Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 46/ad hominem
Part 1[edit]
- Unless the templates such as {{portal box}} are deleted at TfD, normal bot rules would not permit a bot to go through and replace all instances. BAG has customarily denied such requests to bypas redirects solely for the sake of bypassing redirects. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Er... the wording of the salient parts of the BRFA is identical to your wording for VeblenBot 4, which was agreed. Perhaps that should be revoked? Rich Farmbrough, 11:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
- VeblenBot 4 is a historical relic in some sense, from a bygone age. In retrospect it is surprising it was ever approved, and I would not be surprised if BAG were to revoke it. On the other hand, I have been very cautious not to do anything at all fishy with it. The block logs of VeblenBot and SmackBot are quite different. That is one difference between this request and the VeblenBot one. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, VeblenBot doesn't have a crazed admin chasing it around blocking it for ridiculous reasons. Rich Farmbrough, 12:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
- In the last 12 months alone, it was blocked by CBM, Ucucha, Angusmclellan, RD232, MSGJ, me, and Deacon of Pndapetzim. Veblenbot was never blocked. Blaming this on one admin (with a personal attack thrown in for good measure) doesn't reflect reality. Fram (talk) 12:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sigh. Well I think if BAG want to discuss block records they will. Bringing it up when you two have been tag teaming me for such a long time discredits you (plural) not me, making such a misrepresentation is even worse. Rich Farmbrough, 13:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
- I'm glad you consider your misrepresentation worse than my supposed tag teaming. The block log of a bot is quite relevant when discussing requests for approval of new tasks for that bot. But the only reason I posted here is that you felt the need to make an unwarranted personal attack against another editor while ignoring the other admins that blocked the same bot (if you had renamed Smackbot instead of creating a new bot, this would have been more obvious, but for some reason you chose not to rename it). Fram (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- I would rather have renamed it, but t is not possible. All blocks of SmackBot in the last year were down to two events.
- You left a message on my talk page and MSGJ blocked it, as apparently I am under an obligation to respond to you within 3 hours or less.....
- Some putative problem you blocked for and said I could unblock, which other admins didn't even bother reading.
- Essentially down to you being a nuisance. So a little advice, next time you want to comment on anything relating to me, feel free, but instead of clicking the "save page" when you have finished, use the little "X" button in the top right hand corner of your browser. Rich Farmbrough, 13:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
- I would rather have renamed it, but t is not possible. All blocks of SmackBot in the last year were down to two events.
- I'm glad you consider your misrepresentation worse than my supposed tag teaming. The block log of a bot is quite relevant when discussing requests for approval of new tasks for that bot. But the only reason I posted here is that you felt the need to make an unwarranted personal attack against another editor while ignoring the other admins that blocked the same bot (if you had renamed Smackbot instead of creating a new bot, this would have been more obvious, but for some reason you chose not to rename it). Fram (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sigh. Well I think if BAG want to discuss block records they will. Bringing it up when you two have been tag teaming me for such a long time discredits you (plural) not me, making such a misrepresentation is even worse. Rich Farmbrough, 13:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
- In the last 12 months alone, it was blocked by CBM, Ucucha, Angusmclellan, RD232, MSGJ, me, and Deacon of Pndapetzim. Veblenbot was never blocked. Blaming this on one admin (with a personal attack thrown in for good measure) doesn't reflect reality. Fram (talk) 12:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, VeblenBot doesn't have a crazed admin chasing it around blocking it for ridiculous reasons. Rich Farmbrough, 12:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
- VeblenBot 4 is a historical relic in some sense, from a bygone age. In retrospect it is surprising it was ever approved, and I would not be surprised if BAG were to revoke it. On the other hand, I have been very cautious not to do anything at all fishy with it. The block logs of VeblenBot and SmackBot are quite different. That is one difference between this request and the VeblenBot one. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Er... the wording of the salient parts of the BRFA is identical to your wording for VeblenBot 4, which was agreed. Perhaps that should be revoked? Rich Farmbrough, 11:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
- Unless the templates such as {{portal box}} are deleted at TfD, normal bot rules would not permit a bot to go through and replace all instances. BAG has customarily denied such requests to bypas redirects solely for the sake of bypassing redirects. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Part 2[edit]
In the description (as currently phrased), does "is to be deleted in favour of a functionally compatible template Bar" mean "There is a closed TfD discussion with the outcome delete"? In short, what does "is to be deleted" mean? The same applies to the other descriptions. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think any reasonable person can read the conclusion of a TfD and understand what is meant. Rich Farmbrough, 14:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
Task 3 is too broad for approval, since "renaming a parameter" is not something that would generally have a TfD or CfD behind it. Such tasks really ought to be approved individually if the change is really needed. It is virtually always possible to simply make both parameter names work, so that it is not necessary to edit the pages at all; only exceptional circumstances should require that sort of bot task. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes it is possible to have pathological code to deal with pathological editors. I prefer to use template code to deal with sane, but possibly sloppy editors, and to have consistent clean template calls everywhere possible. This is a a philosophical difference, based on HCI and understanding the exponential load generated by the type of case handling you propose, compared with the linear load of actually making things consistent where we can. Rich Farmbrough, 14:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
- Yes it is possible to have pathological code to deal with pathological editors. I prefer to use template code to deal with sane, but possibly sloppy editors, and to have consistent clean template calls everywhere possible. This is a a philosophical difference, based on HCI and understanding the exponential load generated by the type of case handling you propose, compared with the linear load of actually making things consistent where we can. Rich Farmbrough, 14:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
- (@R.F.) It may be a philosophical difference, but the Wikipedia way has always been to avoid having bots undertake large-scale tasks to perform these sorts of trivial clean-ups. For example, AWB rule 4 would already forbid doing this sort of thing with AWB without special permission. This request seems to be a sort of blanket permission to ignore that AWB rule. Why would such a blanket exception be worthwhile, and in particular why would you be the right person to have it, given your ongoing edit restriction and the block logs of your bots? — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- No it hasn't. It is simply easier and quicker to edit a template than a bunch of pages, that doesn't mean it is right. You misunderstand the point of the AWB rules, they were a condition of use by the original authors to keep the awkward squad from harassing the AWB pages. And for the record I am not under an editing restriction, the block log would be non-existent without the harassment that forced me away from AWB as the main tool for the bot, and the blocking is supposed to be a tool used constructively, not to brand editors. When you two understand constructive cooperation, comments will be welcome. For now, your attempted sabotage continues to be unedifying. Rich Farmbrough, 15:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
- You have an editing restriction and a creation restriction, both listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, and a recent AN or ANI discussion showed no inclination to remove them. Fram (talk) 09:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- No it hasn't. It is simply easier and quicker to edit a template than a bunch of pages, that doesn't mean it is right. You misunderstand the point of the AWB rules, they were a condition of use by the original authors to keep the awkward squad from harassing the AWB pages. And for the record I am not under an editing restriction, the block log would be non-existent without the harassment that forced me away from AWB as the main tool for the bot, and the blocking is supposed to be a tool used constructively, not to brand editors. When you two understand constructive cooperation, comments will be welcome. For now, your attempted sabotage continues to be unedifying. Rich Farmbrough, 15:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
- (@R.F.) It may be a philosophical difference, but the Wikipedia way has always been to avoid having bots undertake large-scale tasks to perform these sorts of trivial clean-ups. For example, AWB rule 4 would already forbid doing this sort of thing with AWB without special permission. This request seems to be a sort of blanket permission to ignore that AWB rule. Why would such a blanket exception be worthwhile, and in particular why would you be the right person to have it, given your ongoing edit restriction and the block logs of your bots? — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)