User talk:Δ/20160801

Arbcom Appeal
@ArbCom I am starting the write-up for another appeal. What specific issues do you (as a group) want to see addressed? What if any hard lines do you want in place? (IE non-negotiable points) ΔT The only constant 17:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Could you start by posting links to the arbcom decision and any previous appeals here? Frankly, I don't have any recollection as to which of the many appeals by various users I have read over the years this one is, other than a vague memory of having a positive impression of ΔT. I really need to review what went on previously before I can give an informed opinion. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The previous case was Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3, I have made several appeals via email, my most recent appeal was met with silence. I posted on my talk page about the lack of response and the following discussion was at . ΔT The only constant 17:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Hammersoft's Requirements

 * For my part, and my part alone: Given the prior track record, nothing less than the following:
 * Permanently restricted to one account, including no bots at any time in the future. No account renames will be accepted. Only a unanimous approval of available ArbCom members may overturn this restriction.
 * Indefinitely subject to periodic checkuser, with requests by any extendedconfirmed user considered valid, even at the request of fishing expeditions. I.e., WP:NOTFISHING is suspended in your case indefinitely. A checkuser may decline the request if a checkuser has been done within the prior week. Other aspects of checkuser are not suspended (especially with regards to personal information not being revealed).
 * Betacommand 2#Modified by motion remains in effect. This may be appealed, but I would recommend a requirement to wait at least one year from return to editing.
 * Betacommand 3#Appeal of ban needs to be followed ; outline exactly what you intend to do and how it is you understand and intend on refraining from the activities that resulted in your prior bans. Your extreme detailing of exactly what you feel you did that caused the bans is key here; if you are not able to fully understand what you did, we have no hope.
 * Lay out in crystal clear terms why the community should trust you. Given that you grossly violated the trust of community on a number of occasions, most recently with your User:Werieth account, that trust has been badly broken.
 * ArbCom must stipulate anti-harassment remedies to prevent anti-Δ editors from provoking incidents. Some editors should be on an interaction ban with Δ, and ArbCom should invite comment on what editors should be on that interaction ban. In requesting same, it should be noted that ArbCom is not censuring any editor. The intent is to prevent problematic scenarios from developing.
 * I may have other thoughts on this, but this is it for now. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I will blatantly refuse the first point. Unanimous consent is unreasonable, if a majority of ArbCom allows a future proposal that should be enough. 2) That is not allowable under the meta checkuser policy. 3) I have no issue with that 4) I have no current "projects" on the table, other than the occasional edit/issue that I come across, the only other thing that I want to do is get the documentation, and questions/issues for my labs based tools together. I honestly don't want to get into a debate on what I think/community thinks/ArbCom thinks the issues are. I am specifically making a request that ArbCom clearly label what they think the issues are so that I can address those and take steps in the future to avoid those issues. 5) I can't do that, trust is something that I can only earn over time. 6) Agreed ΔT The only constant 18:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've long defended you against numerous attacks from a slew of editors seeking to garner your head on a platter. I've done this in isolation from support, under direct derision from a number of quarters, and without hesitation when I saw injustice. I still have and will continue to have Δ vitae. If you are not willing to consent to checkuser requests when you have circumvented a ban in the past, I don't see how the community can verify you are maintaining one and only one account. Betacommand 3#Appeal of ban requires you to lay out your understanding of what you did to incur the ban. If you reject both of these tenants, I...despite standing opposite to your critics many times...do not see a pathway to a return to editing. The trust issue is a chicken and egg situation. Yet, you violated that trust with User:Werieth. If we were to believe the egg must come first before, that's broken. We now have to believe the chicken must come first. At least some explanation of why the community should trust you now must be forthcoming. Understand; I am not your critic here. I'm trying to lay out reasonable grounds for return. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, so far as I'm aware "You edit under only one username and agree to regular checkuser inspection." is still in effect. I would drop the requirement that anyone can ask for a checkuser in favor of ArbCom stipulating a periodicity for a checkuser (once a month?) to be done, a person responsible for it, and the reporting from it that is to happen. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I missed that clause of the previous motion, All that statement was is my perception of the Global (meta) CU policy. The primary reason I am asking for what arbcom/community want addressed is because I know there are some differences of opinion, and I do not want the oversight of an issue to be an indefinite blocker for my return. By clearly requesting and addressing issues ambiguities and vague references are avoided. ΔT The only constant 19:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That is important. Nevertheless, you must comply with the appeal requirements. Laying out your understanding of your roles in the bans is critically important. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * (edict conflict) Further addendum; Given ArbCom's demonstration of negligence (see this in mentoring you, and their prior refusal to respond to your request, I hold very little hope that ArbCom would properly administer routine checkuser requests. Further, they apparently did not conduct regular checkuser inspection before. So, why should we believe ArbCom would do it now? They've failed specifically on this before, and abstractly several times. Since we can't hold ArbCom accountable for their repeated gross negligence (something they ban others for), the only reasonable alternative is for the community to manage checkuser requests, and you consent to it. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll tell you right now that I won't be doing routine checkusers without justification. I haven't looked to see if what you linked is still in affect, then even if it takes an ammendment motion, I won't do it. It's against the spirit of the CheckUser policy. And also if I may point out, past arbcoms are not current arbcoms. While you have enough to judge the current arbcom's opinion, just because a former arbcom did it, doesn't mean we will too. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 14:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) "Only a unanimous approval of available ArbCom members may overturn this restriction" will never fly. It goes against longstanding arbcom policy regarding majorities required to make decisions. Also, "permanently restricted to one account" won't fly, but the equivalent-in-practice "indefinitely restricted to one account" will. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine, but there needs to be some stringent requirements. The same requirements have previously been violated. You come up with the wording. "We really mean it this time!" won't work. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I strongly object to 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 basic 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 predict will complain about Δ no matter what.


