Forum:User:Ikin - Bots and Attitude

Forums: Yew Grove > User:Ikin - Bots and Attitude

This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 27 October 2010 by Degenret01.

I bring the following to the attention of the community. I was addressed with a concern that Ikin is continuing to use a bot after the community had stated that she would not be allowed to run one. I looked into her edits, and saw that they are "semi-automated," however the cropping and compressing, as well as uploading is not done by her person at all, simply a script that she runs on IRC. I logged into IRC, and the following conversation took place:

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f62/suntigerrevival/Ikin.png

As you can see, Ikin has expressed that she doesn't care what the community says, and she will continue to run her bot regardless. She is clearly immature and rude, and continues to have a poor attitude and lack of concern for community decisions after she was blocked. She also blamed her previous bot request on Cook's comment, rather than taking accountability for her actions.

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f62/suntigerrevival/ikin2.png

According to her, she will return in 3 days, and based on her previous statements, she will run her image bot again.

More chat logs, from 10/20 -- ʞo oɔ 19:28, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Now, while I understand her desire to help the community with her bot, it is crystal clear to me now that she is not trustworthy of a bot flag, and she has no desire to follow our rules and policies. I hereby move to have her block extended for a period to be determined by the community and potential extensions based on behavior, should we decide on a block.

Ikin has stated she will not run the bot upon return form her block, she will seek at some point to get it flagged.--Degenret01 05:12, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Support - Extended block of up to one month, possible extensions based on behavior. Karlis (talk) (contribs)

19:01, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Disregard for policies and community consensus is unacceptable. We need to make sure it is clear that acting in this way will not be accepted by our community. --Aburnett ^(Talk) 19:10, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

~~Oppose~~ Neutral - While Ikin's actions were inappropriate and her understanding of our policies and consensus is clearly flawed, I believe one month is too long. The maximum I think should be considered is one week. After that, she deserves a second chance. If she still continues to break rules at that point, we can be considering a length of time in months. User:Haloolah123/Sig 19:14, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - There was no posted time period, it is up to the community to determine a period. Support is supporting an extended block (longer than 3 days) and Oppose is opposing a longer block (keeping it at 3 days.) Karlis (talk) (contribs)

19:16, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - She(?) did not actually explicitly state that she would continue running her bot after the block. However if she does start running it again, I would support the block for, say, 1-2 weeks. http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk 19:18, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per above. Intentionally ignoring policies and consensus for the single purpose of being difficult should not be tolerated here. User:Stelercus/Signature 19:21, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - While her actions are unacceptable, I support an extended block if and only if she does continue to run her bot after the block expires. After all, her intentions were mostly good. She might have learned her lesson, we don't know yet. Suppa chuppa ^Talk 19:32, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose for now - Because I generally have a problem with blocking people for longer after they have been blocked. Yes, Ikin should be blocked. And if she runs her bot at all after her block has expired, we can block her for a longer period of time. ʞo oɔ 19:35, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose any block - Why are we blocking an obviously good-intentioned contributor? I'll talk to her.

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 19:43, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Because of her poor attitude and blatant disregard for policies and community decisions. Karlis (talk) (contribs)

19:45, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - She has acted quite rudely and not following the bot policy (and a few others) but it was productive and helpful. I say remove the block as that was probably a good "Stop it!" and if she continues, 3 days; continues, a week; continues, a month; continues, a year; continues... well let's hope it doesn't come to that. Evil1888 ^{Talk A's L} 19:47, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - While she acted inappropriately, she does seem to want the wiki to benefit from her edits. If she does continue, then I agree with Evil's idea. User:LordDarkPhantom/Signature 20:02, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - If she had shown even the slightest intention of stopping or respect for the community - this would be an oppose. Our policies are present for a reason, they're what prevents us from slipping into anarchy and cabalship. It is completely unnecessary for a user to not simply manipulate the rules, but flat out ignore them and show such hostile contempt for the community itself. However, if I see some indication that see will not run the bot again without consensus and accepts that her attitude towards the community is wrong, I'd have no issue with leaving it at a three day block -for now.--

Azaz129

^Talk ^Edits ^Contribs

20:21, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

The fact that she is here and wants to help should be enough. Yes, she is frustrated at the community. That will pass. And if it doesn't, then we can look into further action.

