Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/VWBot 10

Editing of other users comments.

User:Elvey is clearly in the wrong and needs to learn to read.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My comment (diff) has been removed/reverted twice. Our policies on reverting other people's edits are clear. I wrote, "I object to your removal of my comments; I insist you stop removing them." and "Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection." is a direct quote from WP:TALK. Although the reversions were clearly contrary to the rules I quote (and supported by none that have been noted) I won't edit war over them, even if their action is uncivil and pointless.

Note: The edit was reverted the second time with an edit summary that misrepresents the state of the discussion, "The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.". If you still have concerns, open up at WT:BRFA thread.)" No one had archived the discussion/added such text when I edited it. Besides which, AFAIK, there's no policy that supports locking discussions or deleting others comments in this context. --Elvey (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it." is clear that you should not edit the page. You've been here since 2005, so you should already know archives are not to be edited. The correct venue to discuss this is here or at WT:BRFA, not the archived page, as the bot has been approved, and it was three years ago. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 22:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To tell the truth, even WT:BRFA is not the place for it. The whole discussion that Elvey is trying to restart appears to have been concern that there was some sort of "cabal" who use the system of handing potential copyright violations to delete stuff outside of the normal processes, which was and still is not really related to a bot that finds articles that have been tagged by others as potential copyright violations and simply lists them at WP:CP for humans to better review. I'd suggest WT:CP would be a good place for Elvey's concerns. Anomie ⚔ 23:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, BTW, the claim that "no one had archived the discussion/added such text when [Elvey] edited it" is blatantly false: the discussion was archived on 10 November 2010, and Elvey added comments on 30 November 2013. Anomie ⚔ 23:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, some people. "no one had archived the discussion/added such text when [Elvey] edited it" IS TRUE. AGAIN, here's the diff: (diff) Please retract your uncivil accusation. You say, "the discussion was archived on 10 November 2010" but it wasn't. Your link shows it was hidden, not archived.

What part of "don't tell me what I'm thinking" do you not understand, Anomie? Please, go with what I've written, not with what your imagination decides it might mean. But clearly I'm wasting my breath. --Elvey (talk) 01:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What part of Our policies on reverting other people's edits are clear. I wrote, "I object to your removal of my comments; I insist you stop removing them." and "Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection." is a direct quote from WP:TALK. do you dispute? Or will you just ignore the valid points and pick a fight?--Elvey (talk) 01:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can you defend a system that results in deletion of material where no one is 'responsible' for the deletion, and no one (but an admin) can review it? Often, material is quickly deleted and is not reviewable, other than by admins, even when requested. You don't see how this could result in that? Seriously? Then answer me this: what are the normal deletion steps after this bot takes action - and who is 'responsible' for the deletion, if it's erroneous? It's not the person who flags it for possible deletion. It's not the admin who deletes, after a lack of discussion One just flags for deletion stuff that's been flagged by this bot. Another just delete stuff after a non-discussion 'discussion'. As much as you'd like to make this about a secret cabal, it's not.

Plus, there is no deadline. Anomie, AGAIN, get out of my head. That is, you do not get to tell me whether the topic I brought up is related to the topic at hand, any more than you get to tell me what I'm thinking. That you did so 3 years ago doesn't excuse it. You were wrong and your 'completely unrelated' assertion is, rather, an indication of your failure to comprehend what I wrote. Feel free not to respond. I object to your removal and hiding of my comments.--Elvey (talk) 01:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

tl;dr beyond the point where you show a total lack of reading comprehension. Sorry. As I mentioned above, take your original complaint to WT:CP, and the rest can go to /dev/null. Anomie ⚔ 02:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you removed my warning, with a rude message. Consider yourself warned re WP:CIVIL and calling it bullshit. Likewise, with your unsubstantiated accusation of lack of comprehension. My reading comprehension subscore on the SAT was perfect. Given your defensiveness, AGF is not a suicide pact is becoming relevant. If you have nothing useful to say, stop spewing rudeness.

The actual issue with the bot, remains unaddressed. --Elvey (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a neutral party I must say your actions Elvey are borderline blockable. One does not edit war to add comments to a closed discussion, especially years after the fact. Your usage of <big> is obnoxious. Giving a Talk page vandalism 1 template to an administrator with an extremely long history, is a WP:DICK move, and shows you do not understand what vandalism is. If you want to have a BRFA re-opened or reviewed several steps must be taken first, and none of them involve editing warring to add comments to a BRFA that has been closed for 3 years. Given your behavior and disruptive actions I wouldn't be surprised if further restrictions are placed on you if you continue in this way. Werieth (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.