 * As much as some here wish that the original arbcom sanctions had been "until the heat death of the universe" the fact is that the sanctions were for a year. Yes, there was some serious misbehavior that ended up extending that year, but all of that misbehaviour occurred years ago. 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 can support a staged lifting of restrictions (see my plan elsewhere on this page) but 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 current issues 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. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * A plan like that will fail. Look, let's be honest here. There's an entire pool of sharks that are just drooling (perhaps with dread, but drooling) at the opportunity to tear Δ limb from limb if he is ever allowed to edit again. We've seen it time and time again. ANY notion that Δ can freely return to editing with little or no sanctions and trusting the community will do the right thing will absolutely fail. The only way I can see to stop this pool of sharks is by instituting interaction bans. The reality is the table is permanently damaged. There is no clean slate that is possible. The only window of hope in this regard is to get everyone off the table who previously contributed to negative interactions with Δ and move forward. Even that is a vanishingly small window of hope.
 * As to things happening in the distant past; I would happily disregard them if there was a track record forward of them that clearly obviated the need for the sanctions that were previously placed. Yet, there isn't. The most recent findings we have show that Δ "violated all of the community imposed sanctions". Further, the most recent test we have of Δ's willingness to abide by sanctions is in the User:Werieth case. Despite being restricted to only one account and being subject to regular checkuser inspections, he violated that restriction in creating and later activating and using Werieth, a confirmed sockpuppet of Δ's. Further, when I proposed checkuser inspections he says that such use is against policy.
 * IF we are to have a way forward, these issues MUST be addressed. We simply can not just wipe the slate clean. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Δ/Werieth was closed on 9 July 2014. The most recent test we have of Δ's willingness to abide by sanctions is not the Werieth case. It is the two years plus since the Werieth case with no known sockpuppetry. And yes, we most certainly can "just wipe the slate clean" of any misbehavior that stopped years ago. I am not the only one who thinks so. See the essays at Unblocks are cheap, Let the tiger show its stripes, and Give 'em enough rope. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Guy Macon's Plan
Ah. Now it all comes back to me. I made a proposal (archived at at User talk:Δ/20151001) and nobody, including Δ, responded. So, not knowing whether anyone though my plan was great or whether they thought it sucked, and not even knowing whether my plan was acceptable to Δ, I withdrew my participation.

In case anyone cares to respond this time, here is my 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 most runs of automated edits don't hit the limit. At this point approval will only be needed 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.

