User talk:MBHbot

Welcome!

Hello, MBHbot, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as ВП:Самые используемые скрипты, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

Article development
Standard layout
Lead section
The perfect article
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. You can also type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Fram (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of ВП:Самые используемые скрипты

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, ВП:Самые используемые скрипты, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other test edits you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Fram (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram OK, thanks for tagging me, this page was created for ruwiki and posted to en: due to bot error. MBH (talk) 12:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "MBHbot", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it contains the suffix "-bot", which is generally reserved for authorized bot accounts. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may file for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account and use that for editing. Thank you. $Salvio giuliano$ 19:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may not believe, but there is not only enwiki exists in Wikimedia movement, and last 10 years we have a Single User Login and thus inevitable have one username in all projects. You can see SUL of this account and see it has a bot flag in ten projects. MBH (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot edit as a bot on this Wikipedia without going through the bot approval process on this Wikipedia. Secretlondon (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not editing as a bot in this wiki. Here another users say I can do anything in my personal subspace. MBH (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You say above that the bot posted a Russian article on English wikipedia due to bot error. Secretlondon (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It was posted to enwiki instead of ruwiki due to bot error, it was not my intention to post this to enwiki. MBH (talk) 16:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article)) for running an unapproved bot in mainspce. Your claims are somewhat contradictory, first saying you are not editing as a bot and then blaming a bot error for creating a page that obviously does not belong in article space. If this is a bot, it shouldn't be editing article space. If it is not a bot, you can't use this username here. How they do things on ru.wp is not relvant to either of these points..

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MBHbot (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This block is unbelieveable, but OK, I will try to explain in more detail.

This bot performs many tasks in ruwiki, one of them is generating an analogue of this stats - ru:ВП:СИС.
My algorithm takes into account a greater variety of script inclusion syntaxes, and I decided to run it in enwiki to compare the results of its work and the current enwiki table and maybe suggest enwiki's table generator bot owner to use my bot instrad of him in enwiki. Enwiki results should have been saved on my sandbox page.
Due to bot error, ruwiki's result table was posted to enwiki. It wasn't even an article (in ruwiki), it's a page in "Wikipedia" namespace, it appears in enwiki's main namespace because enwiki has no ruwiki's namespace alias ВП: for "Wikipedia" namespace. This page was found and speedy deleted in two minutes. I don't have and never had any intention of making any edits in the enwiki's main namespace as a bot.
I think it's a reason to unblock this account - it isn't planned to perform any edits from this account in enwiki's article space. Ping Just Step Sideways. MBH (talk) 03:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This block is only on the English Wikipedia, it does not affect the Russian Wikipedia. Here, there is a process to gain approval for the use of a bot. If you don't intend to make any edits from yourself or the bot, there is no need to remove the block since blocks only prevent editing. 331dot (talk) 06:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I wonder if this block is really necessary. First they create ВП:Самые используемые скрипты, which was an obvious bot error, which can be assumed they fixed since it didn't happen again. Then they edit another users subpage, likely due to not knowing that Wikipedia:BOTUSERSPACE doesn't apply for that. After they fixed that they get called out for their username, which frankly makes no sense. Then they say this which shows they learned about Wikipedia:BOTUSERSPACE (from an admin!) And then they get blocked for that one (likely already fixed) bot error and even after a easily understandable unblock request that shows the block isn't needed, they're still denied. @331dot can you tell my what exactly the block is preventing after they said they intend to make no edits to the article space? More bot errors? Nobody (talk) 07:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1AmNobody24 There needs to be some reason, some benefit to Wikipedia, to remove the block. If they don't intend to edit from this account, there is no need to do anything here. If they intend to gain approval for this bot for the purpose of using it here, they should do that first. 331dot (talk) 07:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot Hmm, that's not my read of WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE, but since it's at your discretion per WP:PBPOL I can understand why you denied it. Nobody (talk) 07:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1AmNobody24 I might feel differently if this were an account meant to be operated by a human, but it's not. 331dot (talk) 07:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's only a partial block I can agree to that. I just felt that normally there is a clear reason to be blocked, which I just don't see at this point. And subseqentelly if theres no reason to block there can be no reason to unblock. Nobody (talk) 07:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot If a user is blocked, it means he is bad and dangerous person, it means he did something harmful - it's a default understanding of "why he is blocked". To block indefinitely a user who didn't cause any harm and not to remove this block just because he isn't interested to make edits in this wiki is a grave insult of this user. For me and in ruwiki - it is. MBH (talk) 07:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MBH You are absolutely free to edit (or refrain from editing); your bot is not. You need to gain approval to use the bot here- and it sounds like you don't intend to do that or even attempt to use the bot here. If you don't intend to use this bot here, there is no need to do anything with this block. Us volunteer admins have enough to do without carrying out actions that don't need to be carried out. 331dot (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that bot is blocked, not me. If a user's bot is blocked, it means this bot did harmful edits... see above. MBH (talk) 07:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since your current bot edits fall under Wikipedia:BOTUSERSPACE you aren't affected by the partial block at all. And you would have to go through a BRFA either way if you wanted your bot to edit article space. I can understand that it probably feels like having a block for no reason, but since it doesn't really affect anything editing wise you'll probably have to accept it. Nobody (talk) 07:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And if you personally don't want to do action that "isn't needed", another admin could differ with you about it, so it isn't needed to decline an unblocking request. MBH (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MBH Then your option is to make a new unblock request and ask that someone else carry out an action that isn't needed. Be aware that right now there is a significant backlog of requests that do require action, so it will likely be a long time before someone else responds to your request.

The bot did do harmful edits- it made edits without approval. 331dot (talk) 07:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edits without approval =/= harmful edits. Harmful edits is edits made with intention of harm or breaking something. MBH (talk) 07:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. Approval would be meaningless if bots were allowed to just make edits; it's harmful to the project to allow community processes and rules to be violated without consequence. A driver of a car can't operate without a license, even if they make few or minor infractions. That only encourages others to operate without a license. As I've said, you are free to make a new unblock request for someone else to review. They will take action as they see fit without consulting me, but I think I've acted properly. 331dot (talk) 08:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edits which need to be reverted = harmful edits, as they waste volunteer time for no benefit at all. There doesn't have to be an intention to be harmful for the end result to be harmful. Fram (talk) 08:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]