Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3

Arbitrators active on this case
Active:
 * AGK
 * 1) Casliber
 * 2) Coren
 * 3) Courcelles
 * 4) David Fuchs
 * 5) Elen of the Roads
 * 6) Jclemens
 * 7) John Vandenberg
 * 8) Kirill Lokshin
 * 9) Mailer diablo
 * 10) Newyorkbrad
 * 11) PhilKnight
 * 12) Risker
 * 13) Roger Davies
 * 14) SilkTork
 * 15) SirFozzie

Inactive:
 * 1) Cool Hand Luke
 * 2) Xeno

Recused
 * 1) Hersfold

Statement by Masem
If the image has long-since been deleted, and presumably not be Delta's hand, I would think that removing the dead image call from a file is not an NFC case since we would do the same for free images that happen to later be deleted. That is, the take would not be specific to handling NFC, but any media content. --M ASEM (t) 17:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * To the ArbCom members (Based on comments below): The current situation is as follows:
 * Delta's been running his manual script-enabled tool, under the community throttle, to make various wikignoming/cleanup tasks on pages (8000 as he's claimed). They range from redirection fixes, whitespace cleanup, reference cleaning, etc.
 * During this period, there were some of Delta's semi-automatic edits that likely were not well defined within MOS (reference restructuring), or, while not breaking anything visually, had a secondary side effect (linking to a bad version of a page (404) at Wayback when adding archive links. When pointed out, Delta (appeared to) drop them. (I didn't do more than spot check, but they were no longer problems after notification).
 * As noted, about two weeks ago, Delta is suddenly blocked as this was seen by one admin as a pattern of edits. The block presumed that Delta would not communicate with the blocker and raised several questions on that, but it highlighted to the community that Delta has been doing these 8000 edits that some have taken to be a "pattern of edits".
 * ANI blows up. (As someone has jokingly said, there's a law, if Delta has been blocked for X, then the accompanying ANI thread must last for 10X).
 * As noted in the Arb comments: the bulk of the ANI thread is over what the phrase "pattern of edits" is to be taken as, as well as what timeframe or other limits there are on the "25 edits" could mean.
 * Hammersoft, knowing that Delta is not the best communicator to the masses, offers to bring Delta's current script tasks to VPP per the community restriction to gain consensus irregardless of the resolution of the ANI thread (as this process would appear to satisfy the first community restriction about getting permission). Delta provides on his talk page the lists of changes that his semi-automated tool makes that he has to verify before submitting as an edit.
 * One of these tasks involved the removal of long-deleted image files (non-free or not), hence the question raised here about Delta's NFCC handling.
 * The enumeration of the tasks has not gone well, with some outright blanket opposes, and about half the tasks that involve any type of subjective handling typically being opposed, leaving the list of tasks those that could be handled by a bot but that Delta is willing to do. Some have accused Hammersoft of being pointy in this effort, despite the fact that some were asking for exactly this.
 * I would say that it would be helpful of ArbCom, ignoring the drama of the whole issue, to provide guidance if what Delta's 8000 edits should have been taken as a pattern of edits (hence requiring the VPP part), and whether the VPP thing going on now is an appropriate part of the process set by the community edits and whether the types of actions being sought are within the bounds of the community edits. (In addition to the whole NFC issue). --M ASEM (t) 13:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * To SirFozzie: BCD gives Δ for this specific purpose. --M ASEM (t) 19:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Hammersoft
I agree with Masem for the most part. I could see someone making a case out of this by saying "Well, you deleted a link to a deleted image which the deletion log shows was deleted for failing NFCC policy". But, this seems a stretch to me. Further, it isn't NFCC enforcement, even if the image was a non-free image and deleted for NFCC reasons. The NFCC enforcement already happened in that case. And a bit of nitpick; The proposals made are not requests to relax his restrictions. They're being made in accordance with restrictions. He is not currently forbidden from deleting links to deleted images. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Wikidemon
Whether removing links to deleted images is related to NFCC enforcement, broadly construed, depends on how broad is broad. There is a nexus here of the sort that has concerned the community. First, Delta's long interest in non-free images has been a flash point for concerns about incivility, subterfuge, unauthorized use of tools, failure to respond or communicate with the community, errors, and disregard of consensus process. Widening the scope to all images doesn't remove the fact that it affects non-free images, because one subsumes the other. Second, although I have no specific information I would guess that many to most images that are deleted despite being used in articles have been deleted on NFCC grounds, so this is NFCC cleanup. If they were deleted for being redundant, or some other technical reason, then the right action would be to find the surviving image and link to that, not remove the link. Which gets to the third point, although Beta was particularly strident about NFCC policy, his use of automated tools in all areas has been a problem. We can't assume that any particular automated task is harmless or approved. For instance, a different editor might instead leave a hidden comment or make a log entry so that other editors would improve the article with a replacement image instead of deleting the link. If there is a potentially undesirable result from these link removals, it is the same as when targeted more narrowly to nonfree images: loss of encyclopedic content, and lots of manual work by others to fill the holes, if an automated process is done blindly without careful input, planning, or execution. I have no opinion on what the outcome should be, just saying that if you cast the net broadly there is some connection here. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Caution regarding present motion. What mandate does Arbcom have to consider overturning for a second time the decision of the community in how to deal with Beta?  It seems that Arbcom is disrespecting and thereby hampering, the ability of the community to resolve long-term concerns involving prominent editors.  A consensus arose, incrementally over the span of years, that Beta exhausted too many last chances, and is simply unlikely to edit in certain subject areas or using certain tools without creating another mess if given yet another chance.  Simply taking up the motion gives Beta another chance, because if the sanctions are re-examined in a new light, then unless there is some kind of meltdown or misbehavior during the case it's inevitable that ArbCom will put its own stamp on something then see, over the course of months and years, whether that works.  That means two more angst-filled years of AN/I cases, Arbcom motions, unauthorized bots, personal attacks and accusations between editors calling each other enablers or stalkers, etc.  If ArbCom wishes to jump in, the measure should be how can it more strongly ensure stability in the project, not whether it should undo existing efforts to keep things stable.  - Wikidemon (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by CBM
I made the following comment on the village pump:
 * The arbcom motion only covers non-free image enforcement "broadly construed". But it is in Beta's interest to avoid image-related work entirely, I believe.

