User talk:Colonies Chris/Archive/2009/Aug

Blocked
I've blocked you for a violation of the mass linking/delinking injunction in the date linking arbitration case. On numerous occasions today you've been delinking dates whilst making a couple of minor changes to articles (a few examples are, , , , , , (although I note there are many, many more in todays contributions)). Given that you've been blocked before for exactly the same thing, I've increased the block length to 48 hours.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm blocked for making edits that are in line with the MoS and multiple RfCs, to which noone has objected, and which were all made in conjunction with many other edits? This whole institution has gone insane. Colonies Chris (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you're blocked for going against an injunction given by the Arbitration Committee - it's fairly clear and you're fully aware it hasn't been lifted yet.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're blocking the very people who are devoting their time, voluntarily, to improving the encyclopaedia in line with what the community has just voted for again. I've made similar changes before and been blocked. I've also made similar changes before and not been blocked, depending on who's making the decision. It's well past time this insane situation was resolved. For heaven's sake, lift the injunction, get this mess sorted out. We've been in suspended animation for months now and finally we have a result, so stop this nonsense. Colonies Chris (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't be the last one to be hanged Chris. Just let the linking lie for a short while until the date unlinking injuction is lifted. We're in no rush here. I'm sure Lightbot can do it faster than you can anyway! Take care. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Chris, why you would jump the gun is beyond me. Yes, the injunction should have been lifted, but we operate in a legalistic environment, especially at the moment. Please hold off until there's movement. Tony   (talk)  06:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I had been systematically working my way through the full set of articles with certain errors (e.g. fixing the typo 'noteworty', or disambiguating Jonathan Edwards or Great Awakening wherever they occur). Some of those articles had a lot of other changes, including dates, some had few. It would be madness to try to bypass the articles that only have a few changes in relation to the number of dates - and it would be guesswork anyway, as the criteria for 'mass delinking' seem to be made up on the spot by whatever admin is around. Since the only remaining debate is about the details of how the bot should operate, the injunction should be lifted immediately for manual and semi-manual edits. I was partway through this task when I was blocked. Nobody benefits by stopping me, it's just Wikipedia tearing itself apart. Colonies Chris (talk) 07:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Chris, I agree with what you say, although it was still probably unwise. People who are not parties to the ArbCom case have an advantage over us now, and remember that there's some kind of web-filter that spies on date unlinking. I will ask Ryan whether he's willing to reduce it to one day, on the basis of your recent post. I presume you'd be willing to hold off further unlinking? Tony   (talk)  08:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't bother. I will not edit again at all until the injunction is lifted. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Check out the second paragraph of Parkfield-San Bernardino earthquake. That date used to be linked. After the Italian earthquake that affected Army1987, I was researching earthquakes and saw that stupid thing. It just looked like if you click on it, you would be taken to an article with more information on that earthquake. Of course, we all know what you would have been taken to if you clicked on it. So I unlinked it. That was, what(?)… 16 days ago? I don’t do mass delinkings. But every time I unlink a date (maybe… once a month), I expect you-know-who to don orange robes, pour gasoline on himself, and set himself alight in protest. (*sigh*) More horseshit on some ANI. More watching as wise admins offer sage observations such as how all parties to the ArbCom should be banished from Wikipedia. It’s better to keep the delinking to once in a great while, and just fix the particularly nasty offenders. But, generally, I’m quite content to focus on the strategic objective here, work the issue, get the injunction lifted, and get Wikipedia back to normalcy where we don’t have wide-eyed editors trying to kill each other and cut out their still-beating hearts. You should have known better C.C. If Locke had been linking as many dates as you were delinking, you would have been upset. Ryan had to do what he did. What you are supposed to do is abide by the spirit and word of the injunction—as is everyone else. Greg L (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I've reduced your block to 24 hours (about 2 hours from now) after a request from Tony and the fact that I believe you will no longer delink dates. Please don't let me down.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we should all appreciate the kindness of Ryan P here. Chris, please heed the injunction, but continue your excellent WikiGnoming edits. If you continue to delink dates in an unsanctioned manner, that would not only let Ryan down but me and my colleagues also. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Evidence
Please could make sure you evidence is under 1000 words and 100 diffs within the next 24 hours?  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 16:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Date delinking
This arbitration case has now closed. The final decision may be reviewed on the case page. A synopsis of the final decision is provided below.


