User talk:Betacommand/20070101

RE:Approval

Hi,

I have recently signed up for VP approval and meet the requirements. However, it seems that I wasn't approved. Should I re-apply?

Wiki Raja 01:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 2nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 1	2 January 2007	About the Signpost

Effort to modify fair use policy aborted	Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion
WikiWorld comic: "Thagomizer"	News and notes: Fundraiser continues, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

little guide

hey ho. regarding today's conversation, after dinner i made this little rough guide on linkspam. love any additions (esp. policy citing and wording) or comments on its talkpage. i'm also going to pass it to Danny and Anthere for use/info soon. cheers! JoeSmack ^Talk 09:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

User:63.203.93.11

Hi Betacommand. I just went to block User:63.203.93.11 as an obvious vandal when I saw you'd got there first. Which is great, but I wasn't sure why you had asked an IP to change their username and indef blocked them? In general its not a good idea to indef block IP addresses unless their an open proxy. The change username request seems inappropriate. Thought you might want to revisit that one. Best, Gwernol 00:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I figured it would be something along those lines. Best, Gwernol 01:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering (heads up)

You appear to be putting "%s" as a block duration in your test5 messages. I can only assume this is not intended. theProject 01:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Co-nom

Hey you, thanks for your very kind words and co-nom on my RFA. Nice to know that some of my work in recent months hasn't gone unnoticed and also nice to know that some consider getting your hands dirty as important as policy edits! Cheers! Budgiekiller 18:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the unblock

Sometimes I pick crazy names just to let out a little "creative energy", I guess you'd call it. I mostly stick to the sandbox anyways. Again, thanks.ISitHereWithBinoculars..Watching.. Waiting.... 20:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

London Calling (song)

Dear BetaCommand,

Thank you for trying to "help me along" by deleting my edit, but in this case you are sadly in error. Please do your research before you make snap judgements.

Sincerely, Kissingerisamadgenius 05:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

AGAIN Re: London Calling (song)

Dear Betacommand,

Thank you for copying and pasting your customary instruction to any new user unfortunate enough to step on your toes. Perhaps if you had made your actual recommendation to me first, instead of burying it in what according to Wikipedia's policies is CRUFT, it would have been more apparent where my error lied. I do not see why you had to back out my entire addition if only a few words doth offended thee my lady. I have CC'ed this comment both to your talk page and to mine to help you find it.

Sincerely, Kissingerisamadgenius 05:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 8th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 2	8 January 2007	About the Signpost

Special: 2006 in Review	Another newspaper columnist found to have plagiarized Wikipedia
Blogs track attempts to manipulate articles	Nutritional beef cooks PR editor
WikiWorld comic: "Facial Hair"	News and notes: Fundraiser continues, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Self link removal

If you are going to remove self linking in the "related content" sections of aricraft articles would you mind please adding the bold to the links removed so that the appearance of the entry is not changed. GraemeLeggett 09:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Spoofers :P...

How in the world do you catch these things so fast?¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The block logs are something tonight...I see you caught another one :P.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 04:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

RFA question

Answered. There's a typo in the contribs link for your sample blocked user, by the way. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Answered. It's a little weird answering responses that didn't come from my original statement, but I tried. My response is a little off because User:USSTRATCOM PAO isn't commercial, but he sounds like a legitimate user rather than a spammer. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised by the strength of your opposition on the basis of an area that I've neither dealt with in the past nor plan to in the future. As I said, I'd consult with the blocker to see if there was additional cause or to accept someone who seems like a good-faith contributor under an iffy name. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I've never had cause to decide on the appropriateness of a username, since I'm not an admin doing new-user patrol. Of course I'm going to be inexperienced in that area. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand that, given your lack of experience I did not see you ask either me (the blocking admin) or another admin on how you should handle it. PS the issue about the website and username is a major breach of WP:SPAM and WP:USERNAME your lack of policy and lack of asking for help/advice/consulting is another big issue. that is why my RfA statement is the way it is. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 06:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

PS on a different note I would suggest archiving your talk page either manually or via werdnabot if you want help with the bot I am glad to help. (your talk page is massive) Cheers Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 06:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

