User talk:Beetstra/Archives 2017

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

COIBot living though not editing

Hi. COIBot lives in IRC and appears to be functioning as expected, however, it is not writing edits to meta, and backlog shows a number of reports queued. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Funny, it just started editing ... I'll have a proper look at it later this weekend. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 13:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

It is back in the same situation again; only writing a quickcreate. Yet it is gobbling up backlog files (without report writing), I am wondering whether it is churning through a case of some sort? Logs say
<COIBot> Syslogs: case: 410209 secs. coibot: 274 secs. commander: 1 secs. diffreader: 1963 secs. linksaver: 11 secs. output: 108 secs. parser: 3627 secs. script: -1 secs. special: 3569180 secs. [21:55] <LiWa3_3> Syslogs: diffreader: 16 secs. linkanalyser: 91 secs. linkparser: 6115 secs. linkreporter: 864293 secs. linkwatcher: 147 secs. output: -1 secs. script: -1 secs.
but I cannot tell/remember what I am looking for. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Still without writinig

Syslogs: case: 474467 secs. coibot: 521 secs. commander: 0 secs. diffreader: 5382 secs. linksaver: 249 secs. output: 367 secs. parser: 25934 secs. script: -1 secs. special: 3633438 secs
 Syslogs: diffreader: 13 secs. linkanalyser: 256 secs. linkparser: 1822 secs. linkreporter: 928550 secs. linkwatcher: 3106 secs. output: -1 secs. script: -1 secs.

— billinghurst sDrewth 05:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

There has been reports! ;-)

 Syslogs: case: 9970 secs. coibot: 937 secs. commander: 0 secs. diffreader: 2211 secs. linksaver: 399 secs. output: -1 secs. parser: 7313 secs. script: -1 secs. special: 3752307 secs.
Syslogs: diffreader: 3 secs. linkanalyser: 61 secs. linkparser: 3501 secs. linkreporter: 1047430 secs. linkwatcher: 578 secs. output: -1 secs. script: -1 secs.

So presumably it was just something BIG! — billinghurst sDrewth 13:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

FYI. It is apparent that when it gets into a backlog file-reading phase that COIBot stops writing reports. This means that the current situation of nearly 7k files (oscillating up and down) is meaning that we have no reports and at this rate we won't get any for a while.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billinghurst (talk)

LiWa3 is on an instance that cannot be cleared, and there are three python scripts on it that take away most of the processor speed. It has been tried to move LiWa3, but that also does not seem to work. I guess I will have to live to wait that the other tasks die ... Until then likely no automatic reports, though it should save the requested ones (COIBot and LiWa3 are independent of each other), but thos reports are then likely missing the last data. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 03:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The bot was off processing for a couple of days, and the report that it generated was User:COIBot/LinkReports/airkobokan.com which is not very big. I do note that it has a simple http line. So noting it for the next time it disappears processing again. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: you could try an on-irc restart linksaver. That should kill the linksaver and automatically spawn a new one. The report it is then saving is lost (if any). Regarding this morning, I killed it from the console. I'll have a look what it said before that. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 10:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: .. it may just have been logged out from meta .. it was editing on en.wikipedia ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 10:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

?-: is there an online test for its status? I don't like pinging all the time when it is just a case of waiting— as it can be on occasions. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: it had contributions on en.wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 11:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, you mean something else. No, there isn't. syslog linksaver on IRC however might give some info towards what is happening .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 11:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It has stopped writing again, though it is still feeding-in reports; and linksaver looks to be happily churning away. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

And again only on Meta. I tried to log it back in just now, let's see what it does. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 13:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

— billinghurst sDrewth 10:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Seems that COIBot may be logged out of meta and enWP. No reports for about twelve hours at either. Running syslog linksaver shows that it is running and believes that it is saving reports
Line 5: * 2017-2-11 @ 23:36:55 - Saving report Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports / mystellar.org on en.wikipedia.org
— billinghurst sDrewth 23:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Gone west! Looks like it is sitting waiting for input. Linksaver is there waiting ... staring (restarts made no change). Everything just seems there and just twiddling their virtual thumbs awaiting a feed. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Tried to log it in again .. just did that this morning .. I don't understand why COIBot loses its login so often, much more than XLinkBot. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 11:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, if logged out, then linksaver sits there looking stupid. Got it. Makes sense. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

no editing of COIBot since 5:49 UTC on either meta or enWP. linksaver is running and currently. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