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 20:25, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

A helpful attitude is good - yes. However, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and undermining the very foundations of the wiki itself is not to be taken lightly. From her actions, there is no reason to assume she's changed her mind regarding the bot, hence, assuming that she would do it again is folly. As I've said, if she states she won't run the bot without consensus again and that her frustration with the community is unjustified,, I'm willing to take it on face value and let the issue subside.--

Azaz129

^Talk ^Edits ^Contribs

20:33, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Anything that I could say has already been said by Azaz, so just read Azaz's statement above. --Liquid^Talk 22:18, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - I would prefer to just wait the 3 days for her block to expire and then to see how she reacts, and after those 3 days if she continues to break the rules a longer block should be issued. However she has made it somewhat clear that she does take her own opinion over the communities. User:TyA/sig 22:23, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - It's about time the community goes back to troll busting. We were strong just before a few months ago with the whole Mookie/Mark incident in my opinion, but that's beside the main point. If she doesn't want to abide by community consensus and policies on our site she deserves to get the hammer put on her. This type of blatant insubordination to rules and regulations cannot be blinked on or ignored. I say bring the fist down. Chaos Monk ^{Talk • Sign} 00:37, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

Pending - Though of good intent for the wiki, she clearly stated she does not care about our system of decision-making and shown little to no respect for Karlis and the rest of the community. I'm going to give her a second chance for her to shut down her bot and acknowledge that we are a cooperative community; not an anarchy. Should she continue this behavior I will support this proposal entirely, but otherwise I will forgive but not forget. — ^E n _ig^ma 03:54, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

Pending - I won't support an extended block unless she continues to run a bot after her block has expired. I'm a regular user and I approve this message. TLUL ^{Talk - Contribs} 05:16, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

I can agree with that - particularly because I don't much like the idea of blocks as a punishment. Leftiness 05:24, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - I've spoken to her in the cc a bit last night, and she really wants to help the wiki and thinks she is. The evidence her is badly against her and she has broken the policies, but i will not support unless she uses the bot again. Sentra246 05:34, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - Ikin really does want to help out the wiki, and a month-long block would definitely not be the path to go. Lil cloud 9 ^Talk 08:11, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per ajr, she's trying to help. Have some empathy. bad_fetus^talk 13:20, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - <Megan92> http://runescape.wikia.com/index.php?title=Forum:User:Ikin_-_Bots_and_Attitude&t=20101022132010 <- can some one delete "she will run her image bot again." Because I never said it lol. willwill Talk 14:08, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support - But not 1 month thats going a little to far. I recon 2 weeks would do because of her attitude to others and her ignoring what was descided. I think the ban will be good to help her carm and rethink it all. Namely her attitude. Jedi donald2 18:53, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

Conditional support - Although I believe her attitude is completely unacceptable (a decision is a decision, whether she likes it or not), I will support an extended block only if she continues to run the bot after her current block ends. Ti en 19:48, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - She was only trying to help out - her bot has only made useful contributions and although you need permission to run a bot, her block should not be extended. You could argue that RS:IAR holds some ground here. --Callofduty4 19:55, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Actually, RS:IAR explicitly states this scenario is not to be overridden. Here. Karlis (talk) (contribs)

20:05, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so that's what that means. I still believe the block should not be legnthened - she was making the edits using the bot out of good faith. --Callofduty4 20:11, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

No, that doesn't apply. She was proposing a completely different bot on the YG; one that would update the exchange pages. You're telling me that an apple is an orange because they are both fruits?

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 20:26, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

"Other uses I will run things as my crop bot, and future projects. -- Ikin 19:40, October 20, 2010 (UTC) " It was even listed as a part of the proposal...--

Azaz129

^Talk ^Edits ^Contribs

20:37, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

Didn't notice that, although to be fair that wasn't the main thing was the GE updating.

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 20:39, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support block - But only for 1 week in the Exchange: and File: namespaces only. If that is not possible, i Oppose unless (s)he is using a bot again without permission. JOEYTJE50 TALK pull my finger 01:22, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

No, it's all or nothing, you can't block per namespace.

