Rich Farmbrough (talk | contribs) |
WP:BLANKING: "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user ... including relevant information about a currently active block or ban where an unblock is being requested" |
||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
::Especially as they don't even break the purported editing restrictions. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', <small>14:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC).</small><br /> |
::Especially as they don't even break the purported editing restrictions. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', <small>14:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC).</small><br /> |
||
==Xeno== |
|||
(In response to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough&diff=449330387&oldid=449325618]) In the last week, you've used a script to create 92 biography articles requiring cleanup ("DNB00") and AWB (seemingly |
|||
inappropriately modified to auto-save) to create over 200 redirects of dubious necessity [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20110902171114&limit=209&contribs=user&target=Rich+Farmbrough&namespace=0]. These are clear violations of your editing restrictions. You are also violating your other editing restriction as we speak from {{user|Helpful Pixie Bot}}. –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 14:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
# Firstly that's a fairly small number of articles and they are not by any means mass created - I know you and Fram just hate to see content added, but tough, it's gonna come. |
|||
# Secondly any AWB edits in the past week have been with a brand new virgin copy of AWB. |
|||
# Thirdly you have obviously forgotten the details that were agreed at the time in respect to then SmackBot's editing. |
|||
# Fourthly it is most unedifying watching people "pile in" - weather if the "usual suspects", ANI trolls, or just folk caught up in the mob frenzy. |
|||
:''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', <small>17:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC).</small><br /> |
|||
::# [[Wikipedia:Bot policy#Mass page creation]] says "anything more than 25 or 50". And what about the redirects? |
|||
::# Stock AWB shouldn't change the initial-case template capitalization. |
|||
::# I seem to recall that it was mandated that you would leave template capitalization alone. Does my memory fail me? |
|||
::# It is similarly disheartening to see administrators wilfully ignoring duly-imposed editing restrictions. |
|||
::–[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 17:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::25-50 is an absurdly low number and '''anyone''' using AWB is goign to hit that in the first 5 minutes. --[[User:Kumioko|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:Kumioko|talk]]) 17:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::Look again. –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 17:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::# "Alternatives to simply creating mass quantities of articles include creating the articles in small batches" which is what happened here. |
|||
:::# You obviously still don't understand AWB. |
|||
:::# In detailed discussion there were several exceptions. |
|||
:::# It wasn't duly imposed, it was just some stuff you made up one day. |
|||
:::''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', <small>17:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC).</small><br /> |
|||
::::# ... "While use of these alternatives does not obviate the need for a BRFA, it may garner more support from the community at large." And what about the redirects? |
|||
::::# I understand that you have set SmackBot to change the capitalization of templates. |
|||
::::# {{cn}} |
|||
::::# cf. [[WP:RESTRICT]] |
|||
:::: –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 17:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::RESTRICT says the community or Arbcom. This was one admin. The fact that the proposed restriction is on it's face crazy is another reason it shouldn't apply. All this is moot, though, the reason for the block is something no contained in either the restriction nor against the, rather hastily cobbled together, part of botpol you cite. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', <small>18:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC).</small><br /> |
|||
::::::If you think the restriction was improperly enacted (or crazy), then you petition to have it removed. You don't just ignore it. I don't follow the rest of your statement about this being moot. –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 18:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::It was never enacted, it was merely imposed by a now retired editor. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', <small>21:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC).</small><br /> |
|||
==Femto Bot and Helpful Pixie Bot == |
==Femto Bot and Helpful Pixie Bot == |
Revision as of 17:49, 10 September 2011
Your editing privileges have been suspended for 1 week
Per the discussion at WP:AN, and in particular your response where you gave no indication of the required prior approval or noted that you were under restriction or that your edits were in keeping with same, I have enacted the above sanction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- So on the 7th Sept I created 3 articles and for that I get a weeks block? Crazy. Rich Farmbrough, 14:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC).
- Especially as they don't even break the purported editing restrictions. Rich Farmbrough, 14:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC).
