Jump to content

User talk:Δ/20111101

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


User:TruthFailsYetAgain

You might wanna block this troll. The only actions have been deliberate vandalism of Palestine 194, and considering that this person considers us vandals for removing his disgusting actions, I highly doubt this person can be reformed or ever refrain from vandalizing other articles pertaining to Israeli and Palestinian issues. Fry1989 eh? 03:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

offer to recuse

Hi Delta, please see [1] If you want me to recuse, or not be involved in drafting the decision, that is fine with me. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Not really that much of a copyright issue when you take a look at User:Δ/Example which compares each of my userspace pages with the actual article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

While creating 23 "example" pages like User:Δ/Example/6 Squadron SAAF did not violate any 25-page or 40-edit restrictions, you succeeded in creating 23 copyright violations in succession by copying Wikipedia articles and templates (created and edited by other users) to your user space without any attribution. Please add the proper attribution to these pages (see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia if you need more info on this), or speedy delete these pages. If you do keep these pages, also make sure that you disable all mainspace categories in user space, as explained in Wikipedia:User pages#Categories, templates, and redirects.

Efforts like these are a good reason why many editors no longer trust you to do any mass-editing, since there are too many problems with it, and finding them is usually left for other editors. If the upcoming ArbCom case regarding your restrictions needs good, recent examples of things gone wrong, this may be a typical candidate. Fram (talk) 10:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So what? Because of that, he somehow couldn't at least include attribution in the edit summary? If this is used for "support", I hate to see what will be used to oppose... Fram (talk) 14:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Rather than arguing about it, why not just go add the attribution statements on Δ's behalf? I don't know who made the request (or how they phrased it), but proper attribution is not optional. –xenotalk 14:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
His mess, his cleanup. No thanks. It takes enough of my time spot checking his edits and pointing out his errors for him. I'm not going to cleanup after him as well. Perhaps you can just blank the pages with an edit summary like "This page does not comply with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and MUST be removed until it does"? Fram (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Quoting WP:CWW:

Wikipedia's licensing requires that attribution be given to the original author. For most pages, this is supplied by the page history, with exceptions associated with copying and deletion. In these cases, supplementary attribution must be provided by either a link back to the source page, if available, or a list of authors. At minimum, this means a linked edit summary at the destination page—that is, the page into which the material is copied. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary at the source page as well. Content reusers should also consider leaving a note at the talk pages of both source and destination.

Let me select: 'In these cases, supplementary attribution must be provided by either a link back to the source page, if available, or a list of authors' - 'At minimum, this means a linked edit summary at the destination page—that is, the page into which the material is copied.' - I don't know, but I think that it is obviously clear that User:Δ/Example/6 Squadron SAAF is pointing back to 6 Squadron SAAF (but I may be mistaken). But of course, I presume that the last word will be by a copyright specialist, and I am sure that the Foundation has such specialists working for them, maybe it is worth asking them.

Of course, it would be better to make it more clear, which revid exactly etc., but I do not believe that legal actions here would succeed - I even doubt if this is a copyright violation. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

No, when you create a userspace subpage with the edit summary creating "creating page X", then it is not "obviously clear" that you are copying an existing page. Using the same title is not "a link back to the source page" at all. It is not because "legal actions wouldn't succeed" that we don't enforce our own policies, and taking this argument is rather ridiculous on the page of someone who has been very strict in NFCC enforcement, way beyond the risk of possible legal actions. This is not about legality, this is about Wikipedia policies, so please leave such distractions out of it. Fram (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I did not start calling it a copyright violation, Fram. OK, so you believe that these pages are in violation of a Wikipedia editing guideline. That is a hell of a lot less severe than a copyright violation, Fram. As far as I saw, Δ was trying to enforce a policy (WP:NFC), not a guideline. And still we can argue whether having the same name is or is not enough of a link back. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I didn't start calling such pages a copyright violation either, I got that from CWW as well: "While technically licensing violations are copyright violations [...]". but if you believe that this aspect is "only" a guideline, then I'll answer that piece of shitty wikilawyering with Wikipedia:Copyrights, which isn't just a policy but a "policy with legal considerations": read the section "Attribution" and see how these 23 pages fail that policy. "Having the same name" is not included as a sufficient atribution obviously. Fram (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, CWW should be elevated to a policy with legal considerations. –xenotalk 15:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Again arguing about the definition of soup? This is all that is needed: [2]; someone please repeat for the remaining unattributed pages. –xenotalk 14:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
@Dirk Beetstra: Just some nitpicking, but WP:NFC is not a policy, it is an editing guideline. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
That's absolutely brilliant... Fram (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Darn, missed a C - I meant WP:NFCC. Whatever. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

