User talk:Reedy: Difference between revisions

Archives

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

I will assume for the moment that you don't throw around block threats in a casual way. So, I would appreciate a reasonable and prompt explanation about how my posts on the AWB discussion page were "trolling" or "nuisance". I happen to care about the AWB rules of use, and I believe that Lightmouse is the poster child for abusing those rules. This has nothing to do with date delinking, other than the fact that I became aware of Lightmouse's edits because he and I are both interested in that issue. I also would appreciate your opinion about the purpose of the AWB rules of use, given your obvious belief that an editor with AWB rights, at least in some circumstances, can ignore those rules without consequence. Are the rules mere exhortations or recommendations? If not, in what situations are they enforceable? Tennis expert (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lightmouse appears to not be using Lightbot for date delinking activities because of the outcome of these two ANIs involving that bot: (1), (2). Tennis expert (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to take a look at this. Tennis expert (talk) 06:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said on the AWB discussion page, "If you've still got a problem, bring it up somewhere else, where greater opinion can be gauged." As I still have a problem with Lightmouse's AWB rules noncompliance, where do you recommend that this discussion be continued? At the administrators' noticeboard? Tennis expert (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the middle point, I thought you said you weren't bothered by his edits, just the speed at which he is/was doing them? The fact that the ruling may or may not change doesnt matter it. Lightmouse is following current guidelines (i am however, in the "camp" that suggests that even though its not reccommended in the MOS, mass delinking isnt necessary, but thats here nor there), he is using a semi-automated editing tool to do the job, which is editing to the speed it can load and process the articles. There is a WP Essay about "Dont worry about the preformance", which states we don't have to worry about these sorts of edits (although, MaxSem and i do, based on the total amount of edits AWB is actually repsonsible for, so we should do, or at least, try and help things out - like moving to API for list building). If people had problems with his edits, he would've been blocked. I'd reccommend you'd best bring it up somewhere like WP:AN, its not important enough for WP:ANI.

As for the "trolling" or "nuisance" comment. Your making a fuss over something trivial, that really doesnt make that much difference. —Reedy 19:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was extremely clear about my objections. I said several times that he was violating two AWB rules of use: (1) controversial edits; and (2) speed of edits. Where are these date delinking guidelines that Lightmouse is supposedly following right now? If you mean the current MOS, there is a big controversy about whether date linking "deprecation" means: (1) no future date linking; or (2) no future date linking and eliminate all existing date links. And this controversy is one of the issues that hopefully will be settled by the two ongoing RFCs that are still two weeks away from being closed. Lightmouse is aware of this controversy; yet, he is using semiautomated means to eliminate existing date links in thousands of articles. This is why Lightmouse's edits are controversial for purposes of the AWB rules of use.

I am not "worried about performance." I am simply interested in people complying with Wikipedia rules, whatever they are. If there is no point to the AWB rule about speed of edits, then why does that rule exist? And why hasn't that rule been stricken? Until the rule goes away, editors that use AWB are obliged to comply with it, and it is very counterproductive for an administrator to say to an editor "you don't have to comply with Rule X because I personally believe it serves no purpose."

I am not looking for Lightmouse to be blocked or banned. My objective is for him to be reminded that complying with the AWB rules of use is required whenever using AWB and that if he persists in violating those rules, his authority to use AWB will be taken away. That is the only reason for my posting the complaint on the AWB discussion page instead of somewhere else. You, apparently, believe that AWB usage issues must be taken care of at WP:AN instead, which I find to be strange. But given that you've threatened to block me for continuing the discussion at the AWB discussion page, I have no choice but to do whatever you want. If Lightmouse were not allowed to use AWB to delink dates, he could always use a script, ordinary editing, or his bot (although it appears that some administrators are willing to block the bot if he uses it for that purpose).

If your "trolling" or "nuisance" remark about me is not a big deal, then you surely won't mind striking through your comment. Otherwise, it is a very big deal. It's insulting, it's threatening, it disparages my reputation, and indicates your failure to assume good faith, among other Wikipedia policy violations. Tennis expert (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't edit too fast; consider opening a bot account if you are regularly making more than a few edits a minute.

- How fast is too fast? (Common sense here?) —Reedy 22:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, "more than a few edits a minute". Lightmouse regularly violated this rule by about a factor of 5. Tennis expert (talk) 05:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some people just won't accept defeat. It's very commendable in many cases, but it should should be made clear that the general havoc, disruption and boredom caused by Tennis and his cohort Locke are taking its toll on the community. It already accepted ages ago that the consensus was valid, but they were not satisfied. Tony1's actions were endorsed back in September. Two individuals have been going around behaving like Spiderman, and have also been forum shopping. They have launched continual complaints at WP:AN or WP:AN3 against at least four people on this list, including harassing yours truly multiple times.

Let's talk real numbers here - it is simply amazing how much 'controversy' the "gang of four" (sic) can stir up. Actually, there are four editors vehemently opposed to deprecation of DA and date-linking, but these two have been doing the most running. Now an RfC, no, sorry, two RfCs, being held which show very clear majority in favour of doing away with DA and date linking, and they are still not satisfied. Sure, the RfCs are not yet closed, but most of us recognise a snowball when we see one. Not these tow - there is no reason to think they will accept the result at the close. Then now howl in protest that any persons who dare to support delinking should be made an Administrator, and have gone on to make statements based on that position which said that said candidate was "unfamiliar with consensus building process and general Wikipedia policies". Now they are still trying all technicalities and procedural means and using straw man arguments to stop of slow down the delinking. Any administrator who disagrees with their untenable position is suffering from "conflict of interest". I was able to achieve speeds of 7 pages a minute simply using the multi-windowed Firefox browser. I also increased the speed of my AWB edits by having more than one AWB window open at a time. When there is so much rubbish and detritus floating around WP, we need all the speed we can get. Ideally, a bot should be sent around so we can rebuild from scratch with the minimal linking which the community wants. It is time to wake up to these "freedom fighters", and see them as the terrorists they are in reality. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]