With section editing I have no reason to. Although, getting opposed over comments left eight months ago might be a good reason. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I have trouble loading the page that is why I said something Section editing doesn't help there :)Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 06:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

All clear, party time. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you miss my mention of "Checking with the original blocking admin would let me know if there was some history, such as a known past spammer, but without other reason, I'd probably let him off the block" ? If there was another reason to suspect this guy would be harmful I'd support a block, and I said I'd go to the blocking admin to check for one. Blocking him was within the letter of WP:USERNAME, but blanking half of wikipedia would be within the letter of WP:V, and I doubt either would be considered constructive. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Hey, thanks so much for supporting my recent RFA. A number of editors considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and unfortunately the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). There are a number of areas which I will be working on (including changing my username) in the next few months in order to allay the fears of those who opposed my election to administrator.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you sincerely for your support over the past week. I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 18:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)

And thanks so much for the co-nom. It means a great deal to me that you felt my contributions deserved the co-nom and will endeavour to carry on whacking vandals and do all the other good stuff that the opposers were looking for. The Rambling Man 18:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Username blocks

The legitimacy of a number of username blocks, including ones that you made, is currently being disputed on WP:VPP. Your input and rationales are welcome. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ban (law)

Betacommand... any chance this article can be temporarily protected from new accounts as is the case with Saddam Hussein? (The reverting is getting tiresome, imho.) Thanks, JRHorse 05:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandal Proof V1.31 Problem

You approved me for use of Vandal Proof v1.3 on October 23, 2006 (at least I think you did, whats with all this "Anaraug" stuff, see my talk page) and I finally got around to using it and it says I am not on the approved list. I tried to find out if this was true or not but I could only find the recently approved list. Do I have to get reapproved for v1.31, was this just a slip-up somewhere, or was I ever approved to begin with? Any assistance you could offer in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Cpuwhiz11 03:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

HighInBCBot

This bot has been tested and is working fine for about 2 weeks now. The only changes I plain to make are in the formatting of the output. Anything further I need to do? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HighInBC (talk • contribs) 16:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Just post a note on the BRfA and we'll get to it. Cheers, Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 3	15 January 2007	About the Signpost

Special: 2006 in Review, Part II	New arbitrators interviewed
Cascading protection feature added	WikiWorld comic: "Apples and Oranges"
News and notes: Fundraiser breaks $1,000,000, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL

Ha! I edit conflicted you doing just about the same thing here: [1] ! Thanks for keeping up with it though! — xaosflux ^Talk 06:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

please help coelacan will not leave me alone

what happened here?

regarding this edit; what's up? why did you tag this? — coelacan talk — 06:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know I've completed your AfD nomination for this article; you can see the discussion here. It's probably a good idea for you to edit the discussion and explain why you think the article should be deleted, bearing in mind that it's been substantially revised since your nomination. Tevildo 14:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Vandalproof. I guess it was a good thing that I caught such an egregious abuse, rather than the usual run of the mill borderline asshattery. It appears to be a fine tool, when it's handed out properly. I'd apply for it myself if I was still in the vandal-fighting mood, but I've backed off from that lately. One of the quotes on my user page, from "K42", was from a vandal I began hunting after attacks on Bob Brown. That's one of the last things the user said before indef block. Fun times, but I'm really not in the mood for that particular pile of steamin' bs these days. Anyway, thanks for the good words. =) — coelacan talk

Problem with VP

Hi, you recently added me to the list of authorized VandalProof users. I have one problem, however: when I try to use VP, I get an error message saying "You are not on the user list." The login seems to succeed, though. What could be wrong? Thanks, –mysid☎ 19:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• You are on the access list for Vandalproof 1.3.1 - this is the version you are using, correct? In either event, the first login is merely your Wikipedia account, it verifies you are on the list after startup, so that's why the message came up then. I will remove you and readd you to refresh the list, and see if that works. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

re: VP

Sure, I'd like to hear it

I've never been told anything besides the note on the approval page of basically "at least 250 edits and a talk page not littered with vandalism warnings". What other criteria do you use? And what do you say to users who have 250 edits and have never vandalized, but don't fit any of your personal criteria? --froth^T 20:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Step one I check there edits, where they were made to what kinds of pages, see if they have any WP:AIV post, (to get a understanding of how much vandalfighting they do or where they edit).
• I also check to see how long they have been on wikipedia less than 2 months I dont approve in general
• Step 2: I check the block log where they ever blocked and why
• Step 3: I check their talk page. (including history and archives)

  if they have questionable issues I dont approve.

  if its borderline I might approve or ask them to come back.