- Especially as they don't even break the purported editing restrictions. Rich Farmbrough, 14:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC).
Xeno
(In response to [1]) In the last week, you've used a script to create 92 biography articles requiring cleanup ("DNB00") and AWB (seemingly inappropriately modified to auto-save) to create over 200 redirects of dubious necessity [2]. These are clear violations of your editing restrictions. You are also violating your other editing restriction as we speak from Helpful Pixie Bot (talk · contribs). –xenotalk 14:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- Firstly that's a fairly small number of articles and they are not by any means mass created - I know you and Fram just hate to see content added, but tough, it's gonna come.
- Secondly any AWB edits in the past week have been with a brand new virgin copy of AWB.
- Thirdly you have obviously forgotten the details that were agreed at the time in respect to then SmackBot's editing.
- Fourthly it is most unedifying watching people "pile in" - weather if the "usual suspects", ANI trolls, or just folk caught up in the mob frenzy.
- Rich Farmbrough, 17:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC).
- Wikipedia:Bot policy#Mass page creation says "anything more than 25 or 50". And what about the redirects?
- Stock AWB shouldn't change the initial-case template capitalization.
- I seem to recall that it was mandated that you would leave template capitalization alone. Does my memory fail me?
- It is similarly disheartening to see administrators wilfully ignoring duly-imposed editing restrictions.
- –xenotalk 17:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- 25-50 is an absurdly low number and anyone using AWB is goign to hit that in the first 5 minutes. --Kumioko (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- "Alternatives to simply creating mass quantities of articles include creating the articles in small batches" which is what happened here.
- You obviously still don't understand AWB.
- In detailed discussion there were several exceptions.
- It wasn't duly imposed, it was just some stuff you made up one day.
- Rich Farmbrough, 17:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC).
- ... "While use of these alternatives does not obviate the need for a BRFA, it may garner more support from the community at large." And what about the redirects?
- I understand that you have set SmackBot to change the capitalization of templates.
- [citation needed]
- cf. WP:RESTRICT
- –xenotalk 17:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- RESTRICT says the community or Arbcom. This was one admin. The fact that the proposed restriction is on it's face crazy is another reason it shouldn't apply. All this is moot, though, the reason for the block is something no contained in either the restriction nor against the, rather hastily cobbled together, part of botpol you cite. Rich Farmbrough, 18:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC).
- If you think the restriction was improperly enacted (or crazy), then you petition to have it removed. You don't just ignore it. I don't follow the rest of your statement about this being moot. –xenotalk 18:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- It was never enacted, it was merely imposed by a now retired editor. Rich Farmbrough, 21:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC).
- It was never enacted, it was merely imposed by a now retired editor. Rich Farmbrough, 21:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC).
- If you think the restriction was improperly enacted (or crazy), then you petition to have it removed. You don't just ignore it. I don't follow the rest of your statement about this being moot. –xenotalk 18:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- RESTRICT says the community or Arbcom. This was one admin. The fact that the proposed restriction is on it's face crazy is another reason it shouldn't apply. All this is moot, though, the reason for the block is something no contained in either the restriction nor against the, rather hastily cobbled together, part of botpol you cite. Rich Farmbrough, 18:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC).
- 25-50 is an absurdly low number and anyone using AWB is goign to hit that in the first 5 minutes. --Kumioko (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- –xenotalk 17:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Femto Bot and Helpful Pixie Bot
Rich Farmbrough (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Unblock the bots, there is no reason to block them |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}}
with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=Unblock the bots, there is no reason to block them |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here
with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=Unblock the bots, there is no reason to block them |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Unblock request
Rich Farmbrough (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
- Blocker states "Violation of mass article creation restriction" # While "mass article creation" isn't clearly defined in BOTPOL, it is specifically stated that "batches of 25-50" represent an "acceptable alternative" to mass article creation. # The page creation in question was mostly in ones or maybe twos and threes, and was mainly not in article space. The items created over the week are enumerated below, broken down by hour. It is clear that this is not "mass article creation" in the sense intended by the worders of BOTPOL and is well within the creation of 25-50 items indicated therin. Rich Farmbrough, 21:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC).