What friggin' problem does this bot have .. every couple of days, I just logged it in earlier this week. I'll have a look in a couple of hours. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 03:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Appears to be logged out on Meta. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikidirectory and other proposals for new projects

Hello. You may want to vote on Wikidirectory, Wikijournal, and other proposals for new projects. Join in those discussions. --George Ho (talk) 08:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

watchers at irc,wikimedia haven't reappeared

Following the (announced) reboot of irc.wikimedia.org on 21 June, none of the expected watchers have reappeared in the channels, well not those that I am watching. Are you able to give them a poke so that they come back. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Email

Hi. I sent you a couple of days ago an email for an important issue. Can you please confirm me if you've received it? Regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

The verifiability of Wikipedia should not be a victim of my sockpuppeteering.

Hoi Dirk, I see that after another user [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABeetstra&type=revision&diff=793550169&oldid=793481379

had accused me of being a spammer] during my Sock Puppet Investigation that you believed them on their face value and started removing Primaltrek from various wikis such as here, here, and here. As you may or may not have noticed most instances of Primaltrek were as references, some of those placed years before I even wrote a single Asian numismatic article. Primaltrek is not a spam site for various reasons, 1) it’s not ad supported and doesn't gain anything from incoming traffic, 2) it doesn't sell anything or list people that sell anything, 3) unlike Wikipedia it never asks donations from its readers, 4) like Wikipedia it lists inline citations (well, at the “blog” part) to various books and other sources and these citations would be preferable if they weren’t in Mandarin so it would be more beneficial to the readers to include both the English Primaltrek and a Chinese source (as not everyone can read Mandarin making the content harder to verify). 5) the website itself is purely educational and is probably the most reputable online (English language) source on the monetary histories of China and Korea, not being able to use this as a source seriously handicaps many of those articles.

For comparison’s sake if one would look at en:Windows 10 version history one could see the primary (thus a conflict of interest) source quoted numerous times excessively, or at any Apple-related article find the AOL operated TechChrunch or Engadget (both ad supported by paid writers) used hundreds of times. And another comparison would be with a book by David Hartill (which I had bought specifically to expand and create Chinese numismatic articles for Wikipedia) which I had used to an even larger amount, in fact on my user page at Wikimedia Commons I had specifically explained why I used Primaltrek, how I used it and that at al times I would look for alternative sources so no article by itself would be “dependent” on Primaltrek. Of course nobody read that and just assumed that I'm here to spam some non-ad supported educational website. 😒

Why Primal Trek wouldn't benefit from being on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia has a nofollow HTML policy which wouldn't benefit Primaltrek, in fact being on Wikipedia would be detrimental to the website as it would now have to compete with Wikipedia as both now host the same information and Wikipedia generally tends to top Google results. I could even argue that prohibiting Primaltrek is more beneficial to Primaltrek than to Wikipedia because material that is now unsourced can be removed forcing those looking for the information back to Primaltrek.

And again, even if people would click on the links all they would get is a website with SLIGHTLY more detailed information (in some cases, as I worked really hard to find other informational sources that lists things that Primaltrek doesn't have which I also explained on my Commons user page at “the Beauty of Wikipedia”), and the ONLY real advantage Primaltrek currently has is that it hosts images of the coins it discusses (which Commons barely does) and to that end I even e-mailed Mr. Gary Ashkenazy if he could upload his images to Wikimedia Commons a few months ago. All I can see here is that because I had insulted another user you thought that the best way to punish me is by also punishing the readers and the verifiability of Wikipedia itself, this seems like a completely unrelated and unfounded way of punishing people and harming encyclopedic content to punish people is the opposite of why anyone should be here at Wikipedia.