I have denied access to users with over 500 mainspace edits for those reasons. But I have talked with other users on wiki and on IRC with less than 200 and approved them. I always caution on the side of not approving if it is questionable. But failing any one of these items doesnt automaticly reject the user. Get an Idea if you can trust the user and have faith that they wont abuse VP. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 20:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been looking into the approvals more then that (unless there was an absolutly huge backlog), is there any user in particular you are concerned with? Perhaps I missed one when I clicked through the user links. Prodego ^talk 20:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

there was one on the abuse page along with the one wizardry dragon removed. (there were four in the last week that have been brought to my attention) there were a few others that I cant think of at the moment. but I have seen quite a few questionable approves go through. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 20:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I looked through my last 8, and I have not seen any problems (one questionable, but I did not approve, I just fixed the listing). Is there any in particular I approved? Prodego ^talk 20:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

this is an old approval who recently Wizardry dragon removed Anthony cfc who comes to mind atm. but there where other cases that have yet to pan out and I dont want to name names unless something happens. If nothing happenns I dont want to offend them. but I have see a few users approved that I rejected as very borderline and yet others approved. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 05:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see Knowpedia. I did not approve, I just fixed the listing (diff). You are right though. Prodego ^talk 20:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You would? Can you handle them all? I can assure you I do check user's block logs, talk, and contribs pages before I approve, are you sure that approving all users yourself is necessarily? If you feel it is required I suppose it is Ok, as long as you don't allow backlogs to form. If you could explain which users you are concerned about my approving, I will be happy to look into it. Prodego ^talk 19:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• With respect Prodego, until investigations into these "fuzzy" approvals are concluded, I would strongly dissuade you and Froth from making any approvals. It would not look very good on you to the people investigating this. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yep, no problem. It's a volunteer project anyway; doesn't cost me anything not to help out. Frankly I thought that the approval philosophy was nowhere as strict as what betacommand is suggesting; I can just as easily approve more strictly if you guys think that would be appropriate --froth^T 19:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• I am sorry, I did not understand that there was anyone I approved that was a problem. If someone could tell me who, I would appreciate it, but I will stop any approvals for now if you would like. Prodego ^talk 19:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• I am not at the liberty to discuss names, nor would I if I were, as until we are certain these approvals were "bad" we do not want to malign anyone in any way. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• You could e-mail me, in order to avoid any problems like this in the future, I will need to know what I did wrong. ;-). Prodego ^talk 19:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps I was not clear. I am NOT at the liberty to discuss names. If it does come around that bad approvals have occurred, rest assured that I will contact you. If not, then I am not going to damage someone's reputation on Wikipedia. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fine. Prodego ^talk 19:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, what? ... The only thing on wikipedia that should be private is WP:RFO and the entire wiki is modelled around openness. What possible benefit is there to not divulging names while you read through contribs and diffs? If you don't want to malign anyone then don't say anything at all- you do users a disservice by saying that they're suspected but you don't want to say exactly who's at fault. --froth^T 06:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Anthony cfc

Regarding cfc, you are correct that that was a borderline approval, and probably should not have been done, however, there was a huge list at the time, and several users actually contacted me to go through the list. Therefore, I had to preform a less inclusive check (only block and editcount probably), rather then a full talk and contribs check. Also it was quite a long time ago, and I was the only active mod, and it was a huge workload to run full checks on everyone requesting approval alone. Prodego ^talk 20:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Rushing things always tends to hurt more than it helps. I don't really find workload a compelling reason to rush things - I seem to remember that at one point Essjay handled most of RFA, Changing usernames, Requests for Checkuser, and the Mediation Committee. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Essjay went on a multi-month wikibreak after that from the stress, and he is one of the most active editors. I personally tend to err towards approval, since I consider it an extension of assuming good faith. After all, the VP access can just as easily be removed. How inclusive does AmiDaniel want us to be? If he wants us to be strict, I can do that, but I have assumed he wanted more open approvals, rather then a more restricted program. Prodego ^talk 20:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Anything that can damage Wikipedia as much as tool abuse should not be taken lightly. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Nephalometer

Am I doing something wrong?--Filll 18:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What's going on?