Comments? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks good for me. I tend to write stuff in python, most of the assisted tools I have are available from labs for public usage. I have several that work behind the scene (database/dump parsing) but those are non-editing tools. ΔT The only constant 19:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Non-starter. Δ needs to offer what ArbCom is asking for, as Hammersoft notes, above.  -- Elvey (t•c) 19:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Haven't we seen this proposal before? See . John Nagle (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, which explains why I wrote the words "I made a proposal (archived at at User talk:Δ/20151001#Guy Macon's Plan) ... here is [that] plan" in the section above. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not versed in Will Beback's case. I do note however that Will Beback is back from being banned. Seeing this before at an unrelated case would not seem to be an impediment to this case. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * That discussion was at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 26 --Guy Macon (talk) 06:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What is the next step towards a resolution here? ΔT The only constant 13:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Elvey's thoughts

 * I was pinged.
 * 1. Shouldn't there be a notice on this page indicating that the editor (Betacommand/Delta/...) is banned? Surely the blocking admin (User:Guerillero) placed one, and they shouldn't be removed while active.    The message that appears when I edit this page is a poor substitute.  A notice could indicate: It looks like the underlying issues, which were followed by two ArbCom-levied blocks, are indicated by these blocks:
 * 12:10, October 23, 2011 User:Tristessa de St Ange blocked Δ with an expiration time of 48 hours (Violation of editing restrictions: "Cleanup" auto/semi-auto edit pattern ran on over 130 articles. Attempts made previously to discuss with user without success.)
 * 09:58, July 8, 2011 User:Magog the Ogre blocked Δ with an expiration time of 24 hours (Disruptive editing: continual edit warring over NFC, not getting the point after previous requests showed that manner of behavior was poor: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:AN3)
 * 2. As I recall, a/the core issue is that Δ was accused of persisting in making apparently automated edits long after the community told Δ not to. There was also a lot of incivility, etc.  the ArbCom cases are unusually readable.  I recall that when I reviewed the history months ago, looking to see if the user had been banned unfairly, I found that Δ was given lots and lots of rope and made poor use of a very large quantity of expensive rope.  I wouldn't much care about the socking post ban if the underlying issues that led to the ban were not well-founded, but as I recall, I saw they were.  And I don't see that Betacommand/Δ has been willing to post copies of any of his appeals here, and I don't buy the arguments for refusing to post them.  Maybe I'd think differently if I read the recent emails to/from Arbcom.  Will you email them to me so I can pass comment, User:Δ?  I do believe that "non-responsiveness to questions proffered in good faith" is a flat out POLICY violation, and would review them with that in mind.  I have yet to be convinced that the request that ArbCom clearly label what they think the issues are hasn't been answered.   -- Elvey (t•c) 19:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Which policy is that? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It violates WP:CIVIL, which states in part, "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, ... to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions." -- Elvey (t•c) 19:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Expected to" (what the policy says) and "required to" (not what it says) are two entirely different things. Δ has been the subject of an enormous amount of harassment on this project. That he doesn't respond to some things because he considers them not in good faith is hardly surprising. I'd be gun shy too. We know, from prior evidence, that people have made accusations of him being non-responsive and this has been found to not be true. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What the hell are you talking about, Hammersoft? I'm talking about whether ArbCom has been responsive or not, because ArbCom was accused by and on behalf of Δ, of being non-responsive to Δ.-- Elvey (t•c) 20:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Forgive me. I read the tense wrong and thought you were referring to Δ not responding. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a banned user template on my user page. I dont have a link handy, but when this issue was brought up a year ago users requested arbcom comment on this, and the talk page request was archived without comment. If I post the prior email threads odds are I will be censured for posting non-pubic communications on wiki. I am making the request here in the open so that argument cannot be made in the future. ΔT The only constant 19:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. My request was "Will you email them to me so I can pass comment, User:Δ?".  Your statement that you won't post them on-wiki is non-responsive.  (Do I need to check my email, or should I take your reply as a 'no'?)
 * My question was " Shouldn't there be a notice on this page indicating that the editor (Betacommand/Delta/...) is banned?" Your statement regarding your user page is tangential. The question remains unanswered. -- Elvey (t•c) 19:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Demanding e-mails and criticizing Δ for not doing so as being "non-responsive" is way, way, way out of line. Δ releasing e-mail from other people without their consent is flat wrong. You're placing him in a no-win situation. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * WT? I did no such thing! I made no demand. I asked a question and made a request, and even referred to it as such. I did *not* criticize him for not doing so. I simply pointed out (and again point out) the lack of a response to the request. If it's wrong to send the replies (IDK how ArbCom feels about that), then consider my request modified to simply be for the outgoing messages and an indication as to whether the replies were responsive or not. -- Elvey (t•c) 19:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * arbcom's request for comments on previous appeal, Same issue, whether its on-wiki or via email release of non-public information will result in further censure on my part. ΔT The only constant 19:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Elvey, the lack of a ban notice on Δ's userpage has nothing to do with any action on the part of Δ nor should it. The banned notice WAS added to Δ's userpage by an editor who was not a clerk and not a member of ArbCom. Two hours later, it was removed by a then-clerk of ArbCom. Notice of the close of the case and its results was properly placed on this talk page around the time, again by a then-clerk of ArbCom. That notice remained on this talk page for nearly three years until Δ removed it. Doing so was completely in compliance with WP:REMOVED. There is no issue regarding a notice on Δ's userpage or talk page that is in any way a guideline or policy violation. If you have a problem with there not being a notice on his userpage, then take it up with ArbCom. It has nothing to do with Δ. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Not true. The lack of a ban notice on Δ's user page has everything to do with action on the part of Δ.  You link to diffs showing the addition and removal of a much older ban notice. But Δ removed the most recent ban notice.  WP:BAN says: "Banned editors' user and user talk pages should be updated with a notice of the ban, linking to any applicable discussion or decision-making pages. "  But it was permissible for Δ to remove it; again, I have confirmed that at the time it was removed, policy allowed its removal.