Evil1888 ^{Talk A's L}

05:45, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

You can ban per namespace.

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 14:36, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

Really? How? User:Stelercus/Signature 15:46, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

It's based on the honor system. You tell her that she's not allowed to edit a certain namespace and that you'll block her if she does. It's kind of like what we did when we told Parsons that he couldn't upload images for 60 days. --Liquid^Talk 15:47, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

That would work with the File namespace because all file uploads are logged, though imposing that same rule on any other namespace would be difficult. You also have to consider that when we block somebody, it is because we do not trust they will stop breaking rules. User:Stelercus/Signature 17:59, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

No, what is being proposed here is that we block her for a month as punishment. This forum is one of the stupidest things I have seen in my time here; we are even considering blocking someone who is offering us a lot and getting nothing for it. Instead of blocking her, we should be endorsing her. Yes, she is upset with some of the stupidity here. I am too right now. I'm not going to go breaking any policies, but she is new. Give her a chance.

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 20:51, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

Problem is, she was "helping" for all the wrong reasons. We gave her several chances to turn around and start helping for the right reasons, but she simply continued being difficult. Finally, a whole month has not been proposed here. The closing administrator will determine how long it should be if consensus leans in that direction. User:Stelercus/Signature 21:46, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

She was, and still is willing to volunteer her time to not only being an editor here, but to running a bot which is of significant value to the wiki. Her motivation is that she wants to help. There are 2391032987 policies and editors standing in her way; as I said before, I don't blame her for losing her temper, especially if there are IRL complications. But she has specifically told me, and others, that she intends to abide by policy when her block expires. I have no doubt that she will. My only concern is that we are cutting ourselves significantly short by this thread, and other actions.

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 21:49, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support 1 Month Block - My concern before was that admins are not trusted enough with their tools. I would have simply blocked her for the 1 month and would have been bold and if there was a disagreement of that choice moved to community consensus to shorten it. This deserves a 1 month block.

Bonziiznob ^Talk

19:11, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

Request close - I'm unbanned hello? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ikin (talk).

This thread was for a longer ban. It will stay open until it is resolved. ʞo oɔ 22:46, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Ikin should be glad Fuzzy didn't see it, because if he would he might have blocked u from all wikis for a year... JOEYTJE50 TALK pull my finger 10:32, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Another IRC incident

Someone told me about this thread on IRC, so I figured I should post about something. I've had to ban Ikin (Megan?) from the IRC channel due to inappropriate behavior. She spammed the channel with @RuneScript commands and did not stop when asked or warned, she was disrespectful to myself and other users, and attempted to justify her behavior with technicalities and weasel words. Oh, and it appears that she's ban evading as I type this. My post isn't a vote either way with regards to blocking her on the site- I'm just reporting what's happening. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 10:25, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

For a transcript of the IRC discussion, see [[User:Thebrains222/Transcript|here]]. 222 ^talk 10:38, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - That kick was quite unnecessary if you ask me. I'm not saying she was behaving in a great way, but using runescript should never require kicking. I occasionally use it much more than she does, yet, it hasn't disrupted anyone. For the block evasion, if I felt that I was kicked unjustly, I'd do the same. Well, I would stop using rscript when I was asked to in the first place, but still, that shouldn't have caused in a kick. bad_fetus^talk 14:59, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

She was asked to stop or use ! instead of @ but didn't and kept spamming the channel, she had more then enough warnings.

Sentra246

06:07, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Using the rscript about 5 times in like 2 minutes is not spam, and if you don't like seeing rscript say things, simply GTFO. Nobody is forcing you to stay there, RScript is a part of the IRC. That only has a point if she was spamming, when she obviously didn't. bad_fetus^talk 14:55, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Note that RuneScript have command to disable any command in the channel that can be only invoked by +o. You can just !set urban off (or change off to private to disable @-command) or in extreme case, !set global private should do it. See the docs for !set willwill Talk 16:32, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - She was being deliberately disruptive in the channel. Giving her the boot was justified. --Aburnett ^(Talk) 17:33, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any deliberate disruption there. Proof pl0x. bad_fetus^talk 18:00, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - That was a completely unjustified kick, in my opinion. The essential reason for the kick was that RuneScript provided sexual content in response to a non-sexual query, which could not have been predicted. In no way was she spamming the commands. I'm a regular user and I approve this message. TLUL ^{Talk - Contribs} 21:02, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