Could you please explain this revert? User:Zoe|(talk) 18:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Looks kind of trollish to me on first glance, and that's probably why Beta reverted it, but further reading shows it really isn't a troll. Cheer, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I was rolling back spam from that user. I guess That I rolled back the wrong page. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I will admit that one post was a bit trollish, but I have been having a long discussion with that user and others on their talk pages. Not all of my posts are of that nature, or at least I would claim they are not!--Filll 18:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Rollback should only be used when it's clear that the user's edits are by the by negative in an overwhelming amount. You should know better, Beta. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It seemed to me that something went wrong because my contributions to about 20 articles were erased.--Filll 19:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages should never be reverted except for NPA violations. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Like I said that was a mistake that I did not know I made. I dont tend to revert talkpages Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Please be more careful with Administrative rollback in the future, Beta. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Have the rollbacks been reverted themselves, now? Carcharoth 20:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalproof access revoked

No one contacted me about this block and if you look at User talk:Coelacan you will see there that in fact a reason was put forward and retracted. This is not a case of vandalism. The fact that no one notified me prior to posting my name at User talk:AmiDaniel/VP/Abuse clearly shows an attempt to screw with me and not solve the issue. I ask for my VP privilages be reinstated. I also apologize to all parties affected by my misuse of the tool. --knowpedia 00:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• With all due respect, you abuse it, you lose it. Your edits were reviewed by several parties, all who agreed that they consituted both abuse of CSD criteria and abuse of the VandalProof tool. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

But there was a reason for delete the reason I did not put it in the Original AFD is because when I tagged with VP I missed that step. That is what my reason stated was "it was more or less test". Less a test and more a mistake that I did not put in my original AFD. Thats what I was trying to say, not that I was an any way trying to intentionally mess with other wikipedians. --knowpedia 00:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You admit to abusing the tools, others also see this as abuse. I removed your access because of it. You will not get it back until such time as you can redeem yourself and prove to US that you will not abuse VP again. your word at this point doesnt mean anything since you agreed not to abuse it in the fist place. Thus it is in your hands to show us that you should get VP access back. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 00:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me know what you and others expect from me. I will redeem myself.--knowpedia 00:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that he could have done this same thing just as easily without VP, it's not as bad as accidental mass-action and of course not nearly as bad as malicious mass-action --froth^T 01:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

(but of course the revoke was perfectly justified- just wanted to make that clear) --froth^T 06:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

My response

why are you attacking me I am entitled to voice my feeling on a particular subject on its talk page. That’s what I thought a talk page was for. My last line was sarcasm, which probably doesn’t come across very well in the written word. I have no problems with gays. I actually like them. My brother-in-law is one and we get along great. We hang out. We travel together. Why do I have to explain myself to you? I feel you’re personally after me. You are boarding on threatening behavior towards me. If this personal attack campaign you started against me was not via wikipedia and in the real world, I would actually be fearing for myself. I just want you to leave me alone. I don’t know you and you don’t know me and let’s keep it that way. Please don’t threaten me because I made a mistake on Gay Icon. I’ve apologized. --knowpedia 06:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I7

If you delete images for this or any other forseeable reason, you must delete reference to those images from the articles that used them. I believe this isn't the first time I've warned you of this inacceptable behavior. -- Zanimum 15:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate Username

Hello Betacommand, the following seems like a bad faith username and is already contributing with vandalism from the get go: User:Van dallas ism.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Snowolf

Why didn't you approve Snowolf for VP? I would have, and am curious as to whether this is a case you would disagree with me on. Prodego ^talk 01:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I remember him saying that he doesn't approve users who've been around for less than a couple of months; that's probably it --froth^T 01:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

simple of the 510 edits made by Snowolf 504 were made within 17 days of one another. Yes this user passes the 250 edit mark but the edits are too close together for me to be comfortable approving. I welcome this user to comeback in a month or so I think they will make a good wikipedian but I believe them to be too new. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 01:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

As you wish... by Snowolf (talk) on 01:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• May I ask you why have you removed me from the Awaiting Approval list for Vandal Proof? I have the requisites (over 250 mainspace edits - I'm near to 300...)...

