himself. The problem is that I have no way to determine where on the line he is. So what I am left with are his actions, which speak for themselves. This is why I agree strongly with Chairboy, particularly about the "anti-beta crowd". During this entire process there has been nothing but civility by all those involved. He was not blocked because people tried to talk instead of take drastic actions. I've also read his talk page with comments from people genuinely concerned about his massive link removal. And here at this discussion everyone has been trying to give him as much dignity as possible, while not denying what has been shown to be various problems. Just as adminship is supposed to be "not a big deal", I think the same should be for BAG membership which provides some limited additional rights. When it ceases to be in the best interest of Wikipedia, it should be removed. Both Mets and I have had some not-so-unveiled-threats about forcing his removal from BAG and stripping his rights to run bots. We didn't want to go that drastic because we hoped that he would agree to the proposal and voluntarily resign.

The proposal was more than fair, even with the modification that resigning be essentially forced, since he would still be permitted to run bots and scripts despite previous abuse. The fact that Betacommand assumes that he has no chance in reapplying is misguided and shows that at best his emotions are clouding his understanding of this situation. His work with BAG has only one black mark as far as we know in terms of this discussion. He has a chance to use his main account and his bot to act appropriately and if he does that he stands a good chance of success when reapplying to join BAG. There is a lot of goodwill here, possibly deserved, possibly not. I've been one of Betacommand's staunch supporters on BAG, despite some of the other issues, because despite those issues he doesn't seem to make (many) mistakes on BAG. He should be able to see these differences and realize that we are not out to get him, but that we can't ignore the issues either.

I myself have often been a pioneer on testing uncharted waters. I once had my bot running on my main user account acting essentially as a spam bot which in the end included having the bot blocked for a time (spam and bot policies were not as well-defined at the time). I learned a lesson from that, and I was granted what amounts to forgiveness, so I appreciate the desire for leniency. If we followed the strict letter of (some of) the law, both myself and Betacommand could have been justifiably banned from Wikipedia, at least for a time. But we AGF and that is why we don't do such drastic actions if we don't have to. Let there be no doubt: Betacommand has violated bot policy, which is in violation of his membership in BAG and in his approval to run bots. His proposal is not acceptable to me for the stated reasons. -- RM 12:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to hoodwink anyone. what I am attempting to do is maintain BCbot's status, handle the concerns that have been raised, and avoid a big mess later when I seek to become an active BAG member again. When BAG thinks its ok to come back I am trying to avoid having to re-hash this discussion in full again. By stepping aside I achieve everyone's goal of BAG membership, and when the time is right I can ask BAG to become active once all the issues raised have been addressed, and it would be appropriate for me to become an active BAG member again, while avoiding the politics of an "election". In reference to the crowd I was trying to avoid politics of the election, because by the nature of what I do I tend to make enemies of users, even though my actions are appropriate. (I delete their pet article have spam sites removed to the users own site or favorite website even though the link is inappropriate). I was seeking a review by BAG for BAG membership while avoiding politics. I hope that makes my position clear. if not feel free to ask more questions. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 13:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The main problem I have with that is that most of the abuse has been at the expense of the community in general. By itself you approving a clone of your own bot was a relatively minor offense, and thus the offenses against BAG are relatively minor. I'm ignoring the fact that violating bot policy looks bad on one's appearance as a BAG member, however, that is also a community issue. Your desire to avoid input from the community is misguided here, although I understand this. The point is that opinions from "kooks" will not be taken seriously, but serious comments from the community will and should be. This is indicated by the fact that more non-BAG members have commented on the precedings than have BAG members. Some may be under the false assumption that this is a BAG-only issue, when it is not. -- RM 14:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kingboyk's findings and proposal

1. Betacommand (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is a highly valued member of the community and a fine contributor
2. However, he has a history of controversial bot usage, some minor and some more serious
3. The community has no interest in punishing Betacommand and wishes to retain the services of this valuable contributor
4. However, the community's trust in Betacommand as a BAG member has been shaken.
5. Betacommand has offered to stand aside from BAG but this falls short of resignation
6. There is some concern that Betacommand believes he has a carte blance with regards to bots and hasn't accepted the criticism levelled against him
7. BetacommandBot (tasks • edits • actions log • block log) is currently deflagged after bureacrat intervention.
8. BetacommandBot is a useful bot but given concerns over Betacommand's activities, usage must be strictly as approved by BAG
9. And, some confusion remains over what tasks BetacommandBot is approved for.