In the end, whether it is a copyright violation or not, this is a case example demonstrating the community's inability respond to Δ in a productive way. "<scrutiny>, <scrutiny>, <scrutiny>, <scrutiny>, <scrutiny>, <scrutiny>, <scrutiny>, <scrutiny>, <scrutiny>, <scrutiny>, <scrutiny>, Ah HA! Gotcha! This is a good reason why many editors no longer trust you! ..." --Hammersoft (talk)

Users with a history of edits that lack appropriate due diligence will attract greater scrutiny of their edits.
FYI, the interwiki links still need to be removed from these specimen copies and they should probably have {{userspace draft}} or some other form of {{NOINDEX}} treatment applied. –xenotalk 15:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Do the interwiki links really matter? Does tagging them with userspace draft really matter? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
    Yes - the interwiki links will interfere with the operation of interwiki bots. And yes, userspace draft or noindex is indicated because otherwise these will show up in a Google search (and may be mistaken for actual articles; see WP:UP#COPIES).
    For what it's worth, I think that the strident vigorous defense of Δ in this case here is to his detriment. Δ seems to be off Wikipedia right now; had he been here, his response might have been "Oh!...Sorry. I will go add those appropriate attributions, and remove the categories and interwiki links. Thank you for pointing this out."...instead we have a lengthy protracted argument about the definition of soup. –xenotalk 15:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, Xeno - And that effect would also have been accomplished by:

"Δ, you copied 23 articles from mainspace to your userspace. Per WP:CWW, it would be better to attribute them properly as to which version you copied. Could you do that as soon as you return? Thanks."