Good night and happy editing on Wikipedia by Snowolf (talk) on 01:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but editcount is only one of the factors taken into account by moderators when they approve users --froth^T 01:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course. I didn't want to be polemic in anyway ;-) by Snowolf (talk) on 01:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Snowolf is the type of user we can make an exception for. Since you want to run approvals, though I dislike it, I will pass Izaakb, who requested approval on my talk page, to you. Prodego ^talk 04:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from, but unless I'm still unclear on this, from your POV no exception needs to be made. The minimum is 250 edits; this user has that and has shown extraordinary competency and willingness to contribute- thus he's fit for approval, and we don't need to lower the standards to approve him. But I guess my personal "special criteria" is that especially new users probably aren't qualified to use VP. I'm not convinced that someone can learn the proper ins-and-outs of wikipedia in a month, though I have no doubt of his good faith. VP should be available for relatively-well-established users looking to be casual RC patrollers but it shouldn't be available to newbies who already have enough ropes to learn. --froth^T 06:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

These are excellent points, in fact, enough to win me over about Snowolf (In a month I would approve, however). But, some newbies spend less time in a month then others in a day looking at policies and learning the ropes. So unlike the pretty strict editcount requirement, any age requirement should be flexible. Froth, my view is not to approve all users with over 250 edits, but to approve any requesting user that can be reasonably trusted not to deliberately abuse the tool. Making a mistake on vandal patrol is just as likely to occur without VP then with it, and is easily fixed with a simple message to the user. Prodego ^talk 16:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Prodego I agree in a month I welcome this user to come back. I just am not sure that 504 edits in 17 days the user hasn't had enough time and experience yet. if this was spent over a longer period then I would reconsider. But a majority of edits were made in about a two week period. I encourage Snowolf to come back in 3-4 four weeks and I dont see a issue approving the user. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem for me ;-) I'm still reverting vandalism using RC Patrol, I can wait, of course. by Snowolf (talk) on 18:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Prodego, the user doesn't have a problem with the VP decline, so why are you making an issue of it? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

VP Problem

Hi Betacommand, and thanks for adding me to the approved vandalproof users. When I try to log on to vandalproof, the wikipedia login seems to succeed, but it tells me that I am not on the user list. I am running V.1.31. Thanks, Tyson Moore 21:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding me too. I am having the same problem. Cheers, MartinDK 22:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• I see you both in the approved user list - I'll tinker and see if I cannot deduce the source of the problem. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• They actually both aren't on the list (perhaps Beta's browser crashed while approving?), so I have added them both. Prodego ^talk 00:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Er I was going to remove them and then readd them to see if it helped, but I got interrupted in between steps. :) Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? It doesn't look like they were ever approved ([2]) Prodego ^talk 02:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I got a message on my talk page saying I was approved, and I'm on the bottom of the "Recently Approved" list, but not in that history and am not allowed to log in using VP. Perhaps something is wrong... Thanks anyway for supposedly approving me :) --Bennybp 02:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Same thing as the others, you are approved now, and it should work. Prodego ^talk 02:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Everything works now. Thanks for the quick help :) --Bennybp 02:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