I propose:

1. With regards to points 4 and 5, Betacommand was offered the opportunity to resign but declined to do so. Therefore, he shall be removed from BAG with immediate effect. He may reapply for membership, without prejudice, no earlier than 1 September 2007.
2. With regards to point 6, Betacommand and Betacommandbot shall only run automated tasks which have been approved in advance by the Bot Approvals Group. Any contravention of this proposal may result in a block of Betacommand or a referral to Arbcom.
3. With regards to points 7-9, BetacommandBot shall remain deflagged and all approvals withdrawn with immediate effect. Betacommand may - and is encouraged to - seek new approvals immediately; these will most likely be approved quickly or even speedy approved provided they are totally uncontroversial.
4. The community emphasises that none of these measures are punitive, and that Betacommand's continued participation in the project is not only welcomed but is requested.

--kingboyk 15:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Well, we've all had a night to sleep on this issue now (at various intervals around the world). Once again, I have no comment on the technical merits of this proposal, because I'm not qualified to comment. I do, however, think that Kingboy's proposal addresses my concerns as a community member more clearly than anthing thing else I've seen written on this page. I think it spells out clearly what I think and feel. I hope that Betacommand will seriously consider what Kingboy has written; I know it's hard to watch this stuff play out on a wiki in front of you - and in front of the whole world - but I do believe that in the end BC will come out of this as a stronger person and contributor. I don't think this one is likely to dog him for the rest of his life, as I think he fears. Philippe Beaudette 15:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This may or may not apply, but Betacommand has continued making controversial edits even though they are clearly controversial and there is no pressing rush to make them. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Betacommand_AGAIN_-_this_time.2C_ext._link_removals. This concerns me greatly because Betacommand appears to be under the impression that because of the various policies he cites that he can continue to enforce them even after being requested to stop by multiple people. This is clearly wrong: When someone asks you to stop, you must do so even if you are in the right. We must work together when there is a conflict. (See WP:CIVIL). -- RM 16:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support the immediate application of Kingboyk's proposal instead of mine above. This discussion has pointed out much including Betacommand's inability to realize what he has done. —METS501 (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I also support this new proposal and its relatively immediate application, with the modification that all current discussion regarding Betacommand, in particular the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Betacommand_AGAIN_-_this_time.2C_ext._link_removals, be resolved before reapplication for bot approvals. -- RM 20:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

does this solve the issues? I hope to create a mutual agreement so there are no hard feelings:

1) I shall step down as BAG with no prejudice

2) I shall be able to re-apply in no less than 60 days

3) BCbot is currently approved for CFD wikiproject tagging and WP:SUBST leave that approval as is. (there have been ~75,000 such edits with just minor issues that have been addressed when raised)

4) In regard to my last BRFA about spam stats I leave that to BAG for final approval (Tawker has already approved but given the concerns other BAG decide if they wish to overturn that)

5) any other task that deviate from current approval shall need to be approved by BAG

6) Kingboyk's issue number 6-- I know what criticism has been said, and I have accepted most of it. I do not have carte blance in regard to bots, please note that I have never abused my bot account.

7) Unless comments like RM's are shared about a community ban, which I take as a very personal insult, I plan on continuing to be a active part of the BRFA and bot usergroup.

8) I hope we can make this proposal work as it seems to address the issues. please feel free to suggest modifications.

9) I am sorry for the mess that has arisen out of my recent actions.

please note that this or a modified version of this can be a solution Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think this is a negotiation any more :) That said, certainly you would be welcome and entitled to comment on bot approval applications whether a BAG member or not, as is any other Wikipedian. --kingboyk 05:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I'm not sure if I should even comment on the "personal insult" point, but I suppose I will. I suggested a community block as a possible correct action if the adminstrators collectively determined it necessary to stop future on-going abuse, and my point clearly had support of those on AN/I. I also clearly stated that it was an option that they should take independent of this discussion here. I never said that they should. I was not suggesting any sort of immediate or punitive block, and I stated as such. If Betacommand started a third deletion spree, he would most definitely be blocked to prevent more damage. Personal insult or no, damage or vandalism to the encyclopedia is not cool and I will not support it, even if people don't like me. For the record, I'm not in favor of a community ban unless it is absolutely necessary to stop further damage to the encyclopedia, however I am too close to this case to make that kind of determination unilaterally. I'll say it again: Betacommand has been very helpful to Wikipedia and I really appreciate that, but that doesn't mean we can just ignore anything bad that happens. After much discussion, removal from BAG for a fair amount of time is great idea because it provides time to see whether or not BC has truely learned from this experience. Perhaps he'll be surprised at my support later, although I wouldn't know why that would be shocking, considering all the good work that he has done so far. And I encourage him to stay active on BRFA, as he is very valuable. Nevertheless, the time for negotiation is over. -- RM 14:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.