 * Ok, Δ, you're free to decline my original and modified requests, of course. I thus concluded that ArbCom had not been non-responsive, based on the evidence, including Seraphimblade's comment, I'm a bit confused by this request. While I can't go into detail about private communication, the last time that we communicated back and forth with this editor, responses were sent and responded to in turn, confirming that they were received. If we have been contacted since then, we have not received it. Seraphim blade Talk to me 1:59 pm, 12 August 2015, Wednesday (11 months, 30 days ago) (UTC−7). [Edit: And it was a reasonable conclusion.  It looks like Amanda just determined that Seraphimplade was wrong though.  It looks like this discussion/ my request has been productive in getting the ball rolling (and getting toward clarity as to whether the ball was dropped), and so there's no longer any need for my request to be fulfilled.  It looks like Amanda is saying ArbCom dropped the ball in June/July 2015, and Δ could have been hammering home the point that Seraphimblade's August 2015 comment was unfounded ever since it was made.]  -- Elvey (t•c) 20:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I see that Δ removed the non-template block ban notice by (User:Guerillero) from this page. It was policy for years that such notices could not be removed.  I wasn't aware the policy had changed.-- Elvey (t•c) 20:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In the previous thread I noted that I had emailed ArbCom on 29 June 2015, at which point I had no further emails from them. I followed that up with a post here, and further silence from ArbCom. If in fact they failed to receive my email, the discussion on this page called them out for failing to communicate. Which they never responded to. ΔT The only constant 20:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like they did receive the email, just never responded. ΔT The only constant 23:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Elvey; at the time Δ removed notice of the close of the ArbCom case (January 2015), the policy permitted the removal of block notices. In April of 2013, verbiage regarding ArbCom restrictions was removed per this discussion. In July of 2014, verbiage regarding any other sanction was removed per this post. I know you linked to the discussion where that last post was made; just trying to add further to show more context. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I noted, the policy changed. Perhaps we can collapse this section soon, giving it a summary: ArbCom was emailed on  29 June 2015 and has not responded....  Δ, do you just want them to respond to that email, and does it cover the two things Opabinia regalis says it needs to: "What, specifically, would you want to do if unbanned, and how are you going to make sure that what you're doing is not disruptive?" or do you want to send a new email to supplant the 29 June 2015 one that ArbCom didn't respond to? -- Elvey (t•c) 08:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Please email
The size of this thread relative to its age suggests it would be much easier if you just emailed the committee, either by emailuser to User:Arbitration Committee or by emailing. Thanks. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am making the request here, because my most recent email to ArbCom failed to get any response. In an attempt for transparency and hopefully a final resolution to this issue I am posting here in the open. ΔT The only constant 20:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * ArbCom has repeatedly been negligent in this case. I endorse Δ's request here. Having Δ email to effectively /dev/null without the community being able to see the committee's refusal to do anything is wrong. ArbCom, you had your chance to do this right the last time he made a request. You failed. Time to do it differently. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't on the committee last year, but if you last emailed arbcom in June 2015 as you mentioned above, I'm not sure it was received; I can't find anything in the archives. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC) Never mind, sorry, I found it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * All the more reason it should be done here, in the open. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, in a completely unrelated event, ArbCom is apparently ignoring requests sent to arbcom-l . Again, all the more reason this should be done in the open. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Completely unrelated" hits the nail on the head. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The point is showing a pattern of behavior. ArbCom would accept it as evidence. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Two observations over a year apart in different contexts and with different committees? Not much of a pattern. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Opabinia, you know as well as I do that ArbCom is overflowing with all sorts of serious issues. If ArbCom were the subject of an RfAr, the nuclear level glowing, steaming pile that it is would fail miserably. But, this isn't the venue for such a discussion. The point is ArbCom has been ignoring emails. Even now, almost a day after Δ pinged every active member of ArbCom, 10 of 11 (and 8 of those 10 have been editing) have failed to show up here. Sure, it's early. But, I'd lay very good odds that a week from now no more than 1 or 2 other ArbCom members will have shown up here to discuss this issue (and even that is a stretch). --Hammersoft (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah. If all of us had to weigh in at every stage of every issue, we'd never get our day jobs done. A lot of things get done by the subset of the group that's interested/available dealing with the early stages. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If ArbCom is either unwilling or unable to conduct their business due to real life issues (a real concern; we are all volunteers here), then they should either step down or find delegates to do their work for them. Not being available to handle the business of ArbCom is fine on an individual level. But, if ArbCom itself can't not handle the load, it's time for change. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Δ: I was wondering what was going on with all these convoluted plans and then I noticed that's how the original remedy was written. Hrmph. Speaking only for myself, I suggest leaving setting the elaborate plans aside temporarily - especially the ones with very long-term goals and stages that might need to be revised anyway - and focusing on two things. What, specifically, would you want to do if unbanned, and how are you going to make sure that what you're doing is not disruptive? Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What kind of time scale are you looking for? ΔT The only constant 12:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Six months is sort of the default "date of next appeal", so roughly six months to a year, IMO. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have already laid out a plan for about 3-4 months, Projecting longer than that is difficult because I need to catch up on environmental and cultural shifts on wiki (Policy, practices, and procedures are dynamic and will take a bit to catch up on the subtler changes) Beyond that possibly working on Category:Tagged pages containing blacklisted links or some other minor house keeping task. ΔT The only constant 13:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Context: I mostly left Wikipedia to do real-life things sometime in 2007 and returned in early 2015. I decided to look into this following your ping because the history is complex and seemed like it could use some fresh eyes. So yes, I can say from experience that there's a lot to catch up on (though also less than you'd think). But here's my two cents' worth of free advice: discussions/questions/issues that I see pop up on different notice boards sounds like a bad way to do low-drama catching up and a good way to get sucked into to lame arguments. I'd focus on what actual editing you want to do, or technical work that is unlikely to cause problems (e.g. output limited to your own userspace). Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The notice boards/discussions I was referencing was stuff like Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_(technical) or Media_copyright_questions. In the first discussion I could easily whip something up similar to my cleanup tool which removes missing/deleted files, the second would have been able to explain Getty's copyright practices which prevent utilization of their media on wikipedia, and another case that just caught my eye Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_(technical) where my cleanup tool might also be useful for recovering dead links on command. Or cases like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%CE%94&oldid=685558786#Wikipedia:Bot_requests.23A_special_kind_of_archiving_bot . More of filling a FAQ role, or answering technical issues. There have been a dozen or so cases over the years where I have requested someone on IRC drop a note answering a question or helping someone because I couldn't do it myself. Like I said for the next few months its going to be getting the documentation/bugs/requests addressed for my labs tools that are used here on enwiki. I just took a look, and I have over 50 scripts on labs, which are web based for users to use. I also have a lot of reports that get auto generated, including one for every SPI case, which are not in the 50+ total. Getting all of that paperwork together and detailed and published is what will take the bulk of the next few months. Without a doubt there will probably be requests for additional reports and tools that I may or may not have time to fulfill, depending on real life time commitments. Hopefully this clarifies my intent on the discussion issues, and short term editing plans. ΔT The only constant 23:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, just stay out of the Great Dismal Swamp :) If this "community-approved plan" thing happens, I suggest you should be prepared to a) provide an example of the documentation/paperwork/whatever you plan to produce, and b) consider refraining from NFC altogether at first. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The last email (which was your reply to one of our replies) I see was 29/06/2015. Is this correct or am I missing a thread? -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 14:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That is correct, I followed that up with a post on my talk page, and Hammersoft posted a note about that to the ArbCom Noticeboard that went unanswered. I have found corresponding with ArbCom via email to be extremely slow (I think the fastest response was a little over three weeks later) and that I had to reach out and remind/pester them for a response to even get that. Which is why I am not going that route this time. ΔT The only constant 14:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not attempting to justify our non-response or anything, I just simply wanted to be aware of how we missed this as part of an effort to make sure stuff doesn't fall through. (Cause it does happen, too often) -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 14:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding "how are you (Δ) going to make sure that what you're doing is not disruptive?", the main issue has always been automated edits, and I {Guy Macon) have made a commitment to review any automation Δ writes, run it under my account, and take full responsibility for the results. So you don't have to trust Δ, but instead you have to trust me to not allow any automation to run that is disruptive. I have been here over over ten years, made over 30,000 edits, have zero blocks, and am a dispute resolution volunteer, so that would seem to be a safe bet.