 * All mass date delinking is restricted for six months
 * Date delinking bots will perform in a manner approved by the Bot Approvals Group.
 * is: banned for 1 year; topic banned indefinitely; prohibited indefinitely from using automation, from using any account but "Lightmouse"
 * indefinitely topic banned, placed on a 12 month editing restriction
 * indefinitely topic banned, placed on a 12 month editing restriction
 * is: topic banned indefinitely; prohibited indefinitely from using automation; prohibited indefinitely from using any account but "Ohconfucius"; placed on a 12 month editing restriction
 * admonished for not pursuing appropriate dispute resolution methods.
 * reminded to pursue appropriate dispute resolution methods, topic banned for 3 months
 * Placed on a 12 month editing restriction:, , , , , , , , and
 * is topic banned for 12 months.
 * is topic banned indefinitely, banned for 6 months, and placed on a 12 month editing restriction
 * is topic banned for 12 months
 * admonished for threatening to use his administrator tools to advance his position in a dispute.

Notes: (1) for "topic banned", read "banned from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions"; (2) an "editing restriction" is a prohibition from reverting any changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

For the Arbitration Committee,

AGK 20:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Amendment
Hello Chris. Please note that the arbitration amendments page isn't for threaded discussion. Please keep all your comments in your own section. Regards,  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 11:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Delinking with AWB
Watch out with your mass delinking using AWB! Why are you removing links to "Brazil" but not "Peru", "England" but not "Indonesia", "Tokyo" but not "Osaka"? These are not just "common terms." I believe cities and countries are supposed to be linked the first time they are mentioned in a given section. You're creating a lot to repair work for other users to put those links back in.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 19:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think your treading on hazardous and presumptuous ground by deciding yourself what "would already be well known to most readers of the article" and what is of "no benefit" to articles. How can you say what most readers know or don't know? I've always been told to assume ignorance on Wikipedia with my prose, and over explain things. This is an encyclopedia, not an Economist article. In the article I work on that you hit with AWB today, you delinked Brazil as 2014 World Cup hosts, but left South Africa as 2010. In single phrase you delinked Switzerland, but not Zürich. For whatever reason, you consistently left Qatar linked. There is no logic to this. Why is Qatar "uncommon" but Poland is? It just doesn't seem like you're looking at what your doing, and that's really troublesome.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 22:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, if I may reinforce what Chris is saying: we have come a few years ago from a situation where place-names were scattergun-linked irrespective of their place in common parlance. It is now widely considered an unacceptable trade-off to dilute wikilinking in general by linking very common country and city names; these include United Kingdom, United States, Australia, New York City, and probably Paris, Moscow and the like. While it is conceded that not everyone will agree with the boundary established by an individual editor, a boundary must be established nevertheless. You are welcome to tweak it if you find it unsatisfactory, as with another editor's prose—but please do not relink the very common ones. Tony   (talk)  03:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration: Date delinking amendment motion
A request to amend the dates delinking arbitration case (filed 19 July 2009) has resulted in a motion (filed 2 August 2009) that proposes to change the restrictions imposed on you as a result of the case. The proposed amendment would affect the restrictions pertaining to 16 editors, all of whom are now being notified of the proposed amendment. Given that the proposed amendment affects your restrictions, and further that the proposed amendment will restrict the filing of further proposed amendments for a period of 30 days, your input is invited at the amendments page. You may view an unofficial table of the proposed changes here. Comments from affected parties are currently being considered by the Arbitration Committee. If you would like the arbitrators who have already voted to reconsider their votes in light of your comments, please indicate that in your comments.

For the Arbitration Committee

Sedd&sigma;n talk|WikimediaUK 03:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)