User talk:Wimt/Archive/Feb-2011

Problematic condition
This inquiry regards this and the 3 consecutive edits subsequent:

A user who had been blocked at 2:03, began disruptive editing on their own talkpage. One version was deleted for having been so egregious. In any regard, I reported to AIV at 2:23 and the Bot immediately removed my report because of the in place block. The in place block did not preclude editing the talkpage however, and the report was an attempt to communicate the new activity to an admin through the process. I reverted the edit in good faith, hopping the bot would hold a 1RR as a courtesy. It did not, and I see this as an obstruction. I believe the bot should not remove a report timestamped after the block it is comparing the report to. I also believe this can be effectively corrected without undue burden. Therefor I will monitor this page for advice or commentary. Thank you.  My 76 Strat  03:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand your frustrations, and I have had trouble reporting talk page issues myself, but I personally don't think anything with the helperbot needs to change. Talk page abuse by blocked users should be reported to WP:RFPP.  If AIV helperbots start looking at timestamps or whether talk page abuse is mentioned we will get into a situation where the AIV list becomes exceedingly and deceptively long, which is exactly what the bot was created to prevent.  If it was easy to code, and was foolproof, then a change could work, but for the interim I'd suggest you report talk page issues to RFPP, or to ANI if they are very severe.   7  04:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that response, and I will benefit from the additional information. I do however believe the entire reporting process is better served if this unintentional obstruction is corrected. Regardless of whether or not a report would have been more appropriately filed somewhere else, the misplaced report having been filed in good faith, deserves to receive the attention on an admin. Honestly, I would expect an admin to rather zealously ensure, that they weren't taken out of the loop, by the flaw of an automated process. I believe the timestamp should be compared, and if the report is after the block in place, the report should stay. Manually remove if without action, or when the block is modified, the Bot would remove it then. Unless it was a technical challenge beyond what I can fathom, I see little reason not to. And I know a couple tool admins who love to hate fixing code. So I stand upon the initial belief that this is a problematic condition, I am curious if there is something I am missing entirely? Thanks again!  My 76 Strat  04:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm... might be possible to add a flag (read: html comment) to the report which prevents archiving/removal if necessary. As a programmer myself, I'm of the opinion of let's add it, people don't have to use it.  &#91; stwalkerster &#124; talk &#93;  00:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree w/ stw. - the bot needs to exercise caution in removing users reported. Should be easy to say, if blocked, "IF" userpage" don't remove the report.  Chzz  ► 01:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed.  7  22:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Here again is an example, where this condition removed a report, allowing editing garbage to exist within view for perhaps longer than necessary or desired. May I add that I am keenly interested in seeing a response from Wimt. I do understand real life distractions and obligations, so for the most part I anticipate any response with esteem and appreciation.  My 76 Strat  04:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)