Decline reason:
It is clear from the discussion at AN that these edits are a violation of your restriction. Furthermore, the evidence that Xeno provides below is unambiguously a violation. This request is declined pending consensus at AN. The WordsmithTalk to me 01:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
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.
What about [3] ? –xenotalk 21:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- Not the point at issue, lets keep the discussion focussed. Rich Farmbrough, 21:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC).
- WP:LAWYERING, WP:GAME. —Sladen (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yes I wish people would not do that. "Aha! but what about these edits.... And what aboout.. " Rich Farmbrough, 01:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC).
- Yes I wish people would not do that. "Aha! but what about these edits.... And what aboout.. " Rich Farmbrough, 01:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC).
- WP:LAWYERING, WP:GAME. —Sladen (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Rich Farmbrough (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Reason, previous decline is on two grounds, the first is clearly wrong, the second is responding to a "fishing expedition" by Xeno. Rich Farmbrough, 9:23 pm, Today (UTC−4).
Decline reason:
You will have to address the concerns expressed about your editing if you are to be unblocked early (And, I expect, if you are to avoid further blocks). — Coren (talk) 02:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
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.
- The point is that the block as imposed is wrong. Digging around and saying "Oh well we found some other edits which we don't like the look of so we'll just leave you blocked, is a bad business. Blocking should be the last resort when disruption is occurring. No one was disrupted by either the 92 new pages (not all are even articles) that Fram kicked up a stink about, far less the trivial redirects that Xeno later raised. This is process for the sake of it, responding to incorrect and malicious seeming allegations with a block, then supporting the block over technicalities that were not actually a problem. Rich Farmbrough, 03:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC).
- Let us be absolutely clear here. The allegations of Fram was that I was "Mass creating articles" - this means batches of more than 50. I was following the procedure - in fact I was generally creating one article at a time. Therefore the allegation is wrong, and clearly wrong. Blocking any user on false allegations is bad. Failing to unblock is worse. Rich Farmbrough, 03:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC).
- I've avoided this perpetual discussion like the plague, and I'm questioning myself about getting involved now, but a very cursory glance at your last 500 edits to mainspace show over 50 edits with the summary Created from Wikisource stretching back to September 4. I'm not sure how to reconcile that with the table below. —DoRD (talk) 03:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- Well I didn't count them but I was told there were 92 pages created in the last week or so, so 50 edits seems on the light side, if anything. It's not really a perpetual discussion, though, people try to drag old loci of conversation in. Rich Farmbrough, 03:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC).
- I've added totals. I make it 27 and 60 which is a total of 87, although some pages are still in my user-space and wil probably be deleted. Rich Farmbrough, 04:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC).
- I've added totals. I make it 27 and 60 which is a total of 87, although some pages are still in my user-space and wil probably be deleted. Rich Farmbrough, 04:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC).
- Well I didn't count them but I was told there were 92 pages created in the last week or so, so 50 edits seems on the light side, if anything. It's not really a perpetual discussion, though, people try to drag old loci of conversation in. Rich Farmbrough, 03:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC).
Rich, it's pretty clear that "No one was disrupted by [...]" is incorrect given that it led to an AN/I thread and the decision to block you. After a bit of investigation, the root issue is that people have repeatedly expressed concerns about your creation of large number of low quality articles and restricted you from doing so anymore. That you disagree with this (that the number is large, or that the articles are of low quality) is clear; but your disagreement does not free you from the restriction.
