User talk:Rotlink/201309

Another Barnstar for you!

Please accept this archiver's Barnstar for your huge help on keeping the Wikipedia references alive. Many thanks! —  Ark25  (talk) 02:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Automated editing

Hi! Per WP:BOTPOL you can be blocked for unapproved automated editing. You've already done so with a bot and now you are continuing (albeit low-speed) on your main account. Your task is very beneficial, but it is not a reason alone to circumvent our processes that are there for a reason. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. It is actually a single change (caused by chartstats.com decision to remove the content) which occurs on many (~1500) pages. There is even no bot heuristic to be supervised. I hit a chartstats.com dead link reading Wikipedia, fixed it on one page and tell the script to do the same change elsewhere. Rotlink (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

That is the definition of an unsupervised script (regardless of the actual function) that requires a separate account and should any disputes arise the method will be considered automated. 1500 is not a few pages, we have full bot approvals for half that. I'm just letting you know you are breaking policy, I won't take it anywhere further. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The robot ignores www.monitorulexpres.ro newspaper

Hello again! I would like to ask you why the news on ro:Monitorul Expres are not archived? For example at the ro:Colorom article, this link: http://www.monitorulexpres.ro/?mod=monitorulexpres&a=citeste&p=economic&s_id=45199 (the second reference). It's there since 2010. Thanks. —  Ark25  (talk) 09:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi! It is archived: http://archive.is/Hk4jC Rotlink (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Right. The gadget had an unnecessary transformation of "&" into "%26". Thanks again! —  Ark25  (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continued use of unapproved bots. Your edits today constitute a proxy attack on Wikipedia, with anonymous edits from all over the globe creating links to your site. Your bot to do so was blocked as unapproved. Resorting to proxy abuse was not the solution.. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

—Kww(talk) 18:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

This issue is being discussed at WP:ANI#Mass rollbacks required.—Kww(talk) 18:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Indefinite block, with no prior attempt to discuss, is not appropriate use of admin tools, nor appropriate admin behavior. Discussion is an appropriate action, as would be a short block, with unrestricted permission and invitation to discuss on an appropriate Talk page. We need to exhibit proper respect for someone who has shown considerable dedication to meeting and exceeding the archival abilities of both archive.org and webcitation.org mainly for Wikipedia's use. All that's missing from archive.is's CV is longevity. Let's not stab the wild gift horse in the heart, thanks. Let's instead bring in the horse whisperer. --Lexein (talk) 08:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
  • There were certainly previous discussions, firstly after their bot was blocked Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard/Archive 8#RotlinkBot approved.3F, User talk:RotlinkBot#Blocked then a BRFA Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RotlinkBot that was withdrawn #BRFA withdrawn, then further note above about #Automated editing on main account where I warned that this can be a blockable offense after which they started using IP proxies. In the end, they were perfectly aware that they are violating our policies and chose to circumvent the process. I'm sorry to see a very beneficial task be put on halt because of this. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Gah. Thanks, though, for linking the discussions. (I wish somebody else had bothered to do so. Just more evidence that they're burned out and too resentful to do the community any favors.) I don't want rogue bots, but I also don't want perfectly valid edits they might perform to be reverted out of nothing more than petulant scorched-earth nerdrage. "See watr I dun? I burnt forest!" I hate nerdrage, especially when such a childish tantrum damages the encyclopedia worse than the alleged offense did. The attempted rationalization of that action behind WP:DENY is cowardly and pathetic, and anti-Five Pillars. It's time to re-assess these bullshit mass reverts. --Lexein (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)