VP approval

The list is getting a little long, and it seems you forgot to use {{DeclineVP}} to notify those not approved. Just letting you know, since I have had that problem before too. If you don't clear the list in a few hours, I am going to go ahead and do it, so it doesn't build up, OK? Prodego ^talk 20:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• How about letting Betacommand finish what he is doing? I know that I, for one, go through the list, approve who I feel is good, and only then do I go back to notify those I declined. By the way, that's far from a backlog. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Calm down Wizardry, the time at which I left the message, was just before Beta began clearing out the list. The reason I asked at all was that some people were saying that they had not received any messages about approval status from requests that were not on that day. And yes, that wasn't that much of a backlog, but backlogs do start to pile up if you don't get them at that stage. I know that from experience ;-). I personally go through the list by hand, chose who to approve/deny, and open their talk pages. Then I click Update in VP, and leave decline messages where applicable. That saves update edits in VP, but it is a matter of personal preference. Thanks for clearing it out Beta. Prodego ^talk 00:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• I can see where you would thing I was being a bit aggressive, but I did not mean to be. I'm under a lot of stress right now, and when I am I tend to get pretty blunt and abrupt. My apologies, I just meant to point the current condition out to you, not to challenge, and I reworded it to better show my intentions. I am glad you are investigating any possible VP abuse, and thanks for letting me know your concerns. How is the situation progressing? Prodego ^talk 01:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Beta, just to let you know, I think you accidently double approved a few users on your last approval run, could you fix that please? Thanks. Also, when would you like me to begin moderating again? Prodego ^talk 22:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

VP approval

Hi. Thanks for approving me for VandalProof. I still can't log in. Thanks anyway though. Xiner (talk, email) 19:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

VP Question

The Recent Changes section is not updating....I am not sure if I am not doing something right, so I am new to the whole program or not. If you could offer a little help, I would greatly appericate it. :o) Thanks....SVRTVDude 19:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Please check the vp bug page and if that doesnt fix please contact me at irc://freenode/Vandalproof Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 20:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Heyas again, I took a look at the VP Bug page, and only found one instance of "recent changes" there....but it didn't help me. I tried to contact you via the link you gave but FF won't bring it up. Can you tell I am a compy noob?:) Rock on....SVRTVDude 21:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Stopping using VP

Hi, I tried using VP after being accepted, and didn't really find it useful to me, and the way I edit. So my question is, is there a way of removing myself from the accepted list, or do I just have to forget about it? Asics talk 20:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC) p.s. it seems a good programme, just not what I need!

• We can remove you from the approved users list, if you would like. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

VP

I'm assuming I wasn't accepted for VP because a large percentage of my edits have came in the past week, which I understand. My question is, how long should I wait before trying to be accepted again? Thanks. ---CWY2190^TC 22:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Come back in about 3 weeks and Ill take a deeper look into it. At the moment I see no problems for your approval then hope to see you again, Cheers Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 05:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A personal request

As an uninvolved administrator in this matter, could you please look into Miltopia's complaint about pschemp's use of admin tools as elaborated at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Miltopia_Gaming_the_system.3F. It appears on the surface to be a content dispute where pschemp is using their admin tools to force their "side" of the issue. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Heads up

I have made a request for membership on the bots approval group. I have received only one response by User:Mets501, who suggested I drop the group a line[3] and let you know about my request. Thanks. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 4	22 January 2007	About the Signpost

Wikipedia modifies handling of "nofollow" tag	WikiWorld comic: "Truthiness"
News and notes: Talk page template, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

I strongly disagree with the deletion of Yusuf Mohammed Siyaad Indohaadde. He is one of the primary spokemen and leaders of the Islamic Courts Union in Somalia and crucial to the current events in the Somali Civil War (2006-present). In addition, similar articles exist on Hassan Abdullah Hersi al-Turki. Finally, I was just getting started on the article and was adding more material. Please consider replacing the article based on the evidence that it an important person and therefore warrants an article, even though it was only at its beginning stages. Thanks you. - WilsonjrWikipedia (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"Removing old protection"?

Saw you doing a bunch of protection removals on the recent changes stuff. However, it looks like some of the pages you were "removing" protection from, were not protected at the time you removed the protection. Are you using some sort of program that's reading old protections? User:Logical2u_Talk 22:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Please reply on my talk. -- Your recent spree of unprotections appears to be an unauthorized adminbot, and has flooded the protection log. Had you not been in WP:BAG I would have already blocked your account. Regardless of the legitimacy of the unblocks, running 8 database writes per min is excessive. Any reason this rate of actions is needed? — xaosflux ^Talk 01:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