You have exactly two options: stop doing what the community objects to, or convince it that the restriction is unnecessary or inapplicable. You can't just ignore it when it suits you. — Coren (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Rich Farmbrough (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Per unblocking policy, this block is in not necessary to prevent damage or disruption. The premise that mass article creation (batches of over 50 articles created in rapid succession) was taking place, has been shown to be false (See table below). There is no suggestion that the article creation was disruptive, or that any damage or disruption has occurred or is expected to occur. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', <small>03:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC).</small><br /> |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}}
with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=Per unblocking policy, this block is in not necessary to prevent damage or disruption. The premise that mass article creation (batches of over 50 articles created in rapid succession) was taking place, has been shown to be false (See table below). There is no suggestion that the article creation was disruptive, or that any damage or disruption has occurred or is expected to occur. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', <small>03:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC).</small><br /> |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here
with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=Per unblocking policy, this block is in not necessary to prevent damage or disruption. The premise that mass article creation (batches of over 50 articles created in rapid succession) was taking place, has been shown to be false (See table below). There is no suggestion that the article creation was disruptive, or that any damage or disruption has occurred or is expected to occur. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', <small>03:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC).</small><br /> |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Date | Hour | Main space | User space |
---|---|---|---|
7 Sept | 16:00 | 1 | 0 |
7 Sept | 00:00 | 2 | 1 |
6 Sept | 23:00 | 2 | 1 |
6 Sept | 22:00 | 5 | 1 |
6 Sept | 22:00 | 6 | 1 |
6 Sept | 20:00 | 0 | 1 |
6 Sept | 14:00 | 1 | 0 |
6 Sept | 13:00 | 1 | 0 |
6 Sept | 12:00 | 1 | 1 |
6 Sept | 10:00 | 2 | 0 |
5 Sept | 23:00 | 2 | 0 |
5 Sept | 16:00 | 2 | 0 |
5 Sept | 15:00 | 1 | 6 |
5 Sept | 15:00 | 1 | 6 |
5 Sept | 05:00 | 0 | 3 |
5 Sept | 04:00 | 0 | 11 |
5 Sept | 02:00 | 0 | 5 |
4 Sept | 23:00 | 0 | 3 |
4 Sept | 22:00 | 0 | 1 |
4 Sept | 00:00 | 0 | 3 |
3 Sept | 23:00 | 0 | 3 |
3 Sept | 19:00 | 0 | 6 |
Total | 27 | 60 |
That's still ignoring all the redirects you created in one go, which is not xeno saying "Aha! but what about these edits.... And what aboout.. ", because he already pointed it out when you were first blocked, only you decided to remove that from your talk page for whatever reason. - Kingpin13 (talk) 05:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Question
Why should I have my day wasted, my planned evening out ruined, my work (both on wiki and off) thrown into disarray, and my sleep disturbed, because someone stalks my edits? Rich Farmbrough, 21:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC).
- At the collected (AWB+full bot) edit speeds in question, it's really impossible for anyone to review all of your edits (much as one might wish to believe otherwise). Chances are that you've walked across somebody else's Watchlist and trigged them to try and investigate what that edit run was doing. (This is why I've ended up here on previous occasions to report issues with bot edits).
- My general advice would be just to detach for a week, think things over, and ponder how to come back and make fewer, but higher-quality edits, at an average speed where a single human can reliably review them before saving or initiating. (Which is purely what WP:BOTPOL requires: "Bots … should be run at a rate that permits review of their edits when necessary"). Nobody is wanting "punishment", all that is being requested by the succession of admins placing this and previous blocks is simple compliance with Wikipedia policies and procedures (including the individual edit-restrictions).
- You've already won the edit count wars. By a long way… Quality, not quantity is the way forward. —Sladen (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- It's not someone's watch list, Fram has admitted to periodically stalking my edits. Rich Farmbrough, 01:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC).
- It's not someone's watch list, Fram has admitted to periodically stalking my edits. Rich Farmbrough, 01:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC).
- In terms of your other point, "taking a week away" I am currently working away from Wikipedia - or I was - on the Wikisource end of things, it's this senseless farrago of nonsense that has drawn me back. It's a mistake to think that more edits means less accuracy, in fact the first time around the block one of the projects this stupidity interrupted was typo-fixing WP 0.8, which as a reult went out of the door with tens of thousands of spelling errors. Obviously a good bun fight at AN/I and other talk pages is far more important to some than shipping quality product to some of the most disadvantaged people in the world, but for myself I'd rather reverse the priorities and concentrate on building, rather than tearing down. Rich Farmbrough, 01:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC).