There is a strategic aspect to this. Assume for the sake of argument that Δ is deviously waiting for a chance to be disruptive for the handful of minutes it would take to revert and block him. Would he still do so knowing that I vouched for him and and would have egg on my face if he turned evil on us? I think not. I think that he isn't deviously waiting for a chance to be disruptive and that he won't turn evil.

Regarding emailing arbcom, email isn't working. I don't know and don't care whether it isn't working because of something Δ has been doing or because of something arbcom has been doing, but the fact remains that email is not working. Thus I am taking the WP:BOLD step of helping to put together a public plan, running an RfC to see if the plan has community support, and presenting it to arbcom as a public recommendation by the community, to be publicly accepted or rejected by arbcom. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think Δ is deviously waiting for anything, and never has. The issue isn't malicious intent, but what has been an incapability to operate within parameters established by the community and ArbCom. Some of this parameters were patently absurd and should never have been attempted (edit throttle, as a case example). Still, there is ample evidence of reasonable parameters being routinely broken. Before any RfC is started, I recommend in the most animated fashion that a very careful review of every sanction that has been placed before be reviewed, considered, and evaluated as to its success or failure. Δ can bring much to the table, much that is now lacking in the project. I really do want him to return. But, doing so is going to require enormous effort. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

From Acalamari
Unfortunately, it's been so long that I can't remember what restrictions you're under at this point, so I won't comment on any sanctions I think should remain or be removed; however, I still want to help out - I'm happy to add my name here as a voice of support. I would like to see you unbanned and unblocked; you've been banned and blocked for four and a half years - people who have done far worse than anything you've ever done have returned after far less. Acalamari 21:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

From Beetstra
I support a staged plan to have Δ unblocked (per User:Guy Macon). That could be combined with some restrictions which could just stand indefinitely (per User:Hammersoft; though not 'permanently' - maybe to slowly dissolve 2 years without problems after reaching stage 5). I will also support Guy Macon's plan to have a look at scripts Δ is offering to the community, and possibly use them (though my time is very limited - I will at least try to have a look through them and comment). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

From Amanda

 * The ban appeal remedy is definitely an odd one...regardless, my exceptions would be:
 * Your intended editing, and the areas you don't intend to edit that you edited before and why.
 * Your view on complying with sanctions on what would be a several stages unblock
 * Your willingness to comply with the desires of the community
 * Any plans or steps you have or will take to reduce communication issues.
 * Showing some form (stronger, the better) of regret towards the deception of the community with sockpuppets
 * Any immediate plans to reactivate bots, if allowed.
 * What's changed since you've been banned that should convince us your ready to rejoin the community.

As for what potential sanctions there would be...we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 14:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Like I stated above my short term plan (2-3 months out) is to get re-acclimated with the community, throw in my 2 cents in discussions/questions/issues that I see pop up on different notice boards, and get the house keeping/documentation and support request for my existing labs tools organized and on wiki to allow both more transparency and wider information spread about them. I also plan to avoid mainspace NFC. Beyond the 3 month mark I really don't have any plans at the moment. 2) Reasonable, and clearly delineated/defined sanctions shouldn't be an issue. The biggest issues I saw with the previous set was the vagueness of the sanctions drew a line in the sand that everyone thought was in different locations. Which is why I am requesting specific, actionable, points so that I can make a point of addressing them. Previously the issue of communication was brought up, since then I have made a point of being more communicative. 3) I am willing to abide by the desires of the community, the biggest issue I think might crop back up is the lack of specific actionable points. I remember a few threads where someone said that X edit was a bad edit, I took a look at the edit in question and it was unable to find anything specific so I requested clarification to which I again got a vague generalization. Without specifics its difficult to know exactly what made the particular edit "bad" and makes it almost impossible to avoid doing such in the future again. 4) partially covered this in the previous point, I have made a point of being more communicative, and will continue to make a point of it. If I miss something especially in large discussions such as this please let me know, often its not a mater of me ignoring a question they can just get lost in the volume of discussions. 5) It was a stupid decision that probably burnt a few bridges that will never be re-built, and damaged quite a few more. I know I have a lot of ground to make up and I don't think words alone can mend. 6) In regards to bots I don't have anything on the drawing board. With my real life commitments currently anything beyond a DBR I wouldn't have time for. 7) A lot has changed in my personal life, along with growing older and more mature. I would rather not publicly discuss the events of my personal life on wiki, but I will note that as the treads on your shoes wears down, your perspective on life changes. ΔT The only constant 15:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Side issue: Sharknado!
Hammersoft said something that was though provoking earlier on this page that I would like to explore further, Quote:


 * "There's an entire pool of sharks that are just drooling (perhaps with dread, but drooling) at the opportunity to tear Δ limb from limb if he is ever allowed to edit again. We've seen it time and time again. ANY notion that Δ can freely return to editing with little or no sanctions and trusting the community will do the right thing will absolutely fail."

Let's assume for the sake of argument that this pool of sharks exists. I see no reason why this should in any way influence the decision on whether to lift Δ's restrictions. We don't allow a crowd to shout down anyone here. We will take action if the crowd has a point, but that is another issue. The key, of course is how Δ reacts. Engaging with an angry crowd is a really bad idea. Instead, Δ should calmly and clearly report anyone who disrupts the encyclopedia at ANI and refuse to respond to those who don't quite cross that threshold. I would be willing to help to get the really bad ones blocked. Eventually the sharks will grow tired of shouting into an empty hall and find some target who will respond. Like the Jets, for instance. Δ, does this sound like something you are willing to try? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Disengaging hostile users is fairly common practice for my part. In the past it has been difficult to get people to recognize the harassment and personal attacks directed at me. In many cases it was an extremely double standard, I don't have diffs due to the age of the issues, but I remember one time that I was getting lambasted pretty good, and slightly lost my cool (I made a slightly smart-ass response, and they attempted to rake me over the coals for a supposed NPA violation) After the immediate feeding frenzy and finished, other people caught on to the abuse and I think at least one person was finally topic banned to try to stop it. But as long as there is someone who will listen and help address those types of users it shouldn't be a significant issue long term. ΔT The only constant 00:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * ArbCom routinely attacks what they believe will extinguish the fire in the most rapid way possible. If there are 10 people complaining about 1 person, the 1 person will be crucified even if the 10 are 10000000% wrong. This is routine, and yes I have statistics to back it up. Indeed Δ has disengaged people on many occasions. It hasn't mattered one damn bit. ArbCom will string him up anyway. Δ will be caught in a catch 22; if he doesn't respond when people are aggressive towards him, they or the community crucify him for being non-communicative. If he does respond, the slightest inkling of hostility will be construed as a civility violation. This is why an interaction ban between Δ and Δ's harshest critics must be part of the package that results in Δ editing again. The pool is badly tainted. The only way to fix it is to build a new pool. The only way to do that is to stop the interactions BEFORE it happens. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What surprises me, Hammersoft, (although it shouldnt') is that those users still hold these petty and vindictive grudges all these years later - honestly, don't they have better things to do than to hate a fellow user of a website...almost lying in wait for him to come back so they can "defeat" him again? The only thing that surprises me more is that Δ still wants to come back despite the unwarranted amount of hatred directed at him.
 * I note that this page has gone quiet again. I hope it's not going to be yet another case of a Δ unban attempt failing due to the discussion going cold. Acalamari 10:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Δ's interest in coming back, despite the community's hatred, shows strong devotion to the project. The grudges are extant in part because harassment is a serious problem on this project (See article about this). As to going quiet, it's the way things are frequently handled. I don't think there's intent behind it, but it's what ArbCom does. I predicted this quite accurately a week ago . --Hammersoft (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Pools of sharks are our concern; we may well have occasion to address that for this particular case. Yes, I got pinged too, way up on this talk page, and saw the talk page filling up with walls of text. Which means we have to read it, ponder it--or, in some cases, even try to understand it in the first place. We're not always sitting on our hands; in fact, we've been sitting in Courcelles's hot tub, for the most part. Hammersoft, your zeal is commendable, though you need to consider that when you paint with a broad brush you get muck on the bystanders too. I note, for instance, that Guy Macon posted above, saying that they proposed something which nobody responded to. Not you either. And what do we have here already? Three arbs, unless I missed one. Sure, arbs are slow, but this is not a very urgent matter, or Beta wouldn't have pinged so many people for input. Here's a thing. Six (!) conditions were proposed, with the promise of more to follow. Have they come