User talk:AKAF/Archive2008
Do you really mean it?
[edit]I read the strange things that you wrote about me and my materials. Do really mean it? Have you change your mind since then? genick --potto (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom
[edit]Im not sure you know all the facts. Lar only asked for the code for the NFCC task. I currently have 1,099 files and 82 folders (51.7 MB of data) that make up the code of BCBot. someone who is not very familiar with the code will have no clue at what they are looking at. if Lar or someone else want the code for any particular task I am willing to give it to them the code to that particular task if they want it, (and I trust them). given that my code base is a working copy a lot of back end things change and may change often. I also have a lot of scripts that are half written or are for non-editing BCBot functions. When BCBot has a bug, which does happen from time to time due to mediawiki software changes, I am normally very quick to respond and fix them. If there are un-resolved issues I am not aware of them. there have been some feature request that due to their nature I have been unable to implement or due to the complexity of the request I have not finished yet. Also I do keep the scripts from in-active BCBot tasks because more often than not I re-use them in new code. I keep the source code private for good reason, I do not add a lot of safety features into my code. Since I know I am the only one who is going to be using them, I dont bother with a lot of the safeties that I would have in a normal public script. for example my main NFC code has the ability to edit at 12,000 edits a minute if your connection, processor, and the servers could handle it. that is not something I want just every to have access to. given that a majority of my scripts are similarly designed I just dont trust many people with that kind of power. you dont hand kids nuclear bombs, and I dont trust the average user to have my code. βcommand 19:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Betacommand,
- I'm sure that I do not know all the facts, and you should be sure that I have nothing but admiration for your perserverence in the face of considerable attack. I can quite understand your unwillingness to have your code opened to all users, and I am sympathetic to your idea that such is only giving a leg-up to someone who wants to mount an attack on the Wikipedia servers. That said however, I also have first-hand experience of the perils of a code monolith and the compromises which become ever more frequent as the code grows. I also have problems reconciling your release of only a portion of the code to Lar, with your assertion that Betacommandbot is not easily splittable, because in that case the logical result is that there is important code which he has not received. I strongly suspect that many of the problems of Betacommandbot would be reduced, were you to seriously undertake to split the tasks.
- I see the technical and political problems of Betacommandbot as being closely related, and I think that it would be considerably easier for you to see when a task is too different to the approved task if you were to create the new accounts Betacommandbot1, Betacommandbot2 etc, and this would help both you and the BAG to keep everything organised. It would also mean that you would reduce the effect of a single point of failure on the operation of the bot, and hopefully on your stress level. It would be my hope that, for instance, if Betacommandbot8 is blocked due to a bug, that this would cause you less stress and allow you to concentrate on Betacommandbot4 until you have time and inclination to fix the bug.
- I would hope that this RFAr would be an opportunity for you to take a step back and consider how the structure of Betacommandbot relates to the political and technical discussion. Perhaps this would afford you the opportunity to plan strategically how the further development of Betacommandbot can be optimised to minimise stress for you and discussions on AN.
- Regards, AKAF (talk) 07:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
More bot policy
[edit]Hey there.
I've addressed some of the concerns you have expressed here; I'd appreciate it if you would look things over? — Coren (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
My RfBAG
[edit]Hi, this is just a heads-up to notify you that I've written a response to your comment on my RfBAG nomination in an attempt to clarify my position on some of the things you mentioned. Please don't take it as an attempt to dissuade you from opposing: I'm genuinely glad for your comments, and do not mind such well-reasoned opposition at all. That said, your comment made me suspect I've somehow failed in my nomination statement to properly express my views on some rather fundamental issues, and I hope my response might be able to clarify at least some of them. If you'd happen to want to continue the discussion, feel free to do so either here, there, on my talk page, on the RfBAG talk page or even by e-mail, whichever you find most suitable and appropriate. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)