User talk:Δ/20151001

The Plan 01
Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3 contains the following:


 * Community sanctions superseded
 * The Arbitration Committee determines that the existing community sanctions on Betacommand were a valid response by the community to prior problems with Betacommand's editing, and that Betacommand was required to abide by those sanctions if he wished to continue editing. However, given that interpretation and implementation of those sanctions has led to ongoing disputes, the community sanctions are superseded by the more straightforward remedies provided for in this decision.
 * Passed 12 to 0, 01:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Betacommand banned
 * Betacommand is banned from Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year.
 * Passed 10 to 6, 01:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Appeal of ban
 * After one year has elapsed from the date of his ban, Betacommand may request that the ban be lifted. As part of any such request, Betacommand shall be required to submit a plan outlining his intended editing activity and demonstrating his understanding of and intention to refrain from the actions which resulted in his ban.  The Committee shall present this plan to the community for review and comment prior to any modification of Betacommand's ban.
 * Passed 15 to 0, 01:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have any reason why Δ should not post the plan mentioned above here (and possibly by email as well) rather than by email only? Δ, would this be agreeable to you? In addition, would you like those who are interested enough to watch this page to critique the plan and offer suggestions? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have a few concerns
 * 1) ArbCom, to date, has failed to put forth a clear response on how it intends on handling this. While not entirely mute, it seems apparent they do not wish to deal with this issue. According to Arbitration/Policy, ArbCom "may accept or decline" an appeal at their discretion. Their apparent intention to do neither is problematic.
 * 2) Only ArbCom can remove the ban. Given that, only ArbCom can detail what it feels must be addressed in any plan. Therefore, ArbCom must lay out what it feels needs to be addressed. Anything short of that, and Δ is very likely to not address all of what ArbCom feels is important, and therefore the appeal will be denied.
 * 3) If Δ posts the plan here, then it will become a free for all between Δ's haters and supporters, of which there are many in both camps. Thus, if the plan is posted here, discussion regarding it MUST be moderated, else it will be futile.
 * 4) Any plan that does not involve the community, regardless of the fact that only ArbCom can overturn the ban, is very likely to be heavily disputed. A microcosm of this began to evolve at the recent AN/I discussion.
 * 5) Any plan put forth by ArbCom absolutely MUST have a plan in place to deal with the lynch mob that will come after Δ. Such mob will make it impossible for Δ to edit productively.
 * All of this falls as dominoes from point #1. If ArbCom refuses to respond (Δ's very valid 'pocket veto' scenario), the only other option is a direct appeal to Jimbo which will very likely go unheard. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The first thing I did was was attempt #2, Find out what ArbCom thinks needs addressed. To which I have been nothing concrete except for very broad and vague generalizations. ΔT The only constant 20:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The relevant procedure is Procedures#Handling of ban appeals. ArbCom's response on May 8, 2015 appears to follow #5 from that procedure. Let's assume it does. Subsequent communication from ArbCom has been, baring input from them (which is noticeably absent here), rather lacking. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I have to go to a meeting, so I will respond at length later. Preliminary thoughts:
 * I think we can have a moderated discussion here. In theory, Δ could moderate (anyone can remove anything other than certain notices from their talk page), but there is an obvious COI with that. Δ could assign a moderator (I could do it, or we could ask another WP:DRN volunteer) with, of course the option of firing the moderator if he goes crazy.
 * If arbcom doesn't want to say what needs to be addressed, we can guess. If we get it wrong, the shit would hit the fan if they rejected it instead of saying what we got wrong and allowing us to redo it.
 * If (and only if), Δ is willing to edit productively while following the letter and spirit of what the community expects, I am willing to personally pick off any members of any "lynch mob" that tries to harass Δ at ANI. But if Δ's behavior is such that they have a valid point, Δ will get no help from me.

