Aside from some moments of poor judgement that all we humans are occassionally guilty of my personal believe is you have skills that are seriously needed in WP and after reading the comments and history you seem to have made ammends and want to continue to edit. I have a question about yuor former bot and your ANI discussion though that I wanted to ask before I support or oppose. Do you have a listing of the tasks that your bot previously performed (and presumably would again at some point if the restrictions are lifted)? Has any of the tasks previously done by your bot been assumed by others? --Kumioko (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I know quite a few where taken over:
  • Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 6
  • Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 3
  • Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 4
• but some where not:
  • Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 9
  • Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 5
• there where several other tasks that where done but for the most part where one off tasks. There was also a move to commons bot that I ran, that process has died since then. For the most part the only task that I would (possibly) restart that isnt already being taken care of would be task #5 and maybe a subst: bot. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 20:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. I have other ideas that are on the drawing board, but the only known task I have that I want to do is removal of missing/deleted files. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 20:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry it took me a bit to return. Thanks for responding so quickly. I will go and add my support in a few minutes. Good luck and happy botting. --Kumioko (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
FYI, tools:~betacommand/AfD_parser.html doesn't currently work (try feeding it with e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Tynan, it time-outs after a while).
Amalthea 13:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WRT results table: I note that the number of opinions is not included, as this must be estimated for the percentage results count it would be handy to include (e.g. 100% can mean no opinions actually expressed at the moment). I see that where there are no opinions, the nomination is counted as a delete; this may not be the intention of a nomination as I sometimes raise them for wider discussion after tricky PROD deletion, it does not mean I think the article should be deleted, only that I am asking for a consensus result on delete or keep. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats something Im working on, I had it in the table originally, but it screwed up the sorting, Ive remove it temporally until I can tweak the table to include it without breaking anything else. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, you may want to ponder the meaning of 'expired' too. It would be handy to take into account AFD relistings, for example an AFD with 2 options and re-listed twice is probably desperate for a couple of additional opinions. Oh, and the colours, marking a result as red/yellow/green is a bit rash if there are <=2 opinions, perhaps it should be left, say, a neutral black until there are at least 3? Fæ (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for "Expired" it just uses some basic logic with filed time and the number of {{Relist}}'s (for each template it extends the life of the AfD by a week). Thus it should consider re-lists correctly. If there is a specific AfD where this is not accurate let me know. (this is fuzzy logic that I just implemented there may be errors). As for coloring I just use a basic % scale, anything within certain values get a specific color. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, these are not bugs but areas that are your design choice. Having the columns sortable helps a lot. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see the ANI discussion is going positively. Don't forget that ArbCom must also "endorse" the task before the bot can make any edits regarding the task (e.g. a trial in the BRFA). It's up to you whether you start that request before the BRFA, at the same time as the BRFA, or once a BAGger indicates that only ArbCom endorsement stands in the way of a trial. Anomie⚔ 23:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion concerning 250 edits you made with AWB at WP:AN#Request for blanket rollback permission for a series of erroneous AWB edits made on some 250 articles. Fram (talk) 12:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Xeno has asked a key question on the thread: you have an editing restriction which would not normally allow you to tag 250 articles in a row. If you found consensus somewhere to do this job, you need to provide a link to that immediately. When you avoid providing such a link, it appears you violated your editing restriction. Although no notice should be necessary, the site culture unfortunately obligates me to point out that violating your edit restriction in the near future is likely to result in your account being blocked. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]