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]

When you are done with the current dramu, check Adolf Hitler - badly formatted refs? The script doesn't run well on that page. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Polish language ends with a Python script error. I think the last time you said I don't need to paste the color page, here, so... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:39, 24 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. [1] --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'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).

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}} 8:44 pm, 23 October 2011, last Sunday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. This contentious block is under discussion at ANI; the decision to unblock or not will have to come from community consensus there. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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]

• Well, I'll at least grant that you've defined the paintbrush; it covers everything. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:18, 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]

Please unblock this editor. The block has no preventive purpose, it is punitive on a technicality rule ("you are not allowed to make useful edits, because we say so"). WP:IAR and let Beta resume productive editing (I'd also assume he would stay clear of the controversial scripts or such, while we will try to revise and relax the unhelpful restrictions in place). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, please unblock this editor. There is no valid reason to leave the block in place. Δ was not causing disruption, and leaving him blocked is by no means preventing damage to Wikipedia. The block was inappropriate. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:32, 25 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]

Thank you, I will commence doing so shortly. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, first five are done. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Requests_for_various_.CE.94_tasks, and the five proposed tasks under that thread. More to come. Right now, I'm going to pause pending initial response to queries like this. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• We'll see how this evolves. I would strongly advise you that if you don't see opposition to a given task within 24 hrs, you commence the task, but later see opposition before the thread is archived (archiving on this board is set to 7 days), to halt the task pending consensus to support the task. I realize this places a burden on you to follow the task threads until they are archived. But, if you don't do this we're back to square one. I think it's reasonable that if the thread is archived without opposition, you shouldn't be expected to continually track the VPR archives to see if anything new is posted. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• It's up to ten now. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New sub page

To keep track of the requests for proposed tasks, I've created User:Δ/Proposed tasks. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, if you know you're doing something that's not posted at User:Δ/Proposed tasks, could you let me know? E-mail is fine if you want. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Archive links (wayback, webcitation) [2] (H: Posted as task 15 [3])
• Adding non-breaking spaces to units. [4] (H: Posted as task 14 [5])
• adding titles to bare URLs (and converting some inline links to refs where needed) [6] (H: Posted as task 13 [7])
• Fixing duplicate references [8] (H: Posted as task 12 [9])
• Adjusting location of | in templates. (beginning of line instead of end of line) [10] (H: Posted as task 16 [11])
• Fixing reference order (so that the refs are sequential)^[1][5][3] becomes^[1][3][5] [12] (H: Posted as task 17 [13])
• Dating undated templates (H: Posted as task 18 [14])
• fixing the location of mal-placed templates (deadlink outside of ref, when it should be within etc.) (H: Posted as task 19 [15])
• combine templates as needed into {{multiple issues}} (H: Posted as task 20 [16])
• converting bold external link titles to the correct section heading
• remove junk HTML comments (commented out files and other bloat) [17]
• adding defaultsort
• substing the PAGENAME magic word
• removing empty gallery tags and similar tags
• converting HTML <i> and others to correct wiki syntax. [18]
• removing empty gallery sections
• standardizing the location of the persondata HTML comment [19]
• converting ISBN 10 to the new standard 13 (and adding hyphens where needed) [20]
• adjusting cite web to cite news where needed [21]
• cleaning up old HTML to css [22]
• converting external links to interwiki links where needed [23]
• accessed => Retrieved in citations [24]
• Standardize tables [25]
• removing self references to wikipedia because we cannot reference ourselves

• I think that's everything. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 22:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 1) Auto-removing self references is probably not a good idea. Thought strictly correct, indeed we should not reference ourselves, keeping them does more good than harm. The self reference, though not reliable, points to a WP article, and the article hopefully has references itself - so a human editor may find it and replace the refs as needed or turn it into a wikilink. Auto-removing loses that possibility at the (lesser) gain of strictly following the rules. A alternate similar task would be logging such self-references somewhere thus allowing editors to review them - Wikipedia:Self reference log? Category:Pages with self references? or maybe it already exists and I'm not aware of it... // 2) What is the point of adding "defaultsort"? If equal to pagetitle it adds nothing, or does it? If not equal to pagetitle, I doubt a bot can do it properly (when to do, what to do) - Nabla (talk) 10:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Uh, Im not a bot, I review every edit. I was just listing common edits that I make that might be considered a pattern. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 11:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Δ, thanks for the listing. VERY helpful! Sorry to be an additional burden, but if you could would you please find an example of each of these? I'll work to find examples too, and check mark (or something) the ones that I do. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ive provided diffs for most of them, however others are fairly uncommon and difficult to get diffs for. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! --Hammersoft (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 20 done. Another 15 to go. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The task "accessed => Retrieved in citations" supposes that Wikipedia has a house style, and that imaginary house style calls for the use of "Retrieved" rather than "accessed". But there is no house style. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• thats just a general fix that I incorporated from what REFLINKS does. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 17:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I see that it has been discussed at User talk:Dispenser/Reflinks#accessed versus retrieved? but User:Dispenser did not provide a link to the claimed consensus. The only thing I can find is User talk:Dispenser/Dab solver#Changing access dates to "retrieved". I don't regard that as a consensus, just a unilateral declaration by Dispenser. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ive never in over 8,200 edits had anyone raise an issue with it. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 17:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering the overall tenor of your writing, I infer that you do not have any check in place to guarantee that the change does not violate WP:CITEVAR. I further infer that either you have not investigated whether REFLINKS has such a check, or you know that there is no such check. In such a case, the benefits must be shown to far outweigh the occasional false change. But most of these citations are probably malformed anyway, and changing "accessed" to "Retrieved" will not magically turn them into properly formatted citations. So I claim that there is no benefit, vs. a possibility of a false error, and thus the change should not be made. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Chicago Manual of Style uses "accessed". See 16th edition, page 754. So I consider the consensus that Dispenser relied on to support his/her automated change to be shattered. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you prove your point or is it just blind speculation? most of the time there is a wide mixture of both forms in articles. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 17:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia allows Chicago as one of the acceptable citation styles. Chicago requires the word "accessed" when an access date is to be included in the citation. REFLINKS lacks any ability to detect that Chicago style is in use and protect the citations from incorrect changes of "accessed" to "Retrieved". QED. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersoft, you might want to use a better example for task 15, see [26]. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 17:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done --Hammersoft (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN-10 vs ISBN-13