The reason for the kick was that she was disrupting the channel and annoying other users. She did not stop when asked or warned. Then, rather than go through channels to contest the kick (such as actually talking to a channel operator), she decided to evade it. Her attitude was rude and insulting. The kicking was warranted- the channel became a much better place once she was gone. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 21:54, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see how kick evasion justifies anything. I'd do the very same if you kicked me out of nowehere like that. Now, back to the reason of the kick, I'm not saying she was being a nice person, but that kick was completely pointless. Did you really think she knew it'd come up with that when she typed brain? bad_fetus^talk 14:55, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - That was by no means spam. The sexual stuff...meh...that may have warranted a kick, but I think people are being too harsh. User:Haloolah123/Sig 22:02, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - As I was in the IRC with her for the entire duration of this, I think the kick was completely justified. Her attitude and actions were disruptive not just in the transcript provided, but before the scrollback I had access to. Also, the exact words she said were not of extremely poor standard but her attitude and manner of speech was enough, she was also given one warning, which was basically ignored. Finally, attempting to evade the kick afterwards is even more reason to justify it. The IRC was a much friendlier place afterwards. 222 ^talk 05:44, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Evading the kick justifies nothing. If you are kicked for no reason whatsoever, you evade it. bad_fetus^talk 14:55, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - You call that spam! HA! I get worse 'spam' than that on my bike to school! Evil1888 ^{Talk A's L} 05:51, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - You seriously think she expected anything but sexual references to come from looking up 69 on urban dictionary? Immediately after 222 told her not to make sexual references, do you think she coincidentally looked up brain and brain2 and those just happened to be sexual references as well? She knew the results before she sent the command, and there's an extent to which we should "assume good faith;" this was way past the line. As far as spam goes, she spammed quite a few lines by adding 2 to 2 so many times at the top of the transcript, which could and should have been done with !. Since those together obviously warranted a block, especially since she rudely dodged her warning by saying "Don't use the male organ as an example," it's understood that her block evasion is not in response to not knowing why she was kicked, and, if she wanted to contest her block, she would have said something more serious than "You made me change my ip," which shows that she wasn't taking the situation seriously, which is bad because it means she wasn't going to stop until she received a more effective block, as was done.

Still, I don't like the idea of blocks as punishment, so I say let her block end for now; let her act rudely, obscenely, or otherwise badly after a 2 or 3 more short blocks, and perm-ban her if she doesn't get the picture. Leftiness 17:58, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Seriously? What she did warrents a kick? If that is so then I'd have been kicked tens of times already, as would basically everyone else active on the irc.

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 18:11, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Her block is already over, and I said that she shouldn't get a longer block because blocks shouldn't be used as punishment. Leftiness 18:41, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this is getting old... --

Ikin ^Talk 18:46, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion

Ikin's three day block has expired. She hasn't vandalised, she has had respectful interactions with other users, and she has followed all of our policies. In addition to that, she has helped out further with the community and is currently making calculators. I see no reason why this thread should continue, much less end with her getting a longer block.

Blocks are not meant to be used as punishment. Ikin has given us no reason to block her for a further period of time, so I propose that this entire matter be dropped, and we get on with our lives. As such, I'm requesting closure, as well as any additional comments.

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 22:52, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

She's making calculators!? (*celebrates*), strongly support closure. I really hope we all forgive and forget this, keep ~~calm~~ editing and carry on! 222 ^talk 05:32, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support Closure - Per Ajr. User:Haloolah123/Sig 05:37, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support... - ...but why do we need consensus to close a thread?

REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 05:39, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

Ajr was just asking basically for a neutral sysop because it could be shown as a conflict of interests if he closes it. User:Haloolah123/Sig 05:42, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oh ok.

REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 05:43, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

closed Ikin will not receive any additional blocks at this time, but should be aware that in future incidents (should they arise, which I do not expect), longer blocks are generally handed out to repeat offenders. Just an FYI, not a warning.--Degenret01 06:38, October 27, 2010 (UTC)