I do think that if he removes links to images that were deleted for NFCC reasons, that would be NFCC work broadly construed. But the overall goal of maintenance work is that it should go on behind the scenes, so to speak, so that nobody bothers to comment on it. &Delta; has proven, numerous times, to be unable to meet this goal. Previous efforts to help &Delta; by giving him a loose editing restriction have only given him enough room to cause trouble for himself. This includes the community editing restriction he is currently under, which I helped draft in 2008. We should begin to think about more tightly restricting him from maintenance work, since he has not proven able to self-modulate his work in this area. His 2,000 unapproved edits in the last two months, with identical edit summary "cleanup", are a typical example of this. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 18:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Examples

 * Two arbitrators asked whether the edits were going smoothly. One problem with the edits is that they all have exactly the same edit summary, so it is hard to find examples of any particular type. But here are links to discussions on his talk page in the last 2 months.
 * Relocating references (violates WP:CITEVAR) . This appears to be a similar complaint:
 * Adding "release date" to book references
 * Cleanup script issues
 * This edit removed the word "is" from the lede, making it ungrammatical. It is hard to tell that, however, because there is so much noise in the diff. This particular edit was pointed out by Lexin.
 * This diff by Fram reports other errors in the "cleanup" edits
 * If more links are desired, it would be possible for someone to make a list of them, but I think this conveys the general point that that the tasks &Delta; was doing were a combination of discouraged edits (changing reference formats), non-improvements (adding release dates for books), trivialities (changing Image: to File:), and occasional errors. Making this sort of change en masse would lead to complaints if any editor did it, and indeed the links above show different people noticing different problems and pointing them out on &Delta;'s talk page.


 * One germane task I am aware of in the edits is the removal of links to deleted images. This is a classic example of a large-scale task for which &Delta; needed to get approval before commencing (and it runs into his restriction on NFCC work). Had he not obfuscated his edit summaries, this would have been noticed sooner as well. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Tristessa de St Ange
As the administrator who blocked Δ and hence started this most recent chapter of the perennial brouhaha, I'd like to say that I would recommend he stay away from image-related tasks altogether based on history, though I can't see any reason why he shouldn't be allowed to perform removals of images that 1) are already fully deleted; 2) aren't in the process of community discussion; and 3) have nothing to do with the former points of contentious editing, e.g. are not related to NFCC or similar issues. --Tristessa (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Block noted as requested. --Tristessa (talk) 10:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Sven Manguard
It's well known that I fall on Delta's side in most cases. Yes, he's occasionally overly abrasive and under-communicative, but at the same time, yes, he most certainly has been terribly harassed, by multiple users, over a long period of time.

I am urging the Committee to open up a new case, which would completely overrule the current ArbCom case sanctions, the community restrictions, and the ArbCom motion filed earlier this year by Roger Davies, and if ArbCom decides it necessary, impose new restrictions in their collective stead. At issue, Delta is entangled in a web of sanctions that are in not only in conflict with one another, but are so awfully written that just about anything he does can be pointed to as being in violation of the sanctions, whether or not that was the intention of the authors or not.

I also urge the committee, when handling the case, to look at all parties as components of this ongoing dispute, and come in with no prejudgements. I believe you will find that Delta was targeted by somewhere around three specific users, who either initiated each AN/I thread, or rushed there to increase the drama level. This is not to say Delta is without guilt, that is untrue, however it is to say that incidents involving Delta cannot be taken out of context from the users who are frequently in conflict with him at AN/I.

Finally, and this will be an odd request, I'm sure, I am urging the committee to initiate this after the upcoming election. I do not think that he can receive a fair shake under the current composition of ArbCom.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  13:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Response to Thryduulf

It seems like what you're proposing is that ArbCom:
 * a) take a look at everything that's happened surrounding Delta; and
 * b) reapply all of the sanctions already applied to Delta

I don't think that they can actually do both, or at least, if they do a good job with 'a', then 'b' won't go down the way you are saying.

Mind you, ArbCom has the technical ability to just unify the sanctions and dismiss the affair, but I'd be disappointed if that's all they were able to do; at the very least some of the current sanctions are obsolete or unwarranted, some of them need tightening or clarification, and a few people need interaction bans from Delta, because a whole lot of drama is stirred up by less than a half dozen users bringing Delta to the boards so often that it's becoming a cry wolf affair.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  17:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Second response to Thryduulf

Oh.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  04:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Reply to the motion and direct comment to the Arbs

A applaud your opening a case on the matter, however I still worry that at least one Arb in particular (who I will choose not to name because it is his responsibility to decide whether or not to recuse) has become too involved and has formed too strong of a negative opinion of Delta, for it to be fair for him to actively participate in the case. Yes, I realize that since this is not Delta's first time being brought before the committee, there is a great deal of prejudicial antagonism floating about, however most of the Arbs have remained publicly neutral, or at least moderate, on Delta issues, while one or two have not.

