[WikiEN-l] BetacommandBot, (currently) centralized discussion

[George Herbert]

On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

> George Herbert wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 5:15 AM, Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In reply to George, I don't think tagging images by the bot results in
> >> auto
> >> delete. An administrator making a conscious decision is required,
> although
> >> some administrators run scripts to delete all images past the deadline.
> >> That
> >> isn't auto-deletion, though, just a call by the admin that all expired
> >> warnings mean images should be deleted.
> >>
> > As long as some admins run those scripts, and some do, the effect is
> > effectively auto-deletion.  How that happens / via what mechanism, the
> only
> > thing that matters is that "no human reviews each individual case before
> it
> > going poof".
> Yes, and I think this is the crux of WJhonson's arguments.  Bots are a
> very convenient technique for those who feel overwhelmed by copyvios.
> The problem is that solving the problem with toxic pesticides damages
> the environment.
>

Not to focus the argument on or pick on him particularly, but East718 just
did a run that amounted to this and nuked one image off one page that I
noticed, and on checking his logs appears to have gotten a bunch more too.

The one that got deleted had been manually tagged, not bot-tagged, and the
tag was proper (there was no current rationale), but the rationale was self
evident and easy.

It might help with friendly behavior modification if a few more senior
people hop over and constructively ask him not to do that again... (note:
CONSTRUCTIVELY ... thanks)


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com