- In terms of your other point, "taking a week away" I am currently working away from Wikipedia - or I was - on the Wikisource end of things, it's this senseless farrago of nonsense that has drawn me back. It's a mistake to think that more edits means less accuracy, in fact the first time around the block one of the projects this stupidity interrupted was typo-fixing WP 0.8, which as a reult went out of the door with tens of thousands of spelling errors. Obviously a good bun fight at AN/I and other talk pages is far more important to some than shipping quality product to some of the most disadvantaged people in the world, but for myself I'd rather reverse the priorities and concentrate on building, rather than tearing down. Rich Farmbrough, 01:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC).
- As a further point if someone is watch listing pages before I create them it would be a neat trick. Rich Farmbrough, 03:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC).
- As a further point if someone is watch listing pages before I create them it would be a neat trick. Rich Farmbrough, 03:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC).
Why the revert
Rich, it you want to blank-archive items other than the block that fine.
Resetting or removing a declined unblock request is not.
- J Greb (talk) 03:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think that happened. Rich Farmbrough, 03:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC).
- Indeed it did not.
- And I don't want to blank-archive stuff, someone blocked the archiving bot. Rich Farmbrough, 03:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC).
- Ah... I see what happened. You had an out of sequence new request. Sorry, I picked up the two declines prior to your purge and then the active followed by a decline, my bad.
- And some food for thought: you are under editing restrictions. Breaching them, and at this point the two declines seem to agree happened, nets a block. Full stop. If you feel that is out of line, re-open that can of worms after the block runs its course. Make the cases either that the restrictions are too vague or not codified in one place as to what you are and are not allowed to do or that applying a block to end behavior that the community has deemed disruptive - either in general or by a specific editor - does not prevent damage to the project and/or the community. Flogging it with the unblock requests is something though that would normally result in you loosing editing privileges on this page for the remainder of the block.
- - J Greb (talk) 03:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, doubtless you are right, however I appealed to common sense and natural justice in the first two unblock requests. Block policy, however makes it clear that blocking should only be used to avoid disruption or damage, and that blocks which are performing neither of these functions should be removed. Rich Farmbrough, 03:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC).
- ... can you bring down your number of open block requests to 1 - there's 2 of them active, and I wouldn't want to decline the wrong one :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- I believe Rich deliberately has two open unblock requests – one for his bots and one for himself. Jenks24 (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- But, the edits of a bot are the extension of the edits of the editor in control of the bot - and therefore should also be blocked when the editor is (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- I think Fempto bot only does automatic changes. So I don't see the point of blocking this one. Block is used to enforce editing restrictions. One has to see which part of editor's the blocking admin wants to prevent. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- But, the edits of a bot are the extension of the edits of the editor in control of the bot - and therefore should also be blocked when the editor is (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- I believe Rich deliberately has two open unblock requests – one for his bots and one for himself. Jenks24 (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- ... can you bring down your number of open block requests to 1 - there's 2 of them active, and I wouldn't want to decline the wrong one :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, doubtless you are right, however I appealed to common sense and natural justice in the first two unblock requests. Block policy, however makes it clear that blocking should only be used to avoid disruption or damage, and that blocks which are performing neither of these functions should be removed. Rich Farmbrough, 03:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC).
- A block is not a personal reprimand or punishment (or it is not meant to be - the point is lost many), per blocking policy it should only be used to prevent disruption and damage. The blocks to the bots do neither. Rich Farmbrough, 17:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC).
- A block is not a personal reprimand or punishment (or it is not meant to be - the point is lost many), per blocking policy it should only be used to prevent disruption and damage. The blocks to the bots do neither. Rich Farmbrough, 17:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.