Secondly, (if you're still listening), I ask you to amend the motion to include a line that explicitly allows Delta to continue to make maintenance edits manually, and in numbers above 25 a day, while this is pending. I fully expect that people will immediately rush to claim wrongdoing the moment he hits 25 edits of any one type, or will rush to say he's gaming the system if he stops below 25 each day, even if he's doing his edits manually. Yes, we can't really prove that he's doing it manually, however we can look at his edit rate for a good indication of, at the very least, whether he's working slow enough to conceivably be working manually and reviewing his edits.

Finally, the motion would nullify the approval of several proposed tasks that have received support, in some cases overwhelming support, at the recent request for authorization thread started by Hammersoft on Delta's behalf. I believe this is your intention, however I wanted to make sure you all knew that some of the tasks were, in fact, supported by the community.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  08:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment towards Delta

Dude, don't blow this chance by flaunting the restrictions imposed by the motion.

Yes, the community has wronged you; yes, ArbCom has wronged you; but this is perhaps the best chance you have for achieving some semblance of normalcy again. If you ignore this whole thing and start making automated edits while the motion is active, not only are you handing a good reason to ban you to the small group of people on the committee that have been seeking it for a while, but you'll lose any semblance of community support you have.

I've had your back, quite vocally, and probably more often than would be good for my reputation, because I genuinely believe that you've been wronged in this affair. To me, it's obvious that you're not innocent, but it's just as obvious that neither are a whole lot of the people that consistently rally against you. I'm telling you now though, that if you blow this &mdash; if you make the choice to ignore this chance &mdash; I will be right with the people calling for you to be banned, just like that. I will know that I tried my very hardest to help you and that you spurned it.

Don't betray the people that are still fighting for you; let this play out. Please.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  08:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment towards John Vandenberg

You were not the admin that I had in mind when I said that there was an Arb on the committee that really ought to recuse himself from this case.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  04:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Response to Crossmr

There's more than enough evidence in that particular RfC alone to play accusation ping pong for days on end. You accuse me of bad faith and uncivil insults, but consider myself very much justified in making the identical claim against you. I, however, carefully avoided naming names in this initial stage of what is increasingly looking like a full blown ArbCom case. Had I done so initially, yours would be the very first name on my list of antagonists in this sad affair.

I also disagree with your characterization of Delta being used as a figurehead, however your comment does give me insight into why you and others responded in that thread in the way that you all did. I was defending a person, you were going after a perceived institution. That we were all operating from fundamentally different perceptions of the situation goes a great deal towards explaining how communication between the sides was so damned hard.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  10:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Second response to Crossmr

I believe that I was justified in the conclusion you quoted. Yes, Delta is a problem user, but no more so than a dozen other problem users that often get brought to AN/I. The difference between him and these other users is twofold. First, by being sanctioned by ArbCom, he instantly became a free target; whereas going after other users without sanctions has a political cost built in, going after Delta does not. Secondly, he is one of the only users to actively patrol what is an immesnely misunderstood and unpopular area, the NFCC. One thing spending time at FfD has shown me is that people don't like having images that they've uploaded get deleted. Even if the deletion is 100% correct the uploader often is bitter, and occasionally goes after the person who listed their upload for deletion. Combine the fact that Delta is doing NFCC patrolling in high volume with the fact that he really dosen't have a tremendous amount of tact, and what you have is a large group of people who are angry with him, revenge-filled even. It's a formula that sets Delta up to fail every time, even in instances where he hasn't done wrong. Once his name hits AN/I, a whole lot of people come out of the woodworks for the wrong reasons. Yes, I acknowledge that in this Delta appears to be the architect of his own demise, but at the same time, he's not being treated fairly by a very, very long shot.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  18:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
For the sake of the community's time and the satisfaction of all parties, I think that a case re-examining:
 * all of Delta's contributions
 * the various restrictions placed on him (including the discussions relating to their interpretation by all parties)
 * the behaviour of those regularly interacting with him with regards to reporting/enforcement of restrictions, etc, and anyone alleged to be (trying to) goad him into breaching restrictions, etc.
 * the behaviour of those regularly speaking/acting for him, on his behalf or advancing what could be described as "pro-Delta" arguments/positions (whether Delta has asked them to or not)

This would be with a view to determining whether any restrictions are currently warranted, and if so what they are, and looking to word them to be as unambiguous as possible.