Gotta go, More later. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The primary issue with the last set of restrictions was that they where too broad, anything that is a "pattern of edits" was prohibited. However you will reach a entropic point where enough data points exist that any pattern can be established. (Oh, he made 10 edits where he added a comma, that is a pattern and thus should be blocked for performing a pattern of edits.) If a clearly defined and explicit rule is given I follow it. (I was banned from any edit enforcing NFCC and I didn't make such edits. I wasn't banned from the topic, and made quite a few contributions and helped quite a few people with questions on the topic. Yet that wasn't enough for some of the people who stalk my edits. I made a post to my talk page about one of the reports that I run on the toolserver/labs and was blocked for violating the enforcement ban, even though I had not made an edit enforcing NFCC. The block was quickly overturned as being invalid, but it highlights how aggressively some people try to find faults in what I do). If we can come to a reasonable set of restrictions that are clearly defined and delineated there shouldnt be any issues. ΔT The only constant 00:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * With respect, brown sticky stuff hitting a rotating device will have no effect on ArbCom. They will not care. As for the mob, there needs to be something definitive from ArbCom about how to handle people who are aggressive, harrassing or insulting towards Δ. Like, some version of discretionary sanctions with one warning towards belligerents and then a significant block on second error. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ArbCom has a long track record of handling disputes by sanctioning an editor at the center of a dispute, even if that editor is not the source of the problem, but the people making complaints. ArbCom has been informed of anchoring cognitive bias before in regards to case naming, but there response is they are above such cognitive bias. This, despite the fact that studies have shown that even those who are aware of the potential bias can't avoid having that bias. See Anchoring. There is a significant body of editors who will make complaints against Δ, and will be quite vociferous in doing so. So, we will have one editor at the center of a dispute, and a body of editors making complaints. It's all about Δ, therefore ArbCom will go after Δ. Given ArbCom's track record, it is highly likely Δ will be blocked/banned again once the complaints (valid or not) start rolling in. I'm laying this out to highlight that any plan put forward absolutely must deal with the body of editors that will come for Δ. A lack of a plan to handle this will most emphatically doom any attempt for Δ to return to editing.  For example, if there were a plan that said something like "Restricted to one account, 1RR on NFCC enforcement, no violations of wp:civil, no automated editing (however that is defined, ) " there will be a large number of editors who will register complaints against one or more of these restrictions. Those complaints will pile up, and whether they are valid or not they will be the pyre on which Δ is burned.
 * In my personal opinion, there are certain editors who must be placed on an interaction ban with Δ (and vice versa). Such bans should be supported by prior evidence of poor behavior, construed broadly, by these editors towards Δ. To not do this, or something akin, would be ArbCom throwing fresh meat out the window to a pack of ravenous hyenas and saying "have at it!" --Hammersoft (talk) 14:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Seconded on the notion that some IBANs or equivalent need to be included; there were some editors that followed Δ far too closely and were ready to jump on any mistake they did after the first ArbCom case. Δ would need to be watched, yes, but by those without any stake in the matter. --M ASEM (t) 16:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Really good idea. Even with a liberal sprinkling of mutual ibans, there will still be a lot of eyes on Δ. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Another concern; proxies doing the bidding of those who are ibanned. Can't do anything about that up front of course, but noses will have to be kept open to detect anything fishy. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This might be putting the cart before the horse until (or unless) something is heard from User:Arbitration Committee — Ched : ?  18:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * At this point, it seems doubtful they will respond. They were informed 12 August 2015 about an appeal being placed on this talk page. One arbitrator responded then, only to indicate e-mails had been received and responded to. No arbitrator, nor even an arbcom clerk, has posted to this talk page in more than a year. Basically, their response has been 'yep, we received it' followed by utter silence. It appears the pocket veto is in full effect. The only option after this is a direct appeal to Jimbo. The only grounds I can see that even beginning to get a reading is that ArbCom is shirking their self described duty. ArbCom should not be attempting to sweep this under the rug via a pocket veto, and neither should they attempt to dismiss this appeal with a wave of the hand. I can understand them being busy. That would excuse a week or two's delay in response. But at this point, they are well past that and beyond excuse. Contrast their demands in the past (on unrelated cases) that editors have a window within which to respond. Do as they say, not as they do apparently. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. They had 90 days to respond. I think it is perfectly acceptable for me to attempt to put together a plan right here, get community approval of the plan, and present it to them for a yes/no vote with the option of them asking for specific changes and us coming back and trying to make the plan better. This is standard procedure for resolving disputes outside of Wikipedia, and I think it could work here. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I do wish you all the best. Beta always treated me well. (which is the main reason I started WP:FIXNF) — Ched :  ?  19:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll assist in any way I can, GM. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I am hoping that, because of my reputation as volunteer mediator at WP:DRN that any plan that Δ presents that has my stamp of approval on it will get a response . One thing that you (Hammersoft) can do is to tone down the arbcom criticism. I am not saying that it is or is not valid (I have my opinions on that that I will keep to myself) but I can say that it isn't helpful in this situation. So, are we all on board with helping putting together a plan as called for by the arbom findings and with doing that here? I am going to assume yes and start in a new section. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not criticize ArbCom just to criticize. Indeed, ArbCom is part of the problem here for a number of reasons, not least of which is their current pocket veto. I am hopeful we can make headway, but I also think Ched is right; all of this is a moot point without ArbCom participating. So far, they have not shown any interest despite prior invitations to do so. I brought up the point of anchoring bias because it is extremely on point; anything we do here is going to be focused on Δ, and as a direct result the table is decidedly tilted against Δ at the outset. We must recognize this, even though ArbCom has shown a lack of interest in doing so in the past. If there's to be any chance of this working, the table must be level. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The Plan 02
This section is for putting together a plan per the following arbcom finding:


 * After one year has elapsed from the date of his ban, Betacommand may request that the ban be lifted. As part of any such request, Betacommand shall be required to submit a plan outlining his intended editing activity and demonstrating his understanding of and intention to refrain from the actions which resulted in his ban.

Comments that don't directy address the above should go in the continuing thread under "The Plan 01".

First we need to agree (with Δ having the final say) on what we will be asking for. In general, I am against any sanctions that are imposed because of [A] years-old behavior that has not been repeated recently, or [B] predictions of future behavior that are not based upon recent past behavior. Based on these two principles, I think that any interaction bans, blocks, etc. should be applied only after there is specific recent behavior that violates Wikipedia policy. This applies to Δ and to these theoretical miscreants who some here are predicting will complain about Δ no matter what.

Furthermore, given the above basic principles, I would need to hear a compelling argument before I supported any restrictions on Δ other than the normal Wikipedia policies and guidelines that we all have to face. I see no reason why arbcom shouldn't lift all arbcom and community restrictions and let ANI apply new restrictions if there is any new misbehavior that justifies such restrictions. This would also solve the issue of poorly-worded restrictions and disputes about how the restrictions do or do not apply. It would also get arbcom out of the enforcement business and give ANI another chance with everyone on all sides having learned some valuable lessons.

All of this, of course, assumes that Δ is willing to make a convincing statement that he (she?) understands what led to the community restrictions in the first place (which, BTW is not the same as agreeing with them or agreeing with the assumption they are based upon) and making a public commitment to not do those sort of things again. If Δ is OK with this, we can start on that once we have agreed on what we are asking for.