But as usual, the first post is one in which the dramah is maximised by throwing in accusations and motions of distrust. Ah well. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Beetstra, why do you only complain of such things when it is directed against Delta, but not when "accusations and motions of distrust" are made from the opposite side? Ignoring everything already in the archives, I see things like "gobsmackingly ignorant" and "your hate squad", which is a lot worse than what is said in this section. When an editor is under editing restrictions, ArbCom scrutiny, and so on, and he makes a series of edits which technically don't violate his restrictions, but highlight again the need for those, it seems to me to be perfectly allright to highlight this. Otherwise, if further similar problems would happen, someone would probably complain that it hadn't been indicated that these problems were in any way related to his restrictions. You know, if I had wanted to "maximise the dramah", I would have posted this at VPR, AN, ANI, and/or the ArbCom discussion. Instead, I posted it here, at his talk page. Fram (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • (ec) Instead of this being a thread in line with Foundation:Resolution:Openness, it was brought to attack Δ. The changes make sense. You letting the attack stand rather than correcting Fram's behavior was wrong. Fram could have left his comments alone after his initial first paragraph. The second paragraph was unnecessary in every respect and constitutes a personal attack. This once again helps demonstrate the problem; an issue arises with Δ. He's not even around to respond to it, but the allowed response is an attack, combined with a further attack against someone helping to fix the problem as being part of the problem because I'm "strident" (a personal attack as well). Were this sort of behavior coming from a new editor, few would be surprised. To have it come from two administrators, one of whom is a member of ArbCom? This is disappointing, to say the least. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
    strident = vigorous. –xenotalk 15:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
What "personal attack"? The fact that "many editors no longer trust you to do any mass-editing"? That is quite obvious from the discussion at WP:VPR. You have said above that "After reading all of VPR, there's no honest person that can say that ANYTHING Δ proposes to do would gain consensus." How is my statement any different? If you meant anything else in that post of mine as being a PA, please indicate what exactly, as I'm not seeing it. Fram (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Commenting on the community is one thing. Commenting on Δ directly as an aspersion from the entire community is wholly another. You could have stopped your comments at the first paragraph, and everything would have been fine. The second paragraph was wholly unnecessary. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
"many editors" <> "the community". I doubt that everything would have been fine had I stopped at the first paragraph though, seeing how people even doubted whether such attribution was even needed... Fram (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Xeno, the "all that is needed" edit [3] failed to address the userspace draft tagging issue. You later noted this needed to be done. Ok, it needs to be done. But this highlights another problem; Δ's told to do something in a particular way by someone. In this particular case, Xeno's standards and Fram's standards disagree. Xeno's standards changed. Yet, if Δ doesn't comply it is he who is at fault. I would hate to be in Δ's shoes. How can one be perfect when the definition of perfect is held by multiple people and changes? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I know we're likely heading for a full arbcom case here, but what Hammer's pointing out above needs to be part of it: That is: yes, Delta lost trust of a lot of people leading up to the present community restrictions and the like, so its understandable he will be under scrutiny and the like. The problem is that these same people are throwing out any concept of Good Faith with the restrictions assuming that everything Delta is doing is bad. There's a big difference between under scrutiny and being given no good faith from others. The latter is what is poisoning the entire point of the community restrictions; they are supposed to be in place to show that Delta can contribute in a manner appropriate for WP and to that end, some good faith has to be assumed even if it requires meticulous checking of every edit. This situation (copying pages to userspace) is just the tip of the iceberg in what has happened with Delta in the last several months. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
My standards and those of Xeno don't disagree, I noted two problems and posted these here, I didn't look for any further problems. Nothing that xeno suggests contradicts what I asked or vice versa. Fram (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "all that is needed [to correct the missing attribution]"; not all that is needed to correct any and all problems created by the edit, which are peripheral to the topic of this thread. –xenotalk 15:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Adding to it - 'I think that the strident defense of Δ in this case here is to his detriment.' - First, there is not much more to do when the initial post already says "If the upcoming ArbCom case regarding your restrictions needs good, recent examples of things gone wrong, this may be a typical candidate." - I mean, can it actually get worse. And I am sorry, Xeno, you are defending that post by Fram. Do we really need a ArbCom to ban Δ already? --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not defending anything. If you have an issue with Fram's edit, it may be raised elsewhere - I think that Δ has enough to process upon his return with the growing length of this thread. –xenotalk 15:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I think the juxtaposition of finding fault with myself and Beetstra while not finding fault with Fram's initial post in this thread is disappointing. That it is coming from a member of ArbCom who may be ruling on an upcoming Δ case is chilling. I don't expect you to be perfect, but I do hope you consider that juxtaposition; it would appear you are (even if unintentionally) biased in this case. I would recommend a recusal from the upcoming case. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
    I'm on a break from regular arbitration business and have no intention of activating on the upcoming case. –xenotalk 16:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Beetstra, do you think that creating 23 pages in a row which, apart from having more minor problems like the categories, interwiki links and missing userspace draft template, all are technical violations of our copyright policy, is something that won't be used in the upcoming ArbCom case? Do you believe that my opening statement of this section is factually incorrect? Fram (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll take that as a yes to my question? But I have never claimed that NPA and AGF can be abandoned: I have claimed that I didn't make a personal attack (and I would like you or anyone else to point out what exactly is supposed to be the personal attack there), and I haven't abandoned AGF either. I have not indicated (or thought) that Delta deliberately created these problems. "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks". Fram (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
"Efforts like these are a good reason why many editors no longer trust you to do any mass-editing, since there are too many problems with it, and finding them is usually left for other editors."
How is that not an assumption of bad faith? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Which part? "Finding them is usually left for other editors"? I have had to point out errors and problems with his batch edits often enough, and so have others, to believe that this is correct. That doesn't mean that he makes his edits in bad faith, only that he is e.g. careless, or (less probable) incompetent or any other explanation you can think off. From WP:AGF: "editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice." (and other similar views in the intro). Where have I indicated that I believe that any malice, any deliberate attempt at making Wikipedia worse, is at stake? Indicating a pattern of errors in edits is not an assumption of bad faith. Please refamiliarize yourself with WP:AGF and indicate where I haven't assumed good faith as described by that page. One can be critical and negative without violating AGF. Fram (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the interwiki links and added userspace draft. If there are any other changes necessary to make these pages perfect in the eyes of anyone, please let me know. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. –xenotalk 16:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I partially agree with Hammersofts decision to close this. Can someone define what is to be achieved through this discussion? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Notification of arbitration case

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 17, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