To put an end to any wikilawyering or uncertainty about intent, relevance, appliccablity, etc, about restrictions, I would encourage the committee upon opening the case to enact a motion superceding all existing restrictions on Delta (wherever, whyever and whenever imposed) and replacing them with a very simple set of restrictions that are not subject to interpretation. I would suggest something like:
 * Delta may not make more than N edits in any X-minute period, by any method, for any reason.
 * Delta may not make any automated or script-assisted edits, by any method, for any reason.
 * Delta may not make any edits, by any method, for any reason, with the sole effect of changing styles, layouts or presentations, whether these are in accordance with the manual of style or not.
 * Delta may not make any edits, by any method, for any reason, that result in no changes to the display of the page, whether these are in accordance with the manual of style or not.
 * Delta may propose edits of this nature on relevant article or project talk pages. They may not be implemented by any party to this case, nor without consensus to do so. Any proposal affecting more than N pages must be linked to from [an appropriate case page].
 * Delta may propose automated tasks at [appropriate page], these must reference specific pages that will be effected. These tasks may not be carried out without consensus, nor may they be carried out by any party to this case. All such proposals must be linked from [an approrpiate case page].
 * No party to this case may propose any tasks/edits on behalf of another party to the case.
 * Delta may not make any edits, by any means, for whatever reason, enforcing the non-free content criteria - i.e. he may not:
 * Delete any image marked for NFCC
 * Delete any image for violating the NFCC
 * Nominate any image for violating the NFCC
 * Discuss the nomination of any potentially unfree image (with the sole exception of images he uploaded)
 * Discuss at deletion review any image deleted for being unfree
 * Inform any user that an image they uploaded is or might be unfree
 * Remove any image from any page for being unfree, potentially unfree, or for violating the NFCC
 * Initiate or contribute to a discussion about whether one or more images on a page (individually or collectively) violate the NFCC.
 * Delta may privately inform a nominated member(s) of the arbitration committee or any other user nominated by the arbitration committee of any image or series of images he feels is unfree or which violates the NFCC (individually or collectively). The informed user may or may not take action (e.g. deletion or nomination of the image) at their discretion. The intent of this being private is to prevent any drama associated with the nomination being linked to Delta. If more than one user is nominated they should communicate to prevent gaming the system or playing one off against the other.
 * Delta may remove redlinks in the article or portal namespaces to images deleted for being unfree or violating the NFCC provided all of the following are true:
 * The image was deleted at least 1 week ago
 * The image was not nominated or deleted by him or any other party to this case
 * There is no ongoing discussion about the image on the talk page, at deletion review, the deleting admin's talk page, the uploader's talk page, or any other page linked from these places.
 * Delta may note on the article/portal and/or project talk page, or an appropriate case talk page, the existence of a redlink that these restrictions do not allow him to remove. This may optionally be by means of an edit request.
 * Each violation of these restrictions will result in a 1-week block of the infringer. Such blocks will be regarded as arbitration enforcement blocks.
 * No party to this case may block or unblock another party to the case for any reason.
 * No party to this case may revert another party to this case for any reason. Clear vandalism may be reported at WP:AIV or another suitable

These are deliberately very stringent restrictions, but they are only proposed to be for the duration of the case. I anticipate that the committee will find that if any restrictions are required on a longer-term basis that they are not this strict, but they are designed to be black and white - either a restriction is violated or it is not (this is why they are so long). Although they are framed above with reference to Delta (or all parties), some or all may be applicable to other parties too. I do not claim these are perfect, nor do I expect the committee to adopt them verbatim, I provide them and my reasoning to express my view. If desired by the committee, I would agree to be a party and/or edit under some or all of these restrictions.

There is the potential for editors to try to prolong the duration of the case to extend the duration of these stringent restrictions, but I would hope the committee would see this as sanctionable disruption.

In response to the comments above calling for any case to be delayed until after an election, I strongly disagree. I do this solely because I think that this would prolong the status quo which neither the 'pro' nor 'anti' Delta sides of the dispute are happy with. Thryduulf (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Sven Manguard
Yes and no:
 * a) Yes, in my opinion everything and everyone involved here needs to be looked at.
 * b) No. I think they should:
 * Throw out the current restrictions
 * Place Delta and other relevant editors under simple but hard, strict temporary restrictions for the duration of the case
 * Examine all the evidence, then either
 * Remove all restrictions;
 * Make the temporary restrictions permanent; or
 * Replace the temporary restrictions with more focused, probably lesser, restrictions with no loopholes that are much better worded than those existing currently.

I personally think that some restrictions on Delta are currently required, and hopefully ones that are less strict than the temporary ones I propose will be necessary. However, until the ongoing drama stops and the evidence can be presented and examined, it is not going to be possible to determine what restrictions (if any) are actually warranted. Unfortunately for Delta, I can only see the drama escalating while he edits in a manner that some, in good faith, see as contrary to his restrictions (regardless of whether they are or not). That some users in good standing acting in good faith believe that Delta's actions are contrary to the restrictions, and other users in good standing acting in good faith believe they are not is more than enough evidence (for me at least) that the restrictions are not fit for purpose (given that their aim is to prevent exactly the kind of situation we are in now), and so retaining/reinstating them would be the worst outcome. Thryduulf (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment to SirFozzie/other arbs re existing approved tasks
Given that it has sometimes been very contentious whether there is consensus for some bot/script/whatever tasks and that at least some of the reason why there is almost certain to be a forthcoming arbitration case is problems about interpretation of restrictions on Delta, I think it very important that all motions be very clear about what is an is not permitted. As such, if the restriction on (semi)-automated edits is not to be total, could I very strongly ask the committee to explicitly list (or explicitly link to an existing list elsewhere) all the tasks that they consider to have community approval. Without this I sadly forsee more drama. Thryduulf (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Crossmr
As I'm often labelled one of his most vocal critics, I guess I should say something. As it was mentioned, Arbcom should look at all his contribs. But they should actually look at everything. His entire wiki-career. This is a user that the community has fought over endlessly. I would recommend Arbcom look at Delta's behaviour over the years and see what's changed, what's remained the same, and look at the communities reaction to it at various times. I know last time around in June/July of this year, I was getting some serious flashbacks to certain behaviour issues that were one of the main problems 3 or 4 years ago. That was telling me then, that despite everything, all the bans, blocks, endless discussion, nothing was really changing on a fundamental level.