Comments? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * (1) I think one condition that should be considered is that Δ is constrained to one account, and consents to have routine checkusers done without there needing to be suspicion of there being other accounts in use. This is based on past behavior dating back years (if need be, I can cite the block evading account), and on recent behavior as we are here now at this date due to User:Werieth having been blocked a bit over a year ago and being detected as a Δ sock. (2) As evidenced by abject failure and ArbCom's recognition of the inability of the community to develop workable sanctions, I disagree that denizens of WP:AN/I should be left to apply new restrictions. The failed wordings of the restrictions they put in place are part of the reason we got to where we are today. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Either Δ is ready to follow all Wikipedia policies or he isn't. If he isn't, the ban should stay in place. If he is, then our sockpuppetry policy is one of the policies that he is now willing to follow and there should be no restriction or scrutiny that the rest of us are not subject to. "this is based on past behavior dating back years" should not matter if Δ says he won't do it again and has not done it again in the last year. We need to assume good faith and allow Δ a fresh start without arbitrarily turning a one-year-sanction into a multi-year sanction when Arbcom only imposed a one-year sanction.
 * As for ANI, again we need to assume good faith. Just because some here think ANI did a poor job last time doesn't mean they will do a poor job next time. Also, we need to assume that Δ has learned his lesson and won't violate Wikipedia's policies this time, leaving ANI nothing to do in this case.
 * Δ, could you weigh in here, please? Tell us whether there is going to be a repeat of the sort of thing that got multiple people upset in 2012 or whether things are going to be different this time around. I know you are willing to accept reasonable additional restrictions, but I am not. Not if they are based upon behavior from over a year ago. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the slow responses life is kind of hectic at the moment. I really hope to avoid the drama of the past, as I dont want the headache's or stress involved in those flame wars. I can post a more detailed and flushed out statement but it will take me a few days to write up and review the statement. ΔT The only constant 12:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Guy, there is absolutely no way the community will simply accept a fresh start in this case. As to AN/I writing sanctions, it won't work. Good faith was assumed, it failed, they tried to fix it, and failed again. There is no reason to suppose they'll somehow get it right this time. This is precisely why ArbCom voided the community restrictions. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Have to agree with Hammersoft here, based primarily on how the rest of the community (those that were not following Δ rigorously) reacted in subsequent ANI/Arbcom cases. The community appears to lack trust in Δ using automated tools of his own design without review, even if the work being done by those tools is within policy. This is in part that there were points that Δ had pushed the use of their tools beyond what policy would normally allow, but also due to how vague the automated tools wording was on the last ARbCom case that led to edge cases being tested by Δ's detractors, which the community subsequently agreed were problems under ArbCom's decision. (See the same thing about Δ having used their talk page for matters beyond appeals planning that all this current discussion came up on). While I'm sure there's some that would AGF that Δ's condition for appeal is recognizing that misuse of automated tools will likely ban them again and thus they would take more care in using them in the future, I very much doubt that global consensus would agree to that, and fully expect some type of language is going to be necessary regarding Δ and automated tools. Same with staying to a single account due to the Werieth issue. If we can avoid those, great, but I'm being realistic here and fully expect both are going to be necessary to even begin to discuss this at a large consensus issue. But at the same time, at least with automated editing, we know what failures in the existing language caused, and can avoid vagueness next time. --M ASEM (t)


 * I agree with Masem and Hammersoft. The prehistory of Δ's case is too complex with too many community restrictions and political constraints for them to be suddenly erased in favour of a clean start. Masem's suggestions are a good starting point, although I am not sure if we can really avoid vagueness in any new conditions. Vagueness has a way of creeping into any document no matter how hard one tries and it only shows itself in actual practice, by which time it is already too late. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We disagree as to who was testing the (vague, community-generated) restrictions. Nonetheless, if Δ is willing and able to acknowledge the need for restrictions, and is willing to draft proposed restrictions which he would be willing to follow, I, at least, would be willing to consider whether they deal with the (perceived) problems.  Someone also has to deal with the question of whether there are any uninvolved admins who would have the technical ability to see whether he has violated his restrictions.  I don't think there are....  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the checkusers would agree to "routine" checks. Could someone ask them whether it would be allowed?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * (not wearing any hats while commenting) There appears to be some precedent with "routine" checks but they were a long time ago (I really mean it, like 2007 and 2009) and on known vandal accounts. Having said that, I think everyone (including ArbCom) agrees that Δ is not a vandal account. The question is, whether such routine checks are justified on a non-vandal account even if Δ agrees to it as part of the unban condition. Normally it would be Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) that provides on guidance and interpretation on the usage of checkuser. But given that AUSC is part of ArbCom and ArbCom is unwilling to communicate, that road goes to nowhere. And I highly doubt Ombudsman commission will step in because no infractions have been committed. So if a checkuser steps in and comment then great. But I'll be cautiously optimistic until that happens. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Guy Macon's Plan
Looking at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3, the main issue seems to be repetitive minor edits, some or all of which have been performed via the use of automated or semi-automated editing tools.

