User talk:Δ

_{^{archives: 1   2 3 4   5

               6   7  8 9 10

              11 12 13 14 15

              16 17 18 19}}

AN/I

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 Indocopy (talk • contribs) 09:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit restriction block

Between 2011-05-18T11:07:41 and 2011-05-18T11:14:54 you made 50 edits. This is a violation of your editing restriction, which limits you to no more than 40 edits in any 10 minute period. Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2#Community-imposed_restrictions you may not exceed 40 edits in any ten minute period. I reminded you about this on May 13 [1], when you also exceeded your maximum edit rate. Accordingly, I have blocked you from editing for 24 hours. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your contribs again, you also made 50 edits between 2011-05-18T11:19:52 and 2011-05-18T11:25:23, which underscores the violation of the editing restriction. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really, your getting this low? Ive made all of the relevant requests and everyone supports my edits, so your blocking on a technicality? Enjoy your power trip, I guess it is the only way you can have fun. The rest of use prefer to improve the encyclopedia, not play politics. Which you obviously do. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 11:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not "a technicality". It is one of the four points of your edit restrictions, and it is just as important as the others. Because I was involved in the discussions that led to the edit restrictions, I remember that the speed restriction was deliberately chosen to stop you from making large bot-like runs at high speed, which has been a problem with your editing in the past. In other words, the speed restriction was designed exactly to limit the sort of editing you were doing this morning.

The deeper question is why you would violate the restriction again just a few days after a discussion of the edit restriction on your talk page. You made over 100 edits in a half hour. That can't be an accident; you must have noticed you were making a large number of edits in a row. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this was earlier already described as absurd, and that is what it is, Carl. Nice way to go. Delta was so nicely showing that he could perform responsibly at a high speed, even got compliments for this work .. a low point in your blocking history, CBM. Very .. considerate of you. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The editing restrictions are in place for good reason. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For a reason .. :-) .. yes. Probably to prevent disruption .. so .. where is the disruption? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The disruption caused by large-scale bot-like runs on Beta's main account are discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/I have blocked Betacommand, which is also the place where the community sanctions were imposed. That page itself was created in response to Beta violating a previous set of sanctions against running bots or bot-like processes on his main account. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, Carl, with this block you are causing more disruption (and keeping copyright violations in place) than what you think to prevent, even if you follow rules to the letter ... (see WP:BUREAU and WP:IAR). I see your basic point, I know the restrictions, but what you did here was not the solution. Absurd. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk, you as an admin should know that when you are restricted, you don't only get blocked when your edits are a problem, but also when you violate your restrictions, which were imposed because of earlier problems. If you are topic banned and you make contructive edits which violate your topic ban, you get warned and blocked if you continue. Good-hand socks get blocked together with bad hand socks if the user is no longer wanted. If Twinkle access is removed, you don't get to add it again yourself to make good Twinkle edits. In this case, the edit restriction was not installed because all Beta's semi-automated edits were problematic, but because too many were. The restriction is not to make any sych edits again, not that he can only make good semi-automated edits (which would be a ridiculous restriction, no one is suposed to make bad ones). He was warned, and choose to continue, instead of asking for a removal of the restriction, or an exception for this task, ro looking for someone else to solve the problems. It then shouldn't come as a suprise that he swiftly gets blocked again.

Basically, you can disagree with the restriction, and can try to get it lifted or modified: but as long as it is in place, and considering that he was warned for the exact same behaviour just days ago, the block is perfectly logical and forseeable. Fram (talk) 12:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stay with the point Fram, that a block was not the solution, even when according to the letter. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what was the solution then? I note that the reply to the block was "Ive made all of the relevant requests and everyone supports my edits, so your blocking on a technicality?" A pointer to those requests and those discussions where "everyone supports the edits" can be useful, as all I can find is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ#Unauthorized bot job to replaceimage redirects, where apart from CBM also Franamax and Jpatokal were clearly not supportive, and Titoxd isn't really supportive either, more neutral (or sceptical, hard to tell in writing). When an editor knows that he is restricted, knows that he is violating that restriction, knows that he will be blocked for this, and then after the block incorrectly claims that "everyone supported" those edits, then the problem is not with the block... Fram (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delta did post at Wikipedia:VPR#Heads_up, where people generally supported the request (and I did not participate). So I think that part of the editing restriction was satisfied here. But the speed restriction was not an afterthought in the restrictions, it was viewed as necessary because of a history of problematical editing. In this case, I was hoping to resolve the problem by only warning him (on May 13) for clearly breaking two parts of the restriction, which he acknowledged doing. But apparently he has continued to violate the speed restriction, which is why I blocked today.— Carl (CBM · talk) 13:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Fram, he did make the necessary requests, and yes, everybody was supportive of the edits (or maybe, everyone - 1 .. although maybe CBM is even supportive of the edits that were made, except not the way they were made, CBM did not disclose that).

