Wiktionary:Votes/2014-08/Debotting MewBot

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Debotting MewBot[edit]

  • Vote starts: 00:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Support[edit]

  1. Support per Wiktionary talk:Votes/2014-08/Debotting MewBot#Rationale. It is going to be pity, since the bot does multiple good things, but the cost in terms of bad undiscussed edits and of blatant repeated violation of WT:BOT is too high. As a next step, the opposers should initiate a change of WT:BOT policy, since they obviously do not support it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per reasons stated -- Liliana • 20:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support A matter of principles. On Wikipedia he would've been blocked and desyoped a long time ago for this behavior (and also for fabricating sources and inserting original research in etymologies). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. CodeCat seems to get itchy feet, it's like if she's finished changing one thing, she has to start changing another thing, even if it's necessary. Improving Wiktionary doesn't seem to be her priority, keeping busy seems to be her priority. Even if she has to harm Wiktionary content. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  1. Oppose --WikiTiki89 19:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wikitiki89 Any rationale? Is systematic violation of WT:BOT okay? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not ok. But overall, MewBot does many more good things than bad, and the bad ones are usually only marginally bad. --WikiTiki89 20:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose DTLHS (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose This is about CodeCat, not about her bot. Grounding her bot wouldn't stop her from the massive changes to Wiktionary infrastructure that have raised the most opposition, but it would stop her from a number of helpful small and low-visibility tasks that she uses her bot for from time to time. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chuck Entz Shall we abolish WT:BOT policy, since we do not intend to enforce it even for a bot with repeated violations and repeated opposition by multiple editors? The less severe measure than debotting would be a temporary block of the bot, but only one admin did it[1]; when he did, he received ugly vituperation[2].
    Furthermore, if CodeCat had neither the bot nor AWB, how would they be able to effect those massive changes? And what massive changes do you have in mind?
    Finally, what measure do you propose, if any? Shall a desysop vote be created? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we do sometimes ignore our policy, as in the case of your bot. As for the alleged "ugly vituperation", I see an interpersonal dispute that was expressed in pretty much the same way, regardless of the subject, with no evidence that anyone else would have received the same treatment. It also pales in comparison with much of your own long history of harassment and verbal ugliness. She also doesn't pursue vendettas against others like you do. As for what CodeCat can do without MewBot: not as much, but she can still change the behavior of widely-used templates and modules to rearrange, add, and/or eliminate parameters, change categorization, etc., but she would be limited to cleaning up the resulting messes by hand. It would have an effect, but far from a decisive one. As for your final point, I wouldn't propose anything, though opposing specific decisions you disagree with, whether in the appropriate forums or with votes seems your most legitimate option. As for desysoping: I don't think there's the support for it, in spite of some undeniable abuses: as in Vahag's case, people tend to look at the overall body of someone's actions and give a pass if the whole is positive enough, on balance. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: "vendettas against others like you do": What would that be? My attempt to prevent further undiscussed bot runs after everything else failed? Is this what you call an honest assessent of my actions? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If it were an isolated action, no, but you do seem to be vehemently objecting to just about anything CodeCat brings up lately. I've also seen you stake out a particular user's talk page and point out every error they make, and pursue actions in the BP to get people to weigh in on some of them. Again, it's not that every action is wrong or even unjustified in isolation, but the pattern of your actions adds up to a vendetta as far as I'm concerned. That's not to say that none of the targets were blameless- I'm just talking about the manner of your interactions, not the merits. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "point out every error they make": that is just inaccurate. Yes, I do try to limit damage by repeatedly pointing errors to users who do not seem to have a clue, but certainly not every single mistake. I have seen anons repeatedly complain about your excessive blocking, so I am not sure where you really stand on this; I do not say that you do excessive blocking, just that there is per se nothing courteous about blocking people without discussion. Repeated pointing of mistakes gives them a better chance. The speculation about "vendetta" has no basis in fact, and is actually borderline incivil. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: "we do sometimes ignore our policy, as in the case of your bot.": Let's set the record straight. You probably mean User:DPMaid, a menial-edit user that does not use the bot interface and whose last run (User_talk:DPMaid#Restoring pedialite) was an AWB run. There is no vote process for enabling AWB, as far as I know, unlike for bots. Furthermore, even if this were a bot, the run that you would mention would still be based on the dicussion that shows consensus with a single opposer, CodeCat: Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2014/August#Not renaming template_pedialite. Finally, the user was used to undo undiscussed run by a real bot. There really is not any policy that User:DPMaid broke; upon a closer inspection, your allegation is absurd. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. CodeCat's career is similar to that of Hitler before 1939. They make sweeping changes without consensus-building, have driven away Wiktionary's main Jew, but they also deliver results. I choose to continue appeasing Führer CodeCat as long as they improve Wiktionary on balance and do not invade Poland (you can dismember Polansky's Czechoslovakia, no one cares). --Vahag (talk) 10:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What is wrong with you? Do you really think you're being funny? —RuakhTALK 17:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not my fault. Comparing men to pre-1939 Hitler is in my people's genes. --Vahag (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It made me laugh, so it's okay. -- Liliana • 20:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Respond or not? Damn rude, joke or not. Bad for an editor, worse for an admin. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose — Saltmarshαπάντηση 13:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose PalkiaX50talk to meh 01:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain[edit]

  1. Abstain per Chuck Entz. —RuakhTALK 17:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Abstain. But I would like to see CodeCat seek consensus before making such changes, and not to assume that silence means consent. Equinox ◑ 21:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's safe to say that just about everyone (except CodeCat, perhaps) is in wholehearted agreement with that- even those who might dismaiss that as not enough. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The doers usually get the blame. If you don't do anything, you don't make mistakes. Very active editors get more blames than those who do nothing or little. I don't think it's always easy to decide if an edit or a bot run is good until you get some results. CodeCat acts in good faith and most of her edits improve Wiktionary. For example, she added additional parameters to Russian noun headers - animacy/inanimacy. Although the original reaction was negative, after the subsequent editing, it turned out a good change. The change that was rejected by most editors - forced genitive sg and nominative plural parameters was removed by her. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CodeCat acts in good faith - lol. Are you by any chance in the Kiev parliament?
CodeCat has never acted in good faith since he joined. He just acted a bit to get sysops so he can wreak havoc on Wiktionary as a whole. That's eerily similar to Wonderfool's behavior. -- Liliana • 06:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have never witnessed CodeCat doing anything intentionally harmful to Wiktionary. --WikiTiki89 12:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, CodeCat is not out to get Wiktionary. They just do what they like, they want to get it done without having to come up with a rationale (while asking the opposers to provide a rationale for opposition), and they want to push things through even if supported only by a significant minority. They quite plausibly want to make Wiktionary "better"; the caveat is that not everyone's idea of "better" is the same. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decision[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/2014-08/Debotting_MewBot&oldid=29111766"