One of the tasks in the above list implies that converting all ISBN-10s in Wikipedia to ISBN-13s would be reasonable. I am not aware of any consensus that this should be done. For a sample of the prior discussions see Wikipedia talk:ISBN#Another useful discussion about ISBN-10, ISBN-13, and whether to mess with existing ISBN-10 refs. See especially the comment by User:LA2 at the end of that section. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before converting to isbn 13 I confirm that the ISBN is valid, if its not a valid ISBN I just ignore it and move on. I think that would take care of the issues raised by LA2. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 17:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

99% or more of the ISBN-10s will turn out to be valid. Do you wish to convert all the *valid* ISBN-10s to ISBN-13s? There does not appear to be consensus for that. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about VPP requests

Requests 2,4,5,6,7,8,9,14,16,17,18,19,20 are only done in conjunction with other edits. (removing links, adding archive links etc.) and are part of my "general fixes" ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 17:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS and Ive done over 8,200 of these edits without much issue (except for the short time I was adding google book data). ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 17:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be clear about your intentions vis-a-vis CSS changes in tables, like this, before making a request at VPR. Can you explain in more detail? Is placing style within "style" rather than floating, like bgcolor, more in line with standards (either wiki or w3c)? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's from the general fixes of REFLINKS. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 21:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, I'm missing it? Where does that cover CSS changes? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I borrowed the same general fixes that WP:REFLINKS uses in my general cleanup. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 21:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, but how does changing width="20" into style="width: 20px" help? (and same for bgcolor, etc) --Hammersoft (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• bgcolor deprecated in HTML, as are most of the others. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 21:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delta, this is not vandalism. Why did you list it as such? 140.247.141.165 (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.141.165 (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archived by Lady of Shallot (with my edit-conflicted comment essentially concurring) that there's nothing worth investigating. Edit summary wasn't in accord with best practice, but wasn't actionable or worth pursuing / discussing. Have to keep things in perspective. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You make a complaint to WP:AN/I about a single edit from four months ago [27] , and THEN [28] come here to ask him why? It says in the top section of WP:AN/I "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." Maybe you missed that? You didn't even give Δ a chance to respond to you. You should not be at all surprised at the archiving of that report 30 minutes after you made it. If you throw enough spaghetti at the wall some of it's going to stick. In the meantime, you're going to get an awful lot of sauce on your face. Be more careful in the future. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has become apparent now that despite best efforts to move forward, there is blanket opposition to you performing any edit of any kind to articles. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Requests_for_various_.CE.94_tasks. Since consensus will not form for you to perform any edit, and in accordance with the prior community restrictions, you are forbidden from making any edit to articles until further notice.