  • The 500 limit is impossible to stay within. But, I'm trying. I've hacked and slashed and managed to keep my comments about CBM's factually inaccurate assertions down to 77. Another point which needs to be raised at some point is whether double jeopardy is allowable. If not, then dragging out things from 2008 is wholly improper. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Personally I say screw the 500 limit, we need enough data to make things clear, if that takes 3 words or 3000. ΔT The only constant 15:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Then draft the data in your user-space and provide a link to bypass any obnoxious interference that an AI may produce. AI's should not have complete control, just ask John Connor. Im keeping a fairly close mouthed on this, but I think we should point out that it has been a small group of vocal users who have been raising the majority of the drama/stalking/harassing. ΔT The only constant 15:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Yep. I'm going to be putting together data to that effect. But, I've been very sick for the last couple of days, and I'm still running a heavy duty fever. I'm a mess. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Ref desk

Sorry to bother you, but as you are an expert on fair usage and such, could you go to the entertainment ref desk,[4] and give your opinion on an album cover question (in the section called "Update your Article")? Thank you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 November2011

Blocked - Nov 2011

I don't want to do this Beta, but I don't think I can let it go. Here is the ArbCom motion which prohibits you from making "any edit enforcing the non-free content criteria, broadly construed", and here you very clearly address another editor regarding, specifically and only, NFCC. You have toolserver access, we all know that, and you can continue to do NFCC work on the toolserver, we can't stop you. When you publicize your efforts on this wiki, you violate your ArbCom-imposed restrictions. I've set the block length at 60 hours, as a minor escalation from your previous block length, and will not be particularly fussed if any other admin changes the length. Franamax (talk) 03:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

What bullshit. I am not enforcing NFCC. Letting a user know about a modification to a long running report isnt a violation of that issue.
per arbcom that ban refers to:
  • Removing files from pages with NFCC as the justification
  • Tagging or nominating files for deletion with NFCC as the justification
  • Tagging articles or files with {{Non-free}} or other NFCC-related cleanup tags
  • Issuing warnings to users regarding non-free content criteria
ΔT The only constant 03:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
If that edit was not about enforcing NFCC, then what was it about? The entire content concerns enforcement of the NFCC ctrieria, and nothing else. You are topic-banned from that area. Franamax (talk) 03:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I am banned from making an edit that enforces NFCC, I am not banned from discussions about NFCC. ΔT The only constant 03:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
That report is widely known already, and is widely used. I know Hammersoft uses it often, I just wanted to make him aware of a change in the report. ΔT The only constant 04:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
As I said Beta, we can't stop you from doing whatever you want on the toolserver. On en:wiki though, you are topic-banned from NFCC enforcement. Your edit pretty clearly seems to be an inducement for other editors to concentrate their NFCC enforcement efforts on articles which you have selected. That is NFCC enforcement, and you are topic-banned. Franamax (talk) 04:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

see above for details of the bad block

Accept reason:

Only the most astoundingly broadly construed restriction would cover notifying another user of a change to a tool he uses. The Bushranger One ping only 04:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Specifically, Delta/Betacommand is barred from "...making any edit enforcing the non-free content criteria, broadly construed". I just can't quite read this as a violation of the stated restriction, even given the stretchiness of a "broadly construed" definition. The edit – notifying another editor of a change made to a utility on the toolserver – just isn't an enforcement of the NFCC. There was no removal of images from articles, no tagging of images for deletion, no warnings to other editors—where is the purported enforcement action? If the ArbCom had intended that Delta not be allowed to make any edits which relate to or in any way mention NFCC, they could and should have done so in their remedy. I am inclined to accept the unblock request in this instance, unless presented with persuasive arguments that my interpretation is mistaken. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
It appears that Beta's action fell just outside of even "broadly construed". Albeit just outside, outside non the less. There was no NFCC enforcement here. Jon@talk:~$ 03:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
It's no secret that the targeted editor (Hammersoft) is fully involved in NFCC enforcement. Beta is actively particicpating in NFCC enforcement by publicizing his off-site tool for NFCC enforcement. What was the edit made for, other than the purpose of NFCC enforcement? Franamax (talk) 04:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
The autogenerated list already existed far before Arbcom added this step which Hammer has already known of; Delta tweaked its output and wanted Hammer's input. How is that NFCC enforcement? --MASEM (t) 04:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
This is clearly a bad block and should be overturned. Like Masem says above, the tool existed long before the motion. Betacommand is not enforcing the NFCC policy just because he created a tool that allows users to enforce it. Please overturn this block. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure it was a bad block -- if Δ changed his tool to make it easier to make NFCC-enforcing edits, that would seem to be proxying to get around an edit restriction.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Masem and AQ: for what purpose was that edit made other than to promote enforcement of NFCC rules? Franamax (talk) 04:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Hammersoft uses Betacommand's tool often. How is informing him of a change in it's operation enforcing the NFCC? He neither removed images, tagged images for deletion, nor warned a user about the NFCC. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Let's put it this way. Delta could have made the change on Toolserver, emailed Hammersoft, and no one would be the wiser that he was using Hammer as a proxy. Of course, that would assume bad faith in Delta's actions. Delta's talk page message has no direct influence on NFCC enforcement and ego not within the scope of the block. --MASEM (t) 04:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes to your first sentence and a categorical no to your second. As to your third, yes, his talk page message has a direct influence by focussing the attention of other editors on pages which Beta has used machine methods to identify as candidates for NFCC scrutiny. They may indeed be such candidates - but Beta is topic-banned from enforcement. He's not presenting reasoned discussion, he's offering up an improved hit-list. That goes over to enforcement. Franamax (talk) 04:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Fran, are you actually that clueless about the facts of this case? I have two scripts that I have had operational for at least 6 months now. The first I posted about before arbcom sanctioned me. While that script worked well I decided to improve it some, however I did not want to break the existing tool, so I forked it and created a new variant. Over a period of time the fork became the superior tool. I was then banned from NFCC by arbcom and I re-focused my interest else where. However I have recently started to consolidate and cleanup my toolserver tools and data, and in the process I am phasing out redundant tools. I dont like to spring surprises on the users of my tools so I decided to give Hammersoft a heads up about a change that may affect him, if I had introduced any issues with the fork (I really doubt it, but its better to be safe than sorry). However the actual manner in which the list of pages is generated has not and will not change. ΔT The only constant 05:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Unless the ArbCom intended to bar Delta from all comment related to NFCC policy and enforcement – which I honestly can't read into their motion – then I can't see how he's barred from telling other editors about tools which might be useful in reviewing the use of non-free images on Wikipedia. The tool in question appears to identify pages which contain large numbers of non-free images. While I'm quite sure that the tool can be used for NFCC enforcement, and I strongly suspect that Delta would approve and encourage its use for that purpose, it's not Delta who is actually taking enforcement actions. That isn't just a matter of wikilawyering; it's a genuine and relevant distinction. It is other other editors who would be expected to review the use of images, and other editors who would carry out templating and deletions. It is other editors whose judgement would ultimately guide any enforcement steps, and those other editors who would take responsibility for their actions.
Franamax, the restriction that ArbCom imposed was not to bar Delta from promoting enforcement of the NFCC rules; it was to bar him from enforcing them himself. From what I understand, their concerns which led to this remedy were related to use of automated editing tools by Delta, and to his...approach...to communication with other editors. Those concerns don't come into play with this edit, so I am not inclined to read the spirit or the letter of the motion as forbidding it.
As NonvocalScream suggests, Delta may be getting close to the edge, but I don't think he's over the line (even a broadly construed line). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
As an addendum to what TenOfAllTrades is saying that report is not a list of violations, but rather a list of pages that should be reviewed because there is a possibility of issues on pages with large numbers of non-free files. ΔT The only constant 04:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is clearly a bad block. The motion was put into place because there was a perceived problem with Delta's editing in the NFCC area, that he was overzealous and under-communicative, and therefore shouldn't be making the calls about image enforcement himself. There is nothing to say that he cannot create tools that allow other people to do enforcement, because under this scenario, other people (hopefully more careful and communicative) are the ones making the calls. To call Hammersoft a proxy is a distortion. Yes, they share similar interests, but Detla is not acting through Hammersoft by using that tool. If you make the argument that he is, all of our CUs are proxies, because they all use tools developed by Hammersoft as well. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Questions to the parties on the Betacommand 3 arbitration case

Drafting arbitrator User:Kirill Lokshin has posted some questions to the parties. As you are either an involved party or have presented evidence in this case, your input is sollicited. For the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

E-Mail

Might want to check your E-Mail. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Seen and responded already. ΔT The only constant 11:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting quote, and thought

I just ran across a quote on User:Hires an editor's userpage;

A flaw in the human character is that everybody wants to build and nobody wants to do maintenance.

