Ambi has given me a two week block with the comment: "Continues to make disputed edits under main account at bot-speed (120/hour) despite being asked to stop by multiple people.". Previous blocks have been made by Ambi and Talrias. Ambi said: the edits are "disruptive and not being supported by consensus or policy"; the Manual of style "is a very obscure page"; "Bobblewik's campaign is a personal one".
The edits relate to date links and implementing WP:MOSDATE, WP:MOS-L, and WP:CONTEXT. Several editors have been working on this. Whenever anyone has disagreed with the implementation, I have directed them towards those policy guidelines and suggested they seek a change in the policy. I even suspended my edits for a short while and proposed more constrained wording.
Ambi and Talrias also complained that my earlier edits were too fast. So I limited my speed to 120 per hour because I thought that was reasonable. If I can still be blocked for implementing the manual of style at that speed, I would be prepared to reduce to 60 per hour, 30 per hour or even perhaps 12 per hour. Just tell me what the limit is and I will comply. It is bizarre to have a policy that cannot be implemented for fear of being blocked.
I hope I am not misattributing the following quotes from the various talk pages: "I think a block at present would be utterly wrong." Thincat "Disclosure: i favor the current guideline, and have made soem edits of the same sort. But blocking soemone for editing in accordance with the current state of the MoS seems improper to me." DES "It is certainly not justifiable to block someone for making edits for the manual's current advice." Neonumbers "I completely fail to understand how anyone can object to what Bobblewik is doing." Dpbsmith "Has he served enough time now? This is a good, experienced, civil, productive editor. I'm not sure a two week sentence is really the most beneficial way ahead." Haukur
Please can people look into this and comment. Thanks Bobblewik
bobble wik wrote:
Ambi has given me a two week block with the comment: "Continues to make disputed edits under main account at bot-speed (120/hour) despite being asked to stop by multiple people.". Previous blocks have been made by Ambi and Talrias. Ambi said: the edits are "disruptive and not being supported by consensus or policy"; the Manual of style "is a very obscure page"; "Bobblewik's campaign is a personal one".
The edits relate to date links and implementing WP:MOSDATE, WP:MOS-L, and WP:CONTEXT. Several editors have been working on this. Whenever anyone has disagreed with the implementation, I have directed them towards those policy guidelines and suggested they seek a change in the policy. I even suspended my edits for a short while and proposed more constrained wording.
Ambi and Talrias also complained that my earlier edits were too fast. So I limited my speed to 120 per hour because I thought that was reasonable. If I can still be blocked for implementing the manual of style at that speed, I would be prepared to reduce to 60 per hour, 30 per hour or even perhaps 12 per hour. Just tell me what the limit is and I will comply. It is bizarre to have a policy that cannot be implemented for fear of being blocked.
I hope I am not misattributing the following quotes from the various talk pages: "I think a block at present would be utterly wrong." Thincat "Disclosure: i favor the current guideline, and have made soem edits of the same sort. But blocking soemone for editing in accordance with the current state of the MoS seems improper to me." DES "It is certainly not justifiable to block someone for making edits for the manual's current advice." Neonumbers "I completely fail to understand how anyone can object to what Bobblewik is doing." Dpbsmith "Has he served enough time now? This is a good, experienced, civil, productive editor. I'm not sure a two week sentence is really the most beneficial way ahead." Haukur
Please can people look into this and comment. Thanks Bobblewik
The problems I have with the edits you are making, Bobblewik, as I have made clear to you in the past, is that you are using a computer algorithm to make a page "better" aesthetically. I don't think that your script you are using to clean up links is improving articles, as it is removing useful links to other articles. Because it is a computer algorithm, it doesn't "know" where a link is useful and where one is not, and it always seems to err on the side of removing a link, rather than leaving it in.
Chris
On 2/7/06, bobble wik bobblewik@mail.com wrote:
The edits relate to date links and implementing WP:MOSDATE, WP:MOS-L, and WP:CONTEXT. Several editors have been working on this. Whenever anyone has disagreed with the implementation, I have directed them towards those policy guidelines and suggested they seek a change in the policy.
This isn't an acceptable response. These guidelines have wide support but aren't Wikipedia policy. Style is a matter of personal taste, and the manual of style is useful when it's used in the sense for which it was intended: to enable editors to work towards a harmonious appearance in their own edits across the project. What you're doing in trying to implement the manual's recommendation across the whole encyclopedia is certainly unnecessary, and probably needlessly alienates other editors.
On 2/7/06, bobble wik bobblewik@mail.com wrote:
The edits relate to date links and implementing WP:MOSDATE, WP:MOS-L, and WP:CONTEXT. Several editors have been working on this. Whenever anyone has disagreed with the implementation, I have directed them towards those policy guidelines and suggested they seek a change in the policy. I even suspended my edits for a short while and proposed more constrained wording.
Ambi and Talrias also complained that my earlier edits were too fast. So I limited my speed to 120 per hour because I thought that was reasonable. If I can still be blocked for implementing the manual of style at that speed, I would be prepared to reduce to 60 per hour, 30 per hour or even perhaps 12 per hour. Just tell me what the limit is and I will comply. It is bizarre to have a policy that cannot be implemented for fear of being blocked.
I have to say I agree with Bobblewik's reasoning here - if we as a community have decided that pages should all follow a certain style with respect to dates, then it seems reasonable to implement that style wherever possible. Having assumed that, it seems unreasonable to impose an arbitrary speed limit.
However: Bobblewik is acting like a troll.
"Both those are valid propositions for you to follow even though I do not follow them myself. Unfortunately the Manual of Style does not contain such guidance. It actually opposes the first. The interesting concept of a date threshold (e.g. between 1600 and 1900) has been mentioned before but is currently totally absent." (talk page)
Bobblewik, you should understand that the MoS serves to communicate style rules to people who are unfamiliar with the style we want on Wikipedia. Ultimately, however, the community's desires, no matter how contradictory or unclear, trump it. If, as you acknowledge, there is a general desire for older years to be linked, and newer ones not to be, then you should respect that. You shouldn't attempt to whack people over the head with the MoS. You will probably alienate people less if you stop attempting to define rigid rules to follow, and instead act in accordance with the broader spirit of the community.
To put that a bit more simply: Your being blocked was totally and utterly predictable from the manner in which you're behaving. Whenever you try and empirically define the very edges of acceptable behaviour, you will almost certainly find people who feel you've already crossed them.
Lastly, be aware that unauthorized bots (which several people have accused you of running) are, well, unauthorized. :)
Steve