User talk:Δ/20151101

MfD nomination of User:Δ/Example/6 Squadron SAAF
User:Δ/Example/6 Squadron SAAF, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Δ/Example/6 Squadron SAAF and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Δ/Example/6 Squadron SAAF during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Δ/Example/Al-A'raf
User:Δ/Example/Al-A'raf, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Δ/Example/Al-A'raf and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Δ/Example/Al-A'raf during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thought for new report?
Hey. Have a look at Wikipedia_talk:Database_reports if you would please. Could you write a report that lists userpages for users that do not exist? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This is actually providing a little bit more of a challenge than I first thought due to the dataaset size. When you start comparing 26.5 million usernames with 13.7 million page titles you actually reach a point where the system cannot handle the amount of information. I have several ideas, and even a ticket filed in phabicator about how mediawiki stores the related data. Once I actually overcome the datatset size issue false positives shouldn't happen ΔT The only constant 13:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * If such a report contains no false positives (which shouldn't be a problem in this case) a bot could tag them all for deletion under WP:U2. Δ, I would be willing to jump through the hoops to become a bot operator to make this happen, giving Δ full credit for actually writing the bot on the theory that this would help to strengthen his case for unblocking.


 * In cases where such reports do contain false positives they can be listed at WikiProject Fix common mistakes and one of our team will go through each one. Right now I am fixing "the the" errors (he was the the first to receive the The Typo Fixing Award") which cannot be fixed by a bot because of things like the band called "The The" and the CD by Elliot Ingber titled "The The The The". --Guy Macon (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you need any report like that run I can do it fairly easily (I already have the infrastructure for any text based reports you want). They do use the database dumps that the WMF provide so it may not always be the most current list, but isn't normally more than about a month out of date. ΔT The only constant 13:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This sort of work is right up Δ's alley. But, I seriously doubt it would have any impact on his being unblocked. Δ has done an enormous amount of work in this sort of area for the project before. See User:Hammersoft/Δ vitae. Some of that stuff is crucial to the operation of the project. Even today after years of being blocked, his reports are still the underpinnings of significant functions on the project. It doesn't matter. The pitchforks surrounding his head are just as sharp as they ever were. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I am just the person to stare down a crowd holding torches and pitchforks. Right now I am waiting on Δ (who wrote "Given my current available time limits, those tasks will occupy my time until at least the end of February" so it will be a while) and then when we have a plan as required by arbcom, I plan on pursuing this until I get a clear answer one way or the other.


 * Some will no doubt place me in the "Δ supporter" category, but the truth is that I really don't know or care whether Δ will follow the (yet to be written) plan. If he doesn't, someone will block him and we are done. If he does, I will no doubt have to spend a bit of time dealing with editors who report him anyway but that shouldn't take much time to do. My concern is that everybody, no matter how well-liked or generally-hated, gets a fair chance from arbcom. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I haven't forgotten about this request, its actually fairly complex. I am running into several blocking issues that I am having to think/work thru. Most notably just the sheer size of the data set. Python doesn't like lists of more than about 25 million items. I'll let you know when I overcome those obstacles. ΔT The only constant 19:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries. This is really, really low priority stuff. It doesn't matter if these pages exist forever. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Masem's Plan
Recognizing that it would be nearly impossible for the community to accept the removal of the block without any additional restrictions or cavaets as you had proposed earlier, I think the following steps need to take place: It might take a bit of time, but this seems to be a fair way to proceed if we are not getting any feedback from ArbCom here. --M ASEM (t) 16:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Establish the common terms typically used on returning blocked editors - Δ will use only one account or clear additional accounts before using those and avoiding any socking, etc. This can be done without involvement of the community.
 * Establish one or more uninvolved editors to be the point of contact for any issues related to Δ, making it clear these people should be notified first if there is an issue with Δ's editing. This can be done without involvement of the community. ETA: I do not expect us to have exactly named who these would be at this point, only establishing that we are going to have editors that will volunteer to oversee issues relating to Δ. Perhaps volunteers will step forward in the next step.
 * Prepare to discuss with the community on the matters of Δ, automated editing and any policy/topic areas of concerns, with expectations that we will need to write some of these out as part of the unblock request, presenting these case with the above two points already determined. This should be presented as a "what if", not as the final judgement on an unblock request. Will the community allow Δ to use automated tools without limits? Will there be immediate actions against mis-use of automated tools? Should Δ engage with NFC issues? I think we need to have the community as a whole involved here and not pretend this aren't going to be issues for some, but the goal would be to put as little restriction as possible on Δ but with any necessary remedies should Δ misuse this leeway (I don't think Δ would either, but I'm only going on my gut on this).  As Δ will still be blocked during this, we need people to help relay messages from Δ to wherever that discussion occurs so that Δ can provide input where necessary so that the terms of the unblock are not something they cannot accept. The goal here is to find what the community would accept, and a plan going forward (for example, maybe a x-month period of no automated tools) following the unblock. In this we should also determine if there are any specific editors - still active - that need to have informal interaction bans with Δ based on past interactions. This is why determining if there are uninvolved admins willing to help mitigate issues others have with Δ is established first, so that we have a course of action to deal with those that have regularly detracted from Δ's work.
 * Write up those points as part of the unblock request as terms and conditions Δ will agree to.
 * Present that to the community at large to seek consensus to unblock.


 * That looks really good. My plan only covers the part you talk about in the third bullet point, and your plan is more comprehensive. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My planned activity was to write up documentation for all of my existing tools, possibly create a few DBR's hosted within my userspace, and help with the NFCR backlog. ΔT The only constant 15:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I suspect that any direct action by you on articles in support of our NFCC policy and NFC guideline are likely to be met with massive resistance and considerable heat. Comments on NFCR, yeah. Actual action is likely to be problematic. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * While I'll agree that there will be people complaining about Δ going near NFC, I think what Δ suggests - writing up what they would like to engage in going forward and seeing what "controls" the community would expect if they go beyond normal expected editor behavior - is a smart idea. While Δ should be free to work on anything they want, specific tasks of interest would help to figure out what terms the community would accept Δ's return. --M ASEM (t) 15:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Given my current available time limits, those tasks will occupy my time until at least the end of February. ΔT The only constant 15:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * & What is the next thing I can do to get this resolved? ΔT The only constant 19:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * From my end, I think the first step, you writing up what you plan to edit or plan to stay away from editing (with some awareness of how the community might react if you get involved in certain ways and hopefully purposely avoiding those sticky points) to lead as a proposal to the community to review. We'd (that it, someone like myself or Guy or such) can then write a preamble around that and possible other points as to present it formally. --M ASEM (t) 16:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What kind of time-frame do you think would be appropriate to draft up this proposal? I was thinking a 3-6 month plan myself. ΔT The only constant 19:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I would think 6 months would be good for a "detailed" plan at this point, in considering that your actions will likely be of heavy scrutiny during this period if the community accepts this. It's the idea that at the end of that 6 month period that we'd likely need to re-review and determine if you are able to engage more after that. The ideal goal here is that in time, you should have no limitations on what actions you can take compared to any other normal editor, and while it would be great to think that can done at the start, I know the community's reaction will require a step-wise approach. --M ASEM (t) 20:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)