— Kurt Vonnegut

It's an interesting quote. I would build upon that in this way; those who build are applauded by humanity, and those who do maintenance never achieve fame. This applies well to Wikipedia. Those who create are revered, and considered "good" Wikipedians. Those who gnome and perform maintenance tasks have the same social status as a 10th generation janitor. They are a regarded as a negative presence, and someone who should be be associated with if you want to remain 'clean'. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup too, again

Regarding User_talk:Δ/20111001#Cleanup tool, cdbaby.com is listed at XLinkBot. The number of links was too big for COIbot to show any meaningful report about spamming patterns, unfortunately.

I wasn't aware that there may be editing restrictions imposed on you regarding your cleanup tool, but if it isn't a problem, please consider using it to remove all the "buy it here" links. There are about 2800 of them but only about half are in article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think it would be ill advised for Δ to undertake this task while the current arbitration case is open. A direction of the current motion regarding him Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3#Motion reads
"While this case is open, Δ is directed to cease all large scale editing tasks of 25 edits or more, be they fully or semi-automated. All edits must be fully scrutinized for technical issues before submission." Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Eh, OK. I wasn't aware of that case still being open, but then I don't regularly follow the arbcom proceedings. Scrutinizing a thousand edits before submission isn't reasonable either. No hurry, I'll let it play out. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Script feature request

I'd still love to see the script sort the new and old refs alphabetically (see [5]). It shouldn't be difficult to implement? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Its on my to-do list, just haven't had the time to sit down and figure out the best way to implement that feature. ΔT The only constant 01:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

Replacing many "unreviewed" templates

This is to request you to undertake the task I mentioned at VP/T. What is required is to scan all the article-space edits of Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) from 1 March 2011 to 9 November 2011 and, (for articles which have not since been deleted) wherever a "new unreviewed article" template was removed, to replace it. The estimated number of such articles is 7,000 - it would be interesting to have a count of how many are actually found. In essence, the problem is that enough articles this editor reviewed have subsequently turned out to be advertisements or (worse) copyvios that it seems necessary to put them back in the queue. For background, see User talk:Wilhelmina Will#George Butterworth (psychologist) and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive726#Large backlog cleared but may need repopulating.

Put like this, the task sounds simple, but there may well be complications I have not thought of. Please let me know if it needs better specifying. If the removed template carried a timestamp, I guess if possible the replaced one should be the same.

This task has been proposed by Carcharoth (talk) on Wilhelmina's talk page, and proposed on AN/I by me and agreed by Fram (talk), and the proposal was archived from AN/I with no dissent. However I am not familiar with the current restrictions on your bot operations. If you will need to seek permission for this, I will be happy to support any application you make. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

My original idea for this project will not work, however I have another idea that will. Ill start getting the information together now. ΔT The only constant 23:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Im generating the list of pages that need re-tagged now. ΔT The only constant 02:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I am unable to currently tag them, but the list is at User:Δ/Sandbox 4. ΔT The only constant 20:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Unfortunately, I am about to be away for most of the rest of this year, so I am dumping the problem in the laps of Carcharoth (talk) and Fram (talk), the two others who have been concerned. JohnCD (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Deltabot SPI

Hey. Sorry to bug you, but I think the bot is having issues right now. I took a look through the open cases to see if there was something wrong (categories, etc) but nothing strikes me as immediately broken. Could you take a look when you get a chance? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I know what the issue is, crontab on the toolserver is acting up. I think Ill whip up a temporary fix. ΔT The only constant 03:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Fix ref scrpt and diacritics

I think I might have reported it a while ago, but try running the script at Stanisław Ernest Denhoff. It does nothing - my guess is that the script doesn't like diacritics in ref name="" part. Should be fixable, I hope. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 23:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, after this run, there is a broken cite news template at the bottom of the ref list. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

Spi bot

Two requests on it:

  1. May I have the source code for it if that's possible (I have email enabled)?
  2. I added another value to the status template that is "checking", it's the same value as "inprogress" as half the CUs are used to putting {{checking}}, see [6].

Thanks. Alexandria (chew out) 22:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Ive taken care of #2. As for #1 There are issues sending it via wiki mail because I cannot attach files. Any particular reason you want the code? ΔT The only constant 22:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Δ/20111101&oldid=1142668555"