I propose a multi-stage unblock with fewer restrictions at each stage as Δ shows a good-faith willingness to not do the things that made a bunch of people angry before.

Stage one: Unblock with an agreement to not make any repetitive edits. During this period Δ may create automated tools and post them on a subpage in his userspace, but would have to convince someone else to run them. I, Guy Macon, will agree to act as a mentor and run any automated tools that I think will help the encyclopedia under my account. I will also attempt to recruit others to help. I am an experienced assembly language programmer and can find my way around most high level computer languages, so I shouldn't have any trouble with whatever language Δ uses. (what do you use to make automated edits, Δ? Perl? Python? C?)

Stage two: Δ starts running automated tools himself with prior approval from the same volunteers who were running the tools for him in stage one.

Stage three: Δ starts running automated tools without prior approval, agreeing to do a short test run then stopping and waiting for approval before he lets it run on a large number of pages.

Stage four: Increase the allowable size of the test run so that many runs of automated edits are smaller that the limit. At this point approval will only be for runs that change a very large number of pages.

Stage five: No restrictions.

I am hoping that we can rapidly go through the stages as Δ proves himself. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Some insight on community reaction?
Today, Reguyla was unblocked. I don't mean to delve into a discussion of the particulars of that case. I would like to note that people are reacting harshly to it. The most notable (in my opinion) example is this. There are others. This particular case generated a lot of heat. Δ being unblocked will generate a lot of heat. We need a plan in place to deal with this, should an unblock decision be made by ArbCom. If instead we unblock and try to deal with it as post-facto damage control, we'll get it wrong and it will go badly. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If I recall, there was a common page that any complaints about Δ were to be funnelled to to avoid endless ANI drama (at that time). Fearing the reaction that Hammersoft suggests will happen if Δ is unblocked, I think we need to have that page up and ready again to contain any drama or complaints, but ideally with uninvolved admin oversight to avoid it being an attack forum against Δ. --M ASEM (t) 17:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Reguyla was unblocked, immediately violated the restrictions he had agreed to, and was blocked for a month. A classic case of WP:ROPE. I don't think Δ will do that, and if he does he will simply be reblocked.


 * So what do we do to move forward with this unblock request? What is the next step? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I very much want to avoid a ROPE situation. That's why I think we need some form of interaction bans, monitoring, something. As to what we do to move forward, I think we need a better plan in place before going anywhere off this talk page. ArbCom has shown themselves to be unwilling to do anything about it. So, asking them to come up with a plan will be fruitless. I think if we came up with a comprehensive plan and proposed it, ArbCom would be more willing to consider it. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I personally don't think Δ is going to hang himself no matter how much rope we give him, but the consensus is for some sort of restrictions and I am all about following the consensus even if I disagree with it. Even the most draconian restrictions would be better than a ban, and we could come back in a month or so and request lighter restrictions. I am going to start a new section now and make a concrete proposal.

Some precedent on ArbCom's inaction?
Just found this. Just food for thought. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Bot requests
Per request: https://tools.wmflabs.org/betacommand-dev/cgi-bin/afcr.py ΔT The only constant 12:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That works great!  Rcsprinter123    (notify)  15:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I have sent you an email.  Rcsprinter123    (blab)  23:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)