  Thanks, FWIW, I'd be favorable of a one-time run of a bot/script under an existing admin account to clear this type of backlog, if proposed and discussed on WP:RFBOT first. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 01:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

My userpage

It's not strongly recommented to remove protection in regular user pages without asking the user first as the page is in userpage, I had my page protected for a reason, please don't do that again. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing personal but there is a massive backlog at Wikipedia:List of protected pages/User pages and I am attempting to clear it Asking all 200+ users that have pages listed there is not practical it is far far easier for the few people who need long term protection to re request it, As many of these pages are sockpuppets or temp protection, or the users have left the project. Please note this is nothing personal. But I am attempting to clear a MASSIVE backlog since no one esle seems to do it. Best wishes Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out your train of thought here: "Ok, CAT:CSD is backlogged, AfD is backlogged, images with no source/license/whatever is backlogged. No, instead I'll unprotect people's userpages - that'll help the encyclopedia!". What exactly was the use of mass unprotecting userpages, whether they're active users or socks or anything else? Have you actually read the relevant policy recently? Even more puzzling, why were you unprotecting pages that were never protected? -- Steel 02:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

There as been a massive backlog at Wikipedia:List of protected pages/User pages and as had a backlog there for weeks. and as such i decided to work on that backlog. a majority of those pages were protected and forgotten about. leaving a massive list clogging that page. I decided to clear out pages that were old. If a userpage needed long term protection it should have been placed in the proper location and not Wikipedia:List of protected pages/User pages. It might be how I am reading your comment but it seems that clearing backlogs doesnt help the encyclopedia unless it is a backlog that everyone is working at?. I have done my share of CSD work and I have deleted 2,000+ images that were in the backlog. So what I decided to choose another page with. {{adminbacklog}} on it today? if you need you page re-protected I can take care of that but protection should be used temporary solution and not something that can just be placed and forgotten about. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 02:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

There was a backlog at Wikipedia:List of protected pages/User pages. I know that because you've said it twice now. Back to my original questions though, what exactly was the use of mass unprotecting userpages, whether they're active users or socks or anything else? Have you actually read the relevant policy recently? Why were you unprotecting pages that were never protected? -- Steel 02:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

my reason: admin may unprotect any page after a reasonable period has lapsed, some of these pages were listed for over a year. that is not needed. In regard to pages that were not protected I thought my js skipped them. I did not realize that it "unprotected" pages that were not protected at the moment. I will look into that and fix that. but we dont need pages protected since 2005. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

How do protected userpages harm the encyclopedia? I trust you're familliar with the semi-protection policy, namely the section on userpages? -- Steel 15:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

how does having a userpage protected help? I was just clearing a backlog if you want I can stop and let you clear that backlog but someone has to clear it. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

*Sigh* Deliberately or otherwise, you are not addressing the issue here. Oh well, nice talking to you. -- Steel 15:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Unprotecting on user pages.

Hi, Betacommand. I noticed that you removed old protections on the user's pages that has been semi-protected or fully-protected for long times. I have no idea why you removed protection tags on user pages. I believed that some of them complaining about you. Could you explain to me why you removed protections tags on user pages? Please reply in my talk pages. Your response will be appreciated. Daniel5127 <Talk> 04:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

see above Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. !! Daniel5127 <Talk> 04:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

VP

Done with your musings yet? What's the story with VP moderation? --froth^T 06:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

musings ? what do you mean? I am taking care of the vp approvals. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 14:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

What he means is, are you done looking into the abuse reports, and can he go back to approvals now? He's been very patient, you know. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 16:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:UW

Afternoon, Just saw your post that you reverted on WP:UW, just in case you hadn't realised everything is parsered in now, there's are no need for -n warnings. I'm out tonight, but I want to have a chat with you about getting these warning into VP, and if there's owt I can do. Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 16:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted my post there after I saw that it was parsered in. I am working on a patch for VP right now. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Cheers muchly. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 16:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding VP and your message on my talk page

I had a couple questions for you...

• When approving a user for VP, how many mainspace edits are you looking for? I'd rather not waste both my time and yours by applying again before I'm ready.
• I was a bit perplexed by the edit summary you left on my talk page: "Warning user not to remove warnings using VP." I wasn't aware that I had removed anything. I would appreciate it if you could explain this to me.