A final disclaimer regarding this issue.

Ik heb nooit geld of wat voor compensatie ooit voor welke van mijn bewerkingen dan ook gekregen, ik verwacht hier nooit geld of een andere compensatie voor te krijgen en alle en elke bewerking dat ik in “de mainspace” deed was voor geen enkele reden anders dan leerzame inhoud voor de lezers te maken. Daarom verzoek ik u vriendelijk op Primaltrek van de globale blacklist te halen en alle schade hierdoor ongedaan te maken.

Sent from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --2405:4800:1484:9937:5D8B:D03:A52B:64D6 00:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC) (Donald Trung

As the first report states, you were using sockpuppets, and those sock puppets are clearly linked to the website. That would mean that you are linked to the website, and that is reconfirmed here.

You totally misunderstand our conflict of interest policy, it has nothing to do with a subject of a page and the links on said page. COI is linked to a person, and the material they are adding to Wikipedia.

You totally misunderstand our policies of spam, they have often nothing to do with wht is linked to, it is linked to how (and by who) these links are added.

And you completely misunderstand spamming - why if spammers/editors with a clear COI (like you) do not have any benefit, why do they keep spamming Wikipedia. Altruism?

You will not be allowed to edit after your extensive sock puppetry. If uninvolved editors find need for the link, we will hear from them. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 12:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

What spam if I may ask and what conflict of interest? I am in no way connected to the website nor did I add the spam with sockouppets (I clearly stated on my user page that I mostly edit signed off and that I was the IPs editing those articles), how did I spam a link? Different references from various websites were also used to a lesser extent, did I spam a book too? As I had used David Hartill more often Primaltrek.

Please tell me what COI I have concerning Prinaltrek as I didn't seem to fins any in Wikipedia:COI. --2405:4800:1484:9937:987B:8124:7E28:1B6D 14:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC) (Donald Trung)

Also in no way am I linked to any website, I am currently employed as an English teacher and I own a restaurant that my wife operates. I have never been paid by any website for anything nor do I have an interest in receiving any money from any website, I sincerely doubt that you understand the COI policy. --2405:4800:1484:9937:987B:8124:7E28:1B6D 14:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

And ro answer your question, adding educational content is altruism, I personally have no benefit from it but those interested in reading the subject (you know, the people you should be here for) do, and I have no idea id you even saw my sockpuppetry case but it all concerned about insulting an editor, not a single sock puppet account I have created linked any website. So please tell me how I am paid by an evil educational website to make sure no one has to go to their website to find information on the subject of their expertise. --2405:4800:1484:9937:987B:8124:7E28:1B6D 14:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

And since you globally banned it, did you even look at where you removed it from? On Serbian Wikipedia in one instance you removed it from someone's user space (not me), or are you to claim that that person too is somehow connected to Primaltrek? --2405:4800:1484:9937:987B:8124:7E28:1B6D 14:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

You signed above with 'Donald Trung' .. that account was one of the editors adding it, and there were more sockpuppets that added the link.

If non-involved editors come to discuss the link, we will consider it. If the owners of primaltrek will come to complain, I will point them to the sockpuppetcase that caused this.

Yes, I removed it everywhere (not that much was left, most of it was already removed), it is blacklisted, leaving it there will result in problems at some point. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 15:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The sockpuppet case was about me insulting another user, o account I made added the link, and for the record as you removed it here, I am not Neboysha87. I genuinely wonder if you know what a COI is, and if so then please explain my COI. Years ago I also added ZDNet ten times in one day and I have used that link probably 50 times, I could just as well claim that the Universitair Medisch Centrum Groningen pays me every time I say "gezindheid" or Santa Claus when I say "Merry Christmas". I doubt that you have even looked at the case as I had stopped adding Primaltrek to the enwiki around mid-July. --2405:4800:1484:9937:987B:8124:7E28:1B6D 20:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

No, you were blocked for socking. That had as a consequence that we implemented ways to stop. You are on the internet. Things have consequences. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 05:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)