This is the absurdity this situation has devolved to. You're only hope at this point is for ArbCom to step in. I think the chance of that happening such that you can edit mainspace again is about 0.5%. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, this isn't an accurate summary of the state of play. The consensus-forming exercise at WP:VPP specifically related to the criterion of bulk application of the tasks you listed over 25 articles, not to Δ editing in the normal manner. There's nothing to stop Δ from editing in the way that any other manual editor operates -- on a manual basis from article to article; merely that those proposals have not yet gained consensus for the semi-automated operations to take place. There's a huge difference between blanket opposition to Δ editing in any regard, and a lack of consensus for tasks being applied en masse across the wiki. --Tristessa (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, there is. Δ's edits are being very, very broadly construed as a pattern. The definition of what a "pattern" is has not been defined, and every editor is free to make their own definition of it with respect to him. As a result, regardless of what he does he is subject to complaint about his editing. EVERY proposal that I've made, regardless of how absurdly correct and miniscule, is now being blanket opposed by enough people to prevent consensus. Since anything he does can be construed as a pattern by someone, and since none of the proposals can gain consensus, he can not edit mainspace. There is no huge difference you speak of. That's the reality. It's unpleasant, but it's reality. At least with one of his opponents now, if he doesn't make a request to edit at WP:VPR, he's wrong. If he does, he's wrong. There is absolutely no way out of this except for Δ to not edit mainspace anymore. Of course, that's the intent of his opponents. The ochlocracy has won. With that in mind, I'm seeking other avenues to resolve this. The community sure as hell can't. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still claim that nobody would be taken seriously if they complained about Beta manually creating 25 new articles, one at a time. The complaints are all about large-scale maintenance tasks, not about edits to the actual content of articles. Have you seen many complaints about those sorts of edits? — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The debate would be about "manually" and "one at a time". Normal page creation wouldn't be a problem: serial page creation like some of the less well received efforts of Dr. Blofeld, or the DNB creations by Boleyn or Rich Farmbrough, would get serious opposition if done by Delta (but then again, they got opposition in those cases I mentioned as well). Fram (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Complaints (speaking in content) about the 'large-scale maintenance tasks' - no, they were all focusing on that they violate the restriction, and that there is an occasional mistake, but no complaints about what they actually did to the article (though many editors seem in principle against doing them separately - as every single pattern on itself has its problems, some essentially being null-edits - but having them all together, where there are a handful of beneficial parts next to some cosmetic changes would make the whole a beneficial edit).
    • Wikipedia is more than only creating articles, it is also wikignoming. I know you would like to do {Δ to do a part of the former as well, but that does not mean that the latter .. does not need to be done. (in ec) And yes, per Fram, precedence exists for opposition against certain patterns of article creation also, its not like one pattern can be excluded that easy. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, Wikipedia requires both article editing and gnoming. But Beta has proven unsuitable for the latter, leading to an editing restriction, occasional bans, and a recent arbcom motion. That does not mean that he cannot edit at all, however, as Hammersoft argues. I agree that a pattern of automated article creation might cause problems, but if Beta were to focus on a handful of articles of interest, and edit only those articles for a while, would take objections to that seriously? So there are still ways Beta can edit within his restrictions. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Carl, you're once again asserting a restriction that does not exist. Δ isn't banned from maintenance. Either provide proof of that, or drop it. You would like to restrict him to article creation and content addition. Certain people would like him to be banned from the project. Doesn't make it an active sanction. If you can't provide evidence of such a sanction, and you still want such a sanction, I recommend you make such a proposal. Barring that, the idea that he is restricted to article creation and content addition is moot. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say he is banned from maintenance. I pointed out that he is unsuitable for it, and that there is an enormous amount of history to back up that claim. But there are still other ways in which he might be able to edit productively. In the end, it's up to him to decide whether he wants to change his practices or to continue on a path that will lead, eventually, to even tighter editing restrictions (most likely from arbcom). — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Your opinion that he is unsuitable for it is just that; an opinion. I can equally claim there is an enormous amount of history that proves he does maintenance right. I'm sure you feel you are right, and I'm wrong. In the end, it's up the community to figure out how to untangle themselves from the mess they've created. No matter what Δ does, there will be controversy. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very, very, very careful in what you do over the next few days in regards to mainspace. Any of the 20 proposed tasks that have ANY opposition have to prove consensus in order for you to do them. Since some people have decided to blanket oppose anything you do, some may construe that as none of your tasks having no opposition. It is likely that someone will take the requests at VPR, compare them with your edits, and block you if you are not extremely careful. To be safe, I would avoid mainspace entirely for the next week at least. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say: I think it's awesome that you want to fix all the broken stuff. Such a shame the world is collapsing around us as a result. Good luck. Hope to see you around. -- fg^TC 06:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I am not required to inform you, I am doing the kindness of letting you know that an issue that concerns you is being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Banning non-language character usernames. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Δ, I am also doing you the kindness of letting you know that your repeated pulverising of helpless little kittens in industrial blenders, your single-handed causation of famine in North Africa and your precipitation of a probable worldwide nuclear war is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Additionally, that time years ago that you washed a dark t-shirt with whites by mistake is also brought up; this is thought probably the most egregious of these violations of Wikipedia community norms, and if it becomes a pattern you will be indefinitely banned from washing machine operation. --Tristessa (talk) 12:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Brilliant Tristessa! Hahahahah! Shall we play a game? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's still funny. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Δ, I don't know if I ever thanked you for this, so I am doing so now. The img_status.py tool is incredibly valuable and useful. Before this tool, when I encountered pages with large numbers of images I despaired. It was a serious, serious pain to manually check every single image to see if there was a rationale for the non-free ones. Some pages with dozens of images defied being worked on just by the sheer scale of the task. With the advent of this tool, this task became reasonable. I've used it probably hundreds if not thousands of times since you made it available. It's saved me hours upon hours of work. Thank you, thank you, thank you!

Do you have any way to tell how many people are using that tool? Or, alternatively, how often it is used within a week or month? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked the committee to make their thoughts known on WP:VPR#Δ proposed task #1, just to avoid any possible misunderstanding later. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Δ. Uʔ (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]