At [1]; at the same time I can run it for other articles fine, while it fails repeatedly for that one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed it was in an indefinite loop at one point and never finishing, Ive added a check to prevent that. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 08:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea why the script is not moving some of the refs at Józef Ankwicz? Scared off by the diacritic, perhaps? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for violation of your community editing restrictions, by running your "Cleanup" edit pattern across over 130 articles (your limit is 25) between 20:47, 18 October 2011 and 14:51, 22 October 2011. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Tristessa (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened an AN/I thread noting this enforcement action. [2] --Tristessa (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, how is this any different than a month ago when it was determined that this wasnt a violation? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=452780109#.CE.94_.28Betacommand.29_and_community_restrictions ? Ive made over 7,000 8,245 edits with a similar edit summary (that count is just with this username and not my old one) over the last 3 years. Why is it just now causing to raise a tantrum when its been improving the encyclopedia for that long without issue? ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

see line above ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=see line above [[User talk:Δ|ΔT <sub><sup><span style="color:darkred;">The only constant</span></sup></sub>]] 00:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=see line above [[User talk:Δ|ΔT <sub><sup><span style="color:darkred;">The only constant</span></sup></sub>]] 00:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=see line above [[User talk:Δ|ΔT <sub><sup><span style="color:darkred;">The only constant</span></sup></sub>]] 00:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Could you please make a concrete list of exactly what these "cleanup" edits are doing, and provide links to the village pump discussions for them? One task that is clearly present is removing references to deleted images, and there were at least 25 edits on October 22nd that did this. I assume you got a village pump discussion for this task, right? Another "cleanup" task appears to be CSS/HTML/wikitext markup changes, for example in the formatting of tables. What other tasks are being done? — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Such a request makes a presumption there is a pattern. If you can't identify what the pattern is, it shouldn't be incumbent on Δ to prove there isn't a pattern. Δ has been challenged on this before, and it was determined there isn't a pattern. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I named two patterns already: removing references to deleted images, and changing CSS formatting in wikitable syntax. I am waiting for the links to the village pump discussion on these. It's up to Beta to make it clear what his edits are actually doing. A sequence of edits made in a row with the same edit summary is prima facie a "pattern" of editing. If he wants to claim they are all actually different tasks, he needs to be clearer with his edit summaries. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Carl, I already said this earlier. Editing 25 pages in a row is a pattern of editing. Can you please define where you draw the line when edits are not a pattern anymore, or are you just randomly to decide when something is a pattern? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The edits in his recent contribs (top 50) show he went through removing references to deleted images. Is that not a pattern? Personally, I think that it is clear that a large sequences of edit made in a row to different pages with the same edit summary are already a "pattern". If he is doing different things to the pages, it is not so hard to explain what he actually did. It appears the reason for the edit summary is that he is making the edits via a script and does not take the time to explain what it did in the edit summary. That does not seem like an excuse to me. Beta knows he is under tight restrictions in lieu of just being banned - he needs to make it clear he is staying within the lines. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As I noted at AN/I, if he was removing links to a particular image, I could see it. Not with this. I agree with Beetstra; you've created a situation in which Δ has to seek approval for any 25 edits to mainspace he makes. This is impossible. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No; if he was to make a series of 25 edits that each did one thing, and the edit summaries and diffs showed that these were really different tasks, he would be fine. But if he wants to do the same thing to 25 articles then, yes, he needs to get approval. It was his own editing problems that led to this restriction, by pursuing this sort of "cleanup" even when it was undesirable or broken. That's why he is now restricted from doing so without getting approval first. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You're making it impossible for him to edit. You're so broadly construing his edits as a "pattern" as to make it impossible for him to do anything but seek approval for every 25 edits he does. You've broadened the paint brush to include TYPES of edits, not SPECIFIC edits. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course the restriction applies to types of edits. For example, if he reformats 25 different dates, he is still reformatting dates. If he removes references to 25 different deleted images, he is still removing references to deleted images. This is exactly what one would expect a cleanup script to do: he makes a list of articles with the same type of problem, and then edits them all in a row. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but again, improving 25 articles by adding text and references to it, is a pattern of improving articles. Where do you draw the line? Or do you really want to see him ask for that permission as well? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Δ, I think at this point you're going to have to do this immediately following your block ending: Post to VP requesting permission to:

• Delete links to deleted images.
• Remove whitespace
• Make CSS changes
• Use "cleanup" in edit summaries
• Add stub identifiers
• Add {{dead link}} to dead links
• Change improperly formatted galleries of one image into properly used image constructs.
• Change template redirects to point to the proper template
• Change image redirects to point to the proper image
• Remove out of place comments

And anything else you can think of that you might think to do to an article. You've done all of these things recently with your edits. Since all of them together are being taken as a pattern, and in fact any of them separately even if referring to different templates/images/comments, you're going to have to get specific approval. The reality is at this point that you're going to have to seek specific permission to breathe, because your breathing constitutes a pattern. I say some of this tongue in cheek, but I strongly believe you have to make this request else there will be recurring threads at AN/I no matter what you do or how well you do it. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The key point seems to be to use clear edit summaries so people can tell what the point of the edit was. If you make 200 edits to different articles with the same vague summary, you are already implicitly claiming they are part of a pattern. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• So you would suggest that when he performs two different edits that make a number of changes each he has to detail each and every clean up action he performed within that edit, or alternatively needs to break out each edit into constituent parts and label each of those independently? Where in his restrictions does it state that? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • The restriction is the he cannot make a pattern of edits without approval. He is already doing so, it seems - for example the removal of deleted image names, or the reformatting of wikitable CSS. My suggestion would be for him to follow his restriction to get these tasks approved, and then make it clear which approved task he is performing when he makes a series of similar edits to different articles. The use of "cleanup" as an edit summary is already far from best practice for editors who are not under edit restrictions, and there is no reason to support it for editors who are under tight restrictions. The deeper problem is that Beta appears to be using the edit summary to conceal the actual editing patterns which violate his restriction. Note that in his message above he does not deny that there is a pattern, he simply wants us to ignore the violation because it was not caught quickly enough. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• YOU are asserting a pattern. You're expecting us to accept it lock, stock and barrel. I don't see it. What you're describing is impossible for him to operate within. Asserting Δ is attempting to conceal what he is doing is an extreme bad faith presumption. You know damn well he is under heavy scrutiny. Attempting to conceal anything would never work, as your adamant pressing of his supposed patternistic editing is proof enough of. If that's the "deeper" problem, you need to step back and regain some focus. He isn't trying to deceive anyone. He's not trying to get anyone to ignore anything. He's pointing out that there was a previous discussion that concluded there was no pattern, and now a month later he's blocked for the same damn thing. You're setting him up for failure, not matter what he does. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Δ, I'd like to request permission to operate on your behalf. Specifically, to make requests about your editing at WP:VPR. I'd like to review your edits, to see what by CBM's broad definitions constitute a "pattern" (if I can; it's vague) and make requests for you to edit in that way. See the above thread where I've outlined a few. I need this permission from you; if I just went ahead and did it, people would complain that you violated your restrictions because you didn't ask, but someone else did without your permission. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that he needs to make the requests *before* he starts the tasks. it's not sufficient to review his edits after they are made. Experience shows that Beta has been very reluctant to stop performing a task once it is started, which is why the restriction is phrased this way. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The point is I was addressing Δ, not you. If he responds to this request before his block expires, it's likely there will be enough time to make all these requests and do so within the time frame of his editing restrictions request for 24 hrs notice. Or, are you now asserting that since he's done these edits in the past, he's now banned from doing them at all since he didn't make a request 24 hrs in advance? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is not permanently prevented from performing the tasks again, but he needs to get approval before beginning them again. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Which is why I'm requesting to act on his behalf. Are you going to let me operate on his behalf? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought you were suggesting you would do this on an ongoing basis, rather than just right now. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you going to let me operate on his behalf? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Please, Do so. This bullshit idiocy is irritating, along with the stalking and harassment. One day my edits are OK, and then less than 30 days later Im blocked out of the blue because the same edits I was making a month ago........ ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 16:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]