--Mbc362 16:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

that was my goof about the edit summary I changed one of the buttons in VP to help with the approval process I guess I forgot to change the summary. Sorry about that Ill fix that. I generaly look for 250+ mainspace edits and experience in vandalfighting. Hope that helps. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalproof

Thank you for you help, I've try again, but it doesn't work. Martial BACQUET 17:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

What can I do? Martial BACQUET 19:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

VP

No worries. I guess I'll just keep using Lupin's for the time being. Jem 17:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

VP

I am going to resume moderating the list now, OK? Prodego ^talk 22:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection

Hello,why did you remove remove protection from my pages without consulting me? My talk was only move protected.--Dakota 22:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly care, but I would exercise caution when unprotecting userpages; mine was initially semi-protected for insertion of personal information by a determined vandal, and I imagine others would have their userpages protected against some banned user. Then again, I suppose I'd enjoy seeing mine used as a punching bag for frustrated users occasionally... Grandmasterka 13:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

My page was protected because of a particular banned user trolling on site not to even mention the vast number of emails from the same user. My talk was move protection only. No one should be moving established user pages without a specific reason. I suppose it doesn't matter and yes caution would be best when unprotecting userpages.--Dakota 00:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Something interesting...

Hello Betacommand, I was looking through recent changes and found this while looking at a talk page. I'm not sure how much is boast or how much is truth but they seem to claim someone is interested in spreading a virus through the website. Just wanted to bring it to your attention.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't think of anyway to do that, except one. You could link to a site that would install a virus, but short of editing Mediawiki:Common.js (and adding some malicious javascript), you could not execute code by just editing a page. Prodego ^talk 01:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection of my user page

Just for the record, within hours of you unprotecting my user page without consulting me, it was vandalised. Please drop me a line to explain why it was unprotected and unless I am somehow violating a rule I'm unaware of, I'd appreciate being informed or consulted in future before a page I protect for good reason is unprotected. Thanks. 23skidoo 02:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Space warfare in fiction

I wish to challenge your deletion of this article. There was certainly not a consensus for deletion, and I felt that I and other editors put forward strong arguments for retention of the article. If you obtained the 'delete' result by counting heads, then that is a violation of Wikipedia policy; if you decided it based on your own views, then you have made the wrong decision. Please explain why you deleted this article, preferably without just repeating the patronising comments made by other editors during the AfD, who noticeably declined to respond to the later points I made. Walton monarchist89 21:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw the consensus to delete if you dont agree take it to WP:DRV Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletedpage

This Discussion has moved to User:Betacommand/Bot Tasks 15:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

VandalProof Moderation

With all due respect, Betacommand, we've been patient enough. I am going to resume moderation, and I am going to suggest Prodego and Froth that they continue as well, with of course the caveat that if he has any uncertainties, Froth should contact me. Respectfully, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you should go ahead Peter, Beta has already told me that I should resume moderating [4]. However, Froth is not a mod anymore - though I feel that, in time, he should be restored - so do not notify him. Prodego ^talk 20:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a shame. He was acting in good faith and just didn't have as much oversight as he should've as he was learning. I would fully support his reinstatement when and if he is reconsidered as a moderator. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Teach him. He has quite a bit of potential here. When he is ready to be returned, ask AmiDaniel. Prodego ^talk 01:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Betacommandbot

I was just wondering if your bot is still substing images template? It seems to have stopped but just want to make sure. BJ^Talk 08:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, the bot is just following WP:SUBST. BJ^Talk 01:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I take that back, {{Album Image}} should be substed but {{albumcover}} should not. BJ^Talk 01:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

User page protection

Hey, Betacommand. I noticed you removed protection from my userpage. I know that policy states that user pages, and pages in general, should not be under protection for lengthy periods of time, but my administrator status on Wikipedia is well-known throughout both my rather large dormitory and also my fraternity, and is listed on Facebook, and I don't trust them not to vandalize my user page. I know you were acting in Good Faith, but I think my case is a bit different. I know that Ryulong is a college student and protects his userpage as well. Regards, RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 22:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)