User talk:69.225.3.119

Your latest message

Your latest response at our bot approval brawl didn't go through or something. It's just your signature. Just letting you know. Abyssal (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice

FYI, I started an ANI thread to determine whether your recent edits were appropriate or not. I did this because I am obviously not qualified to judge myself since I am directly involved. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for a week for disruptive editing. Please take this time to reflect on your actions and refrain from making frivolous accusations and POINT violations upon your return. — Jake Wartenberg 03:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not stupid, and I saw this coming as soon as ThaddeusB put his "please SOMEONE do me a favor and block this IP so I can run my bot" notice on AN/I.

Hissy fitting, 13-year-old, passive-aggressive idiot signing off to make sure that administrators can name call all they want, --69.225.3.119 (talk) 04:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

PS It is nice to have the name calling, thoroughly, 100% confirmed and endorsed without the pesky little input of the other side, isn't it? --69.225.3.119 (talk) 04:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and ONE WEEK FOR FIRST OFFENSE WITHOUT ANY WARNING! That's impressive! --69.225.3.119 (talk) 04:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

So, Abyssal and ThaddeusB get me BLOCKED FOR A WEEK, then talk about me?

barnstars

contributions, hard work, to improve the quality of wikipedia's science articles, something I've been doing for years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=69.226.103.13&namespace=0&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1

Now I'm blocked for a week, at User:ThaddeusB's request so that he and User:Abyssal can say what they want about me, without my responding, something Abyssal is taking full advantage of, and get the bot through without having to address legitimate concerns:

1. the reason anybot created such a horrid mess was that the bot operator did not know the material his bot was adding and he had no one from the community who knew it and was willing to vet it: the same situation in play with contentCreationBot

This will not produce good science articles, good paleontology articles: shutting the experts up, so that those who admit to no expertise can add 10,000 pieces of unvetted data.

It is also likely that these data will generate unvetted content on wiki mirrors.

When I informed Abyssal that he had created an article with a misspelling, he simply ignored my post for months. This misinformation was transferred through cyber space in wiki mirrors.

Abyssal takes no responsibility for that.

And, now that ThaddeusB succeeded brilliantly in baiting me, including with a community-banned editor who's supposed to be on probabtion coming by to call me a 13-year-old.

The most disgusting thing is that ThaddeusB got me blocked for a week and now Abyssal and ThaddeusB act as if I can respond to what they have to say, so they can plow forward and get a bot flag for entering 10,000 pieces of unvetted data into tables on wikipedia.

--69.225.3.119 (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

69.225.3.119 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This block was purely punitive for my disagreeing with an administrator about his request for bot approval. NO WARNINGS. No one ever asked Abyssal to stop calling me names, no one being the administrator, ThaddeusB who asked that I be blocked, no asked anyone, especially the administrator who asked for me to be blocked, to treat me in civil manner, to address my legitimate concerns (okay, a couple of editors did ask that my concerns be addressed--but this was ignored). I attempted to raise specific concerns about this bot, with no one listening. I was insulted, called names, baited by a community-banned user now on probation, ignored; then, a BAG member came by and asked if the bot was ready for trial ignoring the complete lack of community consensus for the bot. He says he didn't ignore it, he just wanted a summary, but that's not what he asked for, he asked if the bot was ready for trial edits, implying the next step was not to reach consensus, but to go forward with trial edits. Now that I've been blocked for a WEEK, without any warning, without EVER having been blocked before, while administrators CONTINUE to allow others to bait me, call me names, discuss me where I can't respond, and ignore LEGITIMATE concerns, the editors who wanted me blocked are busy discussing me and trying to get the bot into trial stage, but acting as if I still can answer them. A WEEK! I was called a 13-year-old by a community banned member on probation. I was told I was throwing "hissy fits," that I was "passive aggressive" for not continuing to remind Abyssal to clean up his messy articles. How much provoking is encouraged to get someone to respond to the point where they can then be banned for long enough to get them to shut up so others can get their way? And Betacommand calls me the 13-year-old?

Decline reason:

I'm declining your unblock request, as you have not addressed your behavior, but have rather addressed the behavior of others. Please resubmit your request with a focus on your behavior and how you plan to change it to avoid future blocks. TNXMan 19:26, 24 September 2009 (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.

{{unblock|So, you're just punishing me for behaving badly? No problem: I agree not to discuss these issues with any other users. In the future I will simply state my opinion on the matter, dealing strictly with the issue at hand, without discussing any other users, even those who call me names. I will be silent in the future every time I am called a name, and I will stick with only discussing the matter at hand. How's that? And, I apologize for reacting badly when my legitimate concerns were ignored and when I was called names.}}

Some of the barnstars I've gotten, and they're not the only ones:

		The Original Barnstar
		The Original Barnstar is awarded to User:69.226.103.13, who has greatly contributed to the creation of new articles, the preservation of good articles, and the continued improvement of articles needing help, with little or no recognition. Wikipedia thanks you for your hard work. Viriditas (talk) 07:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		I don't think I've ever given a barnstar to an anonymous editor before, but I'd just like to say thanks for all the effort you've put in to cleaning up after Anybot. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

An example of bad data included in Abyssal's "successful trials"

Data input to en.wiki without any attempt to vet them will wind up with things like this, from Abyssal's example of data that ContentCreationBot will enter into wikipedia:

"Cryptoplax Blainville 1818 valid 023.03 Early Miocene to Late Miocene "[1]

This entry is based upon the paleobiology database. However, User:ThaddeusB and User:Abyssal both freely admit they are not qualified to vet the data, but assume (with strong evidence) that the data are correct. They extracted the data incorrectly, however. They did so, because of a lack of expertise in the area that makes it impossible for them to glance through the data and catch glaring issues that could easily be corrected. The type of issues that must be raised by experts in the area of the data.

The data being correct is not an issue. What is an issue is how the data are extracted and uploaded to wikipedia. This requires actual knowledge of the organism. An expert, looking at Abyssal's example of the data that he intends for ContentCreationBot to upload would be shocked that it takes one glance to see what is wrong.

For example, Cryptoplax is not only an extant chiton, it is used as a model of a specific chiton morphology. This was improperly extracted because the bot operator and its primary supporter do not have sufficient knowledge of the taxa to check this, see why the bot did it wrong and fix it.

Without an expert to vet the data, this will turn into another anybot mess. Anybot was a problem because its operator did not know enough about the data he was extracting. ThaddeusB and Abyssal admit they are not knowledgeable about the data they are extracting, yet they dismiss this as a problem with the bot.

It is a problem. Abyssal's example edit shows that the problem exists precisely as I stated it does: operators who do not know the data cannot competently upload the data. It requires the support of experts (even amateur experts on en.wiki would have caught this, and would do for this). But it cannot go forward without experts because it will create wrong content, just as anybot did.

--68.127.233.4 (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The data in the data base are correct, though.[2] It simply wasn't caught and recoded to prevent this type of error because the data extraction does not have the support of any wikipedia experts in this area (by which I mean professional or amateur interested in the taxon). This was the problem with anybot. It was not the database, but how the data were extracted and because the data were extracted without input by someone with expertise. --68.127.233.4 (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Additional note, Abyssal made this same error before, extracting data incorrectly from a database due to the data being about extant and extinct species, and I alerted him to it.[3]

The error type is not novel, something that might be totally unexpected.

Again, when you have users who do not know the taxa they are uploading data about, there are no additional safety checks for uploading the data incorrectly, safety checks of the sort that are present when editors are knowledgeable about the data, or when there are knowledgeable editors vetting the data. --68.127.233.4 (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

References:

Comments

See, this is the reason we put the bot up for approval in the first place. Now if only you had alerted us to the presence of improperly handled data while we were asking for you to help us fact check for improperly handled data or when we were specifically asking you what your objections were the mistake could have been caught and corrected. Of course, you were all too eager to fact check when you could use it to attack me and Thad. It's amazing that I apologize to you this morning for calling you "passive aggressive" and you turn around and do this. Not that it matters, 'cause if you are actually willing to offer helpful criticism as you did above, I would vouch for your immediate unblocking (whatever good it would do). And, to make it clear, I did not "get you blocked." I didn't know anything about your being blocked and I don't even really think it was necessary.

I'd also like to ask you please stop misrepresenting me and the bot effort. The Chaunax error was not the result of some failed "extraction." There was no automated process involved, it was just me copying. And the error was entirely my fault. I introduced it, I did not overlook something. The whole immensely tiny escapade has nothing to do, at all, with the bot anyway and I'd like to politely ask you to refrain from using it so dishonestly as you've been consistently doing.

Anyway, if you're interested in helping us make sure the bot does not screw up I'd like to see you unblocked and as an active participant in the approval discussion. Abyssal (talk) 00:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the kind of helpful feedback that I was wanting all along. If you had just pointed to this example, I could have corrected errors of this type 3 weeks ago. Instead you repeatedly refused to specify instead just saying "it will make errors". If you could please restrict future criticism to specifics like you did here that would be most helpful. Thank you, ThaddeusB (talk) 00:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I would, however, like to dispute one point. It is highly unlikely that "being an expert" alone would be sufficient to catch errors. I severely doubt that there is even one person in the entire world who knows this sort of information by heart for every genus of prehistoric creature. Instead, experts would be the exact same thing a normal person does - they would look it up; the only difference is an expert would be able to do it easier and more efficiently. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)