yet? Hard to tell. One condition was already turned down by Beta (reasonably), and another was rejected by Amanda (completely reasonably)--we are not going to do periodic CU tests or something like that. (Beta, we might as well thrown in a weekly urine sample.) So that's progress, perhaps. Then there's Guy Macon's five-stage plan, where the only thing missing is calendar dates, learning outcomes, and behavioral objectives (quantified on the metric system, preferably). But perhaps there is something in it. It seems to me that rather than wait on all individual or collective arbs to comment here, Beta should submit something to us that we can work on--slowly, of course, from the hot tub--and think over. We can do that in public, but I don't see why we need to, esp. not if every other statement from some participants comes with sneers toward ArbCom. Beta, you should know that #manypeoplearesaying that they're still pissed off over the socking; I thought Werieth was a cool name and I dipped my toe in that user's pool shark once, not knowing it was you, of course. Stuff like that, that disappointment of having been fooled, has a long shelf life. That's something to address, along with a plan of action. You heard from Elvey, you heard from Hammersoft, you heard from Guy Macon, and you heard from an arb or two. Ball is in your court. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The paintbrush I use covers ArbCom as a structure and entity. I have almost completely avoided commenting on particular arbitrators over the years, as that would violate a number of our guidelines/policies. My paintbrush is intended to address serious failings of ArbCom, not particular arbitrators. A serious failing is the lack of ability to properly handle the workload. Every report I've read from former ArbComs comments about them being overworked. Cases such as this are going to be largely ignored. I'm glad you arrived, as that makes 3 members of ArbCom in a week's time. I don't expect all of ArbCom to arrive, but I do expect ArbCom to pay as much if not more attention to this as any request made at RFAR. That won't happen here, and that points to problems with ArbCom. This matter is more urgent than an average request at RFAR. I say that because the last time a request was made, ArbCom completely dropped the ball. It isn't the first time that ArbCom has failed Δ by any stretch. There's considerable failure on ArbCom's part regarding Δ.
 * I did read Guy Macon's proposal. I disagree with it at least partially, but reserved comment and contributed elsewhere in this conversation. Sometimes, if you disagree with something, the best course of action is to sit back and see how it evolves. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, at least we agree on one thing! :) Drmies (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Did we? Oh crap. I screwed up somewhere! ;) --Hammersoft (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hammersoft, if you think arbcom's priorities are wrong, you know where our talk page is.
 * Δ, if you're looking for suggestions for a "plan", I think you're on the right track above to concentrate on documentation and technical matters outside of mainspace. It would be difficult to do something wrong if you agreed to a) a topic ban from NFC issues, and b) a ban on using bots and scripts with output anywhere other than your userspace or another non-mainspace page where a user has specifically requested it. There may be some wiggle room on the first (eg, maybe only participating in NFC conversations where your opinion is specifically requested). Guy's idea that code you release to the community could be reviewed and used by others for mainspace edits might work, but it sounded like you didn't have time for that in the near future anyway. Once you've settled on a specific proposal, let us know. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Opabinia, I've been to the ArbCom talk page and discussed ArbCom issues with members of ArbCom many, many times. I don't expect ArbCom to jump to my commands, but be that as it may little has changed. I think the classic case of this was some years back when I pointed out how badly tilted cases are due to anchoring in the case names. I was informed that ArbCom was not affected by this. ArbCom has held to this line even when it's been pointed out that they are not able to avoid the bias. I reviewed several years of cases and found, unsurprisingly, that people named in the titles of cases are 9.5 times more likely to be sanctioned than non-title named parties. In all 35 cases reviewed, a party named in the title never escaped sanction. Sure, there's a reason the person is before ArbCom. Sure, we have no control to observe this data set against. Yet, 9.5 times and 100% guarantee of sanction are pretty damning numbers. If ArbCom is not able to understand their serious shortcomings even in the face of psychological science proving they are incapable of avoiding anchoring, there's really no hope for reform. ArbCom wants to be incompetent. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)