Still, there would have been other solutions .. but well, if the first chosen way is the way of an unconditional warning, yeah, then maybe all is left is to block. Too bad. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, while I support what Delta was trying to do, it is a violation, one he was warned about a few days earlier. The solution in the future needs to be for Delta, in making the VPR request, to also request that he may have to go above the 4 edits/min rate, and possibly work out an acceptable number of edits per day for the task so that, such as this case, he may have gone above 4 edits/min, he ultimately did not exceed the request X edits/day or something. (eg in this present task he's doing, I don't know how many he needs to fix, but if there's, say 50,000 of these, having Delta ask to do 2,500/day which may include periods where 4/min is exceeded would seem to be in line with keep with the community restrictions and the necessary requests). --MASEM (t) 13:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there are 50,000 of them, or even just 2,500, they should be done by a bot instead of manually. Given Delta's chronic editing problems, it would be a mistake, I think, to use VPR as a forum to change his editing restriction. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the complexity of our wiki-syntax too many errors will occur if you use a bot. As Ive been doing this I have seen multiple cases where a bot would completely fuck a page up. I dont have any chronic editing issues. Prior to your little fit, Ive made over 20,000 edits in the last year without any major issues. Ive been running Δbot without any real issues, and most of the issues that you cite are over 3 years old. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 14:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, CBM, that there are 50,000 of them is not a reason to do it with a bot .. some things can not be done with a bot, and/or need constant human attention anyway. And seen that these edits have only given him praise that this work was done so well, and the only thing that you are negative about is about the actual rate, shows me that Delta is capable of doing these things. I think that it is a mistake to use the banhammer on that. But well, I see that you only want to see the edit restriction, and not the good work that is being done. Again, too bad. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody gets an edit restriction of this sort based on lavish praise. Few editors have an entire subpage of the administrator's noticeboard devoted to them (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ). Looking at the block logs is also informative [2] [3]. The present situation is very similar to previous ones. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, since he has a subboard of WP:AN/I devoted to him, he's therefore shite? If that's true, it will be impossible for Δ to EVER escape his history, and editors like you will forever attack him for having a bad history. Double jeopardy anyone? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He is on probation, so to speak, and he knows the terms of the probation very clearly. If he wants to escape his history, a better strategy would be to start by following his edit restrictions, rather than violating them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it is very similar. In the other cases, there were mistakes in the edits, and there was no response .. in this case there is no mistake .. I've not heard of one. If it would have stayed under 4 edits per minute, there would not have been a single problem. So the only thing you are blocking on, is that a perfectly running task is having a too high a speed. Good work, CBM. See also my post below, as you seem to dodge that point here. Still .. I think you only want to see the edit restriction, and not the good work that is being done. Still, too bad. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How long ago was that, by the way, that Delta was restricted. Maybe this is an interesting part of reading, and if this actually can change, then why not this (and I think that this last run was a good display of the latter possibility, until you .. used excessive (IMHO) force to stop it) .. ?? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see this situation as confirmation that things have not changed. Delta is still running jobs that he knows he should not run - I had to warn him on May 13 to bring up the task on VPR as he was required to do before he started it [4]. At that time he admitted he had already made a few thousand edits on the job, in violation of his restriction. Even after the VPR discussion, he continued today to violate the speed restriction in his editing restrictions. To me, this appears to be recidivism, rather than improvement. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT? 'Delta is still running jobs that he knows he should not run' .. now what did you block him for, passing an edit rate, or for doing something that you did not like? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And please note, that I did already say that this is indeed a violation of the edit restriction, but that using the use of administrative force here in this way is excessive. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By "still" I mean "after years of doing it". This is the sort of thing that led to the original restrictions: he would run unapproved jobs on his main account, and draw lots of complaints. The present job was also unapproved on May 13 when I warned him to go to VPR with it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Masem. And I do not disagree that this is a violation, but it looks to me that outside of Delta's account there is box with a banhammer ready (with inscription on the glass 'break glass and apply hammer at first sight'). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Carl; You've previously made a claim that a task requiring 2,000 edits should be done by a bot [5]. I asked you at the time to block me for similar behavior. Since you raise the point again above [6], and you are an administrator, I'm presuming you are correct that such large scale edits must be done by a bot. Since this seems to be part of the reason you blocked Δ, I'm hereby formally requesting you block me for doing similar sorts of large scale edits. I've made in excess of 2200 edits removing non-compliant NFCC media in the main article namespace alone (search my last 5000 mainspace edits for "This media does not comply with NFCC") without the aid of a bot, or even a script. I also fully intend on continuing this work. Please block me for this reason. Either that, or drop the accusation that repetitive tasks should be done by a bot, not an editor. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Carl, similar to Hammersoft, I have been making, god forbid, using my admin account, thousands of script assisted edits, which, due to the complexity of the edits, need constant supervision. I have not heard anyone complain about it, and I don't think I made any mistakes in breaking pages (if there are errors, then it is the input databases that I use which are wrong, so I would have made them wrong anyway), however, it involves over 10,000 pages, so it must have been way over 5,000 edits that I made (some pages I have hit two, three, four times .. maybe it is even 20,000 edits ..) .. I fully intent on continuing this work, but as you said, if it involves more than 2,000 edits, it must be done by a bot. As I also presume you are correct, I also ask you to block me for that same reason. Either that, or drop the accusation that repetitive tasks should be done by a bot, not by a (thoughtful) editor. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not block Delta for not using a bot, I blocked him for failing to follow his edit restriction by exceeding his maximum edit rate. Because he posted on VPR, he would be permitted to make the edits if he followed the other terms of his editing restriction. My advice to him to find a way for a bot to do the edits was simply advice, as a way he could avoid this situation in the future. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then are you going to drop your insistence regarding bot like edits being performed by a bot? It would also be nice if you acknowledged Δ's twice repeated defense that it is better for a bot NOT to do this work. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, CBM still thinks that 'Delta is ... running jobs that he knows he should not run' [7], it is not about the speed of editing alone, Hammersoft. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When Delta started this job he did not bring it to VPR. When I pointed out on May 13 that he was violating his edit restriction by doing so, he finally complied with that part of his restriction. That is what I was referring to: he know he should not run jobs that have not been pre-approved on VPR. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delta is free to insist that a bot cannot do the work; that's neither here nor there, since I am not involved in the technical aspects of the task and I don't plan to look into them. Perhaps he or you should post on the bot requests board to see if someone else can develop a bot to do it. However, I can say unequivocally that if Delta has to violate his editing restrictions while pursuing this task manually, he needs to let someone else do it. IMHO, the pattern where he continues to do tasks like this even when it is clearly in his interest to let someone else do them is is what led to the edit restriction in the first place. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let me get this straight; you're ready and willing to accuse Δ of running a bot [8], but haven't looked into the technical aspects of this job? Further, you think he should make a request for a bot to do the task, even though Δ has told you several times that a bot is inappropriate for the task? Wow. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think you are being a little credulous with Delta's claims. He hasn't provided any evidence apart from claiming that diffs such as [9] [10] cannot be done by a bot. But in the end the "bot" issue is a red herring. The basis for the block is the edit restriction, which does not use the word "bot" at all. So if you want you can simply ignore me if I mention the word "bot", and we can just talk about the edit restriction. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not at all. I do think your assertions regarding bots, bot like edits, or edits that should be done should be entirely dropped. You're not helping your argument. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Carl, from following this discussion, it seems to me you're continually changing the reason for this block. Please can you let me know exactly why you blocked Delta? Is it the edit rate? Is it running bots? Is it making bad edits? Or is it simply because he's doing something you didn't like? I can't seem to figure out which it is from the above discussion. Thanks, [stwalkerster|talk] 15:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have never changed the reason for this block: it was for violating his edit restrictions. The edit restrictions are completely objective: Delta cannot exceed 40 edits in 10 minutes. Later in the discussion I advised him to let a bot do the task, but that was after I had already justified the block in the first comment of this thread. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, thanks for clarifying that. Given the above discussion, perhaps this is a reasonable time to consider a review of the editing restrictions? [stwalkerster|talk] 15:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - ... after all, they appear unchanged after THREE years. [stwalkerster|talk] 15:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think that a review of the restrictions, whether it results in them being lifted or them being reconfirmed, would be very reasonable. The most recent discussion on that topic was in October 2010 [11] and the sanctions were not lifted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

7 Brides for 7 Bros

Your recent edit on this page to change the name of the included picture resulted in a blank box. Upon trying to revert, the previous version is also a blank box (i.e. the file is no longer there). Since I'm not sure what was done to the file, I was wondering if you could either fix it or tell me and I'll fix it. Ckruschke (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

If you are referring to Seven Brides for Seven Brothers#Stage adaptation the file appears correct. Looks like it may be a caching issue on your end. Take a look at this and get back to me. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]