Sven is also right that the behaviour of those surrounding this should probably also be examined. Delta doesn't exist in a bubble, and frankly one of the problems in dealing with Delta has been the other users, especially those trying to use him as a figurehead rather than address him as the user he is. Last time around one of the most common arguments from those supporting him was that any attack on Delta was an attack on NFCC, so that meant a blanket support of anything he did. 2-3 years ago an administrator had threatened to go through and block all those who had been support Delta when it was once again shown to be waste of the community's time. Unfortunately he never followed through on that. A few months ago I brought a topic to AN/I regarding Delta's edit warring on NFCC and the first 4-5 (I'd have to check) opposes all came with a heaping side of bad faith and uncivil insults, including from Sven himself.

@Masem: in fact no one asked for what Hammersoft did. People asked Delta to submit a specific task for approval. Hammersoft instead submitted 20 tasks, of an indefinite and open nature individually. 8 of those tasks were added after it was clear that out of the first 12 that had been proposed only 1, which was a bot-like task already covered by a fairly quick bot, had remotely gained any traction. That's why his behaviour was viewed as pointy.--Crossmr (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

@alexandria has the bot been functioning without issue? if so, I wouldn't have a problem with it continuing in it's current scope as is. I'm not an arb member, but as I often disagree with what and how delta does things that should count for something.--Crossmr (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

@Sven you're free to pick apart my contributions if you like. There is a great difference between someone willing to carry the debate and those who cannot do so without resorting to personal attacks, insults and insinuations. There was a time when anyone who raised the slightest objection to anything Delta was doing was met with nothing but those things. As far as communication problems, go back and read the debates. Notice how frequently those supporting Delta were bringing up NFCC and framing their response in the context that Delta somehow represented NFCC. Some of them even flat out said "This is an attack on NFCC". Very few, if any, who were speaking against Delta were speaking against NFCC, it was those defending him that were trying to muddy the issue by creating strawmen based on NFCC. That was why that discussion never got anywhere. If you took out all the people supporting him who couldn't do so without coloring their support as such, he had almost no supporters left. That includes you, did you not write in your opposition to the suggestion to topic ban him from NFCC This is a clear case of people not liking the message, so going after the messanger.? and yet, arbcom stepped in and did just that. Do we continue to have the same drama over NFCC issues? Was the problem really the message or the messenger? Quickly eye-balling that discussion of the first 15 or so opposes I read, almost every single one tried to attack the call to topic ban Delta from NFCC as an attack on NFCC policy. No, you were right. It's entirely appropriate for arbcom to be giving this a thorough look.--Crossmr (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Question by Alexandria
As the case appears to be opening shortly and the user formerly known as Betacommand appears to be restricted as follows: "While this case is open, Δ is directed to cease all large scale editing tasks of 25 edits or more, be they fully or semi-automated. All edits must be fully scrutinized for technical issues before submission." Would this include his bot which does a lot of functions on the WP:SPI page that make our lives as SPI clerks a lot easier. Alexandria  (talk)  15:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Redirects
Can we get some redirects put in place? This case (and subpages) should, imho, be at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Δ or Arbitration/Requests/Case/Δ 3. Even if it stays here, those (and subpages) should be created for clarity, especially for users more familiar with the subject as Δ than as Betacommand. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 11:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Piotrus
I have had little interaction with Beta till few months ago, and I am not overly familiar with the case history. My recent interaction with him, however, have been quite positive. Beta has designed a useful script I asked him to, and was very quick in addressing various issues I raised. Nothing in my interaction with him lead me to suspect any sort of problem. As such, I'd urge ArbCom to consider lifting/refining whatever restrictions Beta has on him, so that he can use his considerable skills in script/bot/etc. designing for the benefit of the project. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 22:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You might want to present this in the Evidence section - Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand_3/Evidence. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom Failure
At direction of Xeno (thread), I am moving this commentary from the evidence page ArbCom has failed to specify what this case is about. According to the motion to bring this case, it was to be "Review of Δ sanctions". As now titled, it's a catch all of anything about Δ. ArbCom brought this case. They need to indicate what they hope to achieve by it. Else any evidence doesn't point necessarily to what is intended.

When will ArbCom correct their gross incompetence?
I ask this question not as an insult, but as intent to demonstrate the failure of this case. The above question is a loaded question. It presumes that ArbCom is grossly incompetent. The creation of this case has done the very same thing with regards to Δ. Without specifying what this case is actually about, ArbCom has created a presumption that Δ is at fault, and we are to provide evidence to that end, leading to a cute little workshop where us worker bees can devise "solutions" and a nice convenient proposed decision page that builds upon this.

The very foundation of this case is fraudulent. NewYorkBrad, in his support of the original motion, recommended one or possibly two arbitrators be hands on drafters. Yet, here we are almost a week into this case and not one arbitrator has stepped forward to do anything on the case. As is, the case is a stillborn miscarriage that has no structure, no intent, no focus, nothing. It's simply slamming Δ into the town stocks and handing out rotten vegetables to everyone. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * My understanding of the purpose of the case is based on this quote:
 * I'm really not happy at the prospect of an arbitration case over this matter, but the fact is that Δ is currently under a complicated mishmash of variously interpreted community sanctions, and is the focus of much dispute around many the edits he does (which are also just as varied and impossible to qualify as a whole). It is not entirely clear either how much of those disputes can be attributed to Δ himself. Untangling this to try to solve the problem will indeed require more than a simple clarification or motion work. — Coren (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * To that end, I have presented evidence that I think is relevant for the purposes of determining how much the disputes can be attributed to Δ and how the existing sanctions could be clarified to prevent future drama. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 19:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a chicken and egg argument. Besides, I'd really like ArbCom input on this. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Procedural note
I've blocked for 60 hours for violation of a previous ArbCom motion, logged here, notified here. Franamax (talk) 03:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The block was expediently overturned.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  04:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this is evidence that the committee needs to use this case to also revisit the wording of the topic ban. It seems obvious to me that Δ is working on NFCC enforcement, just as a police dispatcher is working on law enforcement even if they are not actually out in the field. The situation is another example of Δ's habit of taking an inch of freedom in the wording of a restriction and stretching it into a mile. A key argument I want to make is that the problem is that we have been assuming too much good faith from Δ with the existing restrictions, by assuming that he will not stretch them to the limits, and this is a central reason the problems have not gone away. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Carl's view (based on the consensus – and I don't use that word lightly around here – at AN/I and Delta's talk page) seems to represent a very small minority view.
 * It strikes me that the ArbCom's current remedy and wording actually strike a subtle and valuable balance. From my (admittedly limited) understanding of this case's gory details, the primary issues with Delta/Beta and NFCC were complaints that his approach to enforcement tended to be too rigorously mechanical ("Why didn't you just fix this little thing here for me?!") and that his responses to complaints and criticism (fair and otherwise) at times fell short of Wikipedia's expected standards for open, civil discourse.  By specifically barring Delta from making edits enforcing the NFCC on his own, the ArbCom seems to have neatly resolved both of those problems; it would be other editors whose judgement, flexibility and communication skills would be tested by the community, not Delta's.  The community would be insulated from any perceived deficiencies in Delta's attitude or patience.
 * A further broadening of the remedy without any supporting evidence of harm to the project seems unnecessary and unjustified...and unfair. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think this block and subsequent support for it by some is an abject demonstration of the community's willingness to interpret every sanction to the nth degree looking for any possible way in which to bludgeon Δ. This is the environment the community has created; edit, and we will find a way to interpret your actions as a violation of your sanctions. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem in this case is not the community, it is Δ, who is not acting in good faith when he continues to assist with NFCC enforcement despite his topic ban. This is just the latest example of this from Δ. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 16:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * THERE IS NO TOPIC BAN!!! Thank you for again demonstrating. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No reasonable editor, being in $\delta$'s situation, would continue making lists of articles for NFCC enforcement, giving advice on NFCC issues, etc. The problem is that we have continued to assume that  will take the responsible path and distance himself from areas where his participation causes problems without being required to do so. When he does not take that path on his own, we need to reconsider our assumptions. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 17:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The list generation process at toolserver was in place before was blocked for NFCC enforcement; they would still be generated regardless of that.  Hammersoft already knew of these lists, the note that  left on Hammer's talk page was simply to note a change in the format of the generation of the lists.   has otherwise taken no steps to comment on any specific article or image in regards to this. I'd have to look, but I believe there was even a case where some editor turned to BCD's talk page for help on NFCC but other editors had to step in to explain that  couldn't help out there. I know that I've got 's page watched and try to help NFCC questions that are placed by other users, see  for example. --M ASEM  (t) 17:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * For several days I have had in my provided evidence a different recent example where made a different on-wiki list of images for NFCC enforcement. The actions that led to his recent block are not the only example. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 19:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That is again a way of interpreting it, Carl. Is it a list of images for NFCC enforcement, or is it a list of images which are waiting for OTRS tagging with a tagging date?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The only reason to worry about the OTRS tagging is that the images have a non-free copyright tag. If they had free copyright tags, people would not have worried about the lack of OTRS confirmation. The motivation behind investigating the OTRS tags is to remove the non-free images that OTRS does not confirm. I would call that "NFCC enforcement", just as making a list of images with no copyright tag at all would be "NFCC enforcement". &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 19:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it is not enforcing. It is the person who deletes the images or removes them from display who is enforcing NFCC.  You see, this is exactly why we are here.  One step further is now that  is making a list in his userspace with 26 articles which have the word 'Carl' in the title, you going through all 26 of them, seeing they all have a redlinked image, and you say 'this is a violation of his pattern ban, he is preparing a list of articles which someone else has to clean up for him'.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No reasonable editor, acting in good faith, would post that list of OTRS-tagged images immediately after being topic banned from enforcing NFCC. We would not have to discuss the fine details of what "enforcing" means if was not trying to straddle the edge of the restriction. We need to get to the root of the problem, not to the trivia of what "enforcing" means. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 19:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Carl you are part of the problem, not the solution. There was a request (On AN I think) about the use of OTRS pending templates. I generated a listing of all pages affected and when they where tagged because I had the tools to easily do so. And knowing no similar tool that existed. I did not know if the issue being brought up to ANI was an isolated issue or not, and without the tagging information no one could make any valid statements on the issue. I generated a list of pages that used the said templates (which any user can do) and I also ran a history search on the said pages to find when the template was added. I posted those results to my sandbox. I really didnt see any major abuse of the template, just a few cases where things may have slipped through the cracks, (which goes against the main outcry/fearmongers (for lack of a better term) that was being brought up at AN) I did not post any opinion about that data, rather I just posted a simple link to the relevant data without taking any sides. If I was doing more than generating facts it might be possible to imply NFCC enforcement. But just saying here are the facts about the usage of a given template is not NFCC. Your complete lack of good faith personal attacks and stalking just highlight the issues you have against me and show that you should probably be topic banned from me, as yet again (Ive lost count of the times that this has happened) that you mis-characterize my edits, blatantly miss-report facts and assume bad faith with regards to every edit I make. ΔT The only constant 22:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There is the assumption, Carl. You think that any edit that  is doing is to straddle the edge of a restriction.  It is just where the problem is, there are multiple restrictions, while it can be replaced by one (one restriction that is not in place) " should edit like a normal editor." (whatever that is anyway).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 20:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have tried to explain in a lower section why that sort of change would not be effective. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 22:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Where to respond to Kirill's Workshop questions
Where should interested parties post their responses to the questions that Kirill added to the Workshop page? I could respond in the Evidence page but that would easily exceed the 500 word limit without changing what's already there...--M ASEM (t) 14:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you've replied at on the workshop page, which I believe is standard practice. – xeno talk  14:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I responded at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand_3/Workshop. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Breaking the cycle of codependency
There is a temptation in this case to look at fine details instead of underlying causes of the problem. The separate proposed arbitration case against Rich Farmbrough is very similar. Both cases involve established editors for whom strict sanctions have proved unsuccessful for the same reasons.

The root cause of the problem in both cases is that we have maintained an assumption of good faith for too long. Most editors are able to take feedback from the community and change when they make mistakes, particularly if there are editing sanctions involved. But a few editors do not change their editing even after multiple sanctions are imposed. In the cases of and R.F., these editors have developed a repeated pattern of shrugging off warnings and continuing with the same problematic editing for a period of years.

As a community, we have enabled this behavior: These are classic signs of codependency.
 * We act as if "one more warning" will be enough, when multiple previous warnings have been ineffective.
 * We hope, against all evidence, that the editors will change their editing if the same sanctions were reworded one more time.
 * We blame the problem on other people instead of the editor being sanctioned.

To solve the problem, we need to break this codependency cycle. One more warning and one more small tweak to an edit restriction will not be enough. These editors will just fall back into the same pattern of editing. We need to accept that these few editors' problems are not the community's fault, and stop telling ourselves that we will be able to change them if we just try a little harder.

Short of a full ban, the best option seems to be to impose much firmer sanctions that do not rely on the ability of the editors to modulate their own editing. In the case of this should mean a complete ban on image-related work and on wikignoming. A half-hearted measures that assumes will change his editing voluntarily will just leave us back here in a few months. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 22:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well from my point of view, it looks more like a few users who have issues of their own are constantly attacking other users. I haven't studied 's history in any depth, but the more of it I see, the more he appears a wronged party.  Certainly he dared tackle far more contentious areas than I have, and attracted proportionally more "angry random users".   To me his willingness to go into those areas and stick it out is a cause for commendation.  If there was an issue with the way he dealt with users (which seems to be the root cause of the problems) then there are ways of dealing with that.  Indeed such a solution had been suggested and was being worked on when User:Xeno initiated the previous ArbCom motion, which I didn't follow, but seemed to derail everything back to the standard "sanction and warn" model. Rich Farmbrough, 19:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC).


 * Blaming the problems one person has caused for themselves on the other people around them is a typical sign of codependency. It's that sort of enabling behavior that has brought us back here time and time again. The root cause of the editing restrictions was 's abuse of automated tools (which is also why he was desysoped), along with poor communication. Poor communication was not at all the only problem. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 20:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Page history
This page (the Wikipedia: page not the talk page) looks like it has been cut and pasted. Rich Farmbrough, 19:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC).


 * Some of it has. Why on earth are you asking? AGK   [• ]  12:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Licensing concern perhaps. – xeno talk  15:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Whenever a clerk opens a case, the parties' statements and arbitrators' discussion and votes are copied to the case page, and other statements copied to the talkpage. The request for arbitration is then deleted in its entirety in one edit. Maybe we should link to the original when creating the case pages and associated talkpage in the edit summary, à la MiszaBot? --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To fulfill the licensing concern, the edit summary would simply need to say something like Opening case; statements copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification&oldid=458702346. – xeno talk  18:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is horrendously confusing. It took me about 45 minutes to find something I had posted because it was on a talk page divorced from the content it referred to and had been archived (or deleted, or moved or all three, I forget which). A better solution would be to use sub-pages. Then one presentation would be the request, another the "case".  Also edit history is more important than just licensing, especially around these type of quasi-legal pages where who said what to whom and when can be very important. Rich Farmbrough, 21:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC).


 * You raise an interesting point, and one that needs to be corrected. There are a number of structural issues with how ArbCom cases are handled. This is one of them. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Amendment request: Betacommand 3 (December 2017)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Opabinia regalis at 05:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand_3


 * List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''


 * [diff of notification Δ]


 * Information about amendment request
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand_3
 * This request serves as the appeal referenced in the linked remedy.

Statement by Opabinia regalis
Δ (formerly Betacommand) was banned in the Betacommand 3 case, which closed in February 2012. The decision contained a provision under which he would develop a plan for editing as part of his appeal, and the committee would offer this plan for community review. This ARCA should be considered the community review component of the remedy. The text of Δ's appeal is as follows:

Comments are invited from the community on whether this appeal should be granted and what, if any, restrictions or modifications to the proposed restrictions should be considered. Community members may wish to review the following recent discussions: the "Public Appeal" section on Δ's talk page and this advisory RfC. It is not necessary to repeat details of posts made to the RfC. (Note that Δ has been unblocked to participate in this ARCA only.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Δ
I am going to keep my responses to the point since this section will probably get fairly large.

I have outlined ~6 month editing plan, I don't have my notes handy but I will dig out the details for you. ΔT The only constant 22:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

My planned activities are fairly limited at this point to minor gnoming (fixing issues that I come across), refreshing myself with the culture and policy shifts since I was active. Documenting and addressing issues with the tools currently on the toolforge (aka WMF labs). Examples of future edits: I will be fixing issues like  where google is listed as a publisher when in reality it is University of Manitoba Press,  cases where reflists have too few/many columns, and similar gnomish stuff. ΔT The only constant 01:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I purposely avoided the term simi-automatic because I don't want to get into what is and isn't a "pattern" of edits. I also wanted to have specific, definable rules. In the past claims about simi-auto/pattern edits have left me at a he said/she said argument because the only way to defend against those claims is to have a camera over my shoulder recording my screen as I make every edit. By limiting the wording to automated we set a clearly definable and clear line. If we wanted to specifically call out dis-allowing AWB, that wouldn't be an issue. ΔT The only constant 22:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * For those who want a complete topic ban for both NFC and bot related areas, I see that as overly broad. The issues in the past have been with NFC enforcement edits, not the discussions. Similar point can be made in regards to bots, issues where with the mass editing not the discussions. ΔT The only constant 22:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The proposal was not meant as an exhaustive list of past issues, but rather to acknowledge a few issues that several users brought up that I may not have fully acknowledged to their satisfaction. I left out the elephant in the room, assuming that I was addressing it mostly in the restrictions proposed. Where I was in life in 2011 vs where I am at now is drastically different. By avoiding NFC enforcement I will be eliminating most of the contentious areas, while it will allow me to respond and help users on discussion pages such as MCQ. By prohibiting automated edits I am limiting the bot issue that has been raised. I was assuming that AWB would also be prohibited without actually making that explicit in the proposal. I avoided going into the simi-auto category because it is a very grey area on what is and isnt simi-auto editing. (Depending on your scope of reference tools such as CharInsert or FormWizard, enabled by default, could be considered simi-auto). As I said above the issue also comes into play when proving/disproving accusations. Because of previous restrictions and the issues with those wordings there where debates on what is and isn't considered a pattern. Given a large enough sample size of edits a pattern can be extrapolated. People have asked for evidence that I have changed, without being able to contribute it is difficult to establish said evidence. I have been contributing to non-WMF projects and have been assisting enwiki users off-wiki when my help has been requested (Most recently fixing and getting bibcode bot back in operation) Due to privacy issues I am not going to point to those projects so that evidence is non-admissible. To put things bluntly and to try to keep things simple: I know I fucked up in the past, I have made some bad decisions and now I need to overcome those.


 * There have been several request for me to list my socks, looking at what notes I have the two accounts that I have used to edit enwiki since Betacommand 3 are  and . I do currently have an account that I use for read only access to enwiki, so that I can use the watchlist feature, do some exports and occasionally view the source of a page to copy or for technical reasons. I use that account to avoid triggering the autoblock feature which just causes issues. That account has zero edits to enwiki.
 * 02:30, 20 November 2017‎ User:Δ (omitted signature added by Anthony Appleyard (talk) at 08:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC))

Question by Alanscottwalker
The above Appeal speaks of a previously outlined "limited editing plan", would the committee or clerk please explicitly append that to the above Appeal, for clarity sake? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * the banning policy requires Arbitration bans to be appealed to the committee. That is the standard procedure, it does NOT have arbitration bans appealed to the community.  The only wrinkle here is that the adopted appeal remedy has an extra step of presenting the appeal for community comment (I gather because there was much controversy). Under current policy, the arbitration committee cannot convert an Arbitration ban into a community ban, as you argue. The committee can lift the Arbitration ban or limit the Arbitration Ban.  The community will have to enact its own ban, if it wants a community ban and a community appeal, as you request. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * No. By Community policy, it is explicitly not "up to the community," (at least not that part of the Community that is not the Committee).  By Community Consensus as addressed in policy, an Arbitration Ban is committed to the the Committee to decide, to impose and to lift (not the general community) -- it fell to the Committee precisely because the rest of Community could not/did not/would not settle the matter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, no, I read it fundamentally differently, as I said above -- all that provision is, is that the committee will take public comment on the appeal/modification, when it is made - that is the reading that accords with policy -- they will then make their decision but if the public comment offers nothing useful or partially useful (or just muddled statements), they can like any committee ignore it -- the only difference here is, unlike other times, where the committee does not take public comment prior to making their decision. I think there are pros and cons to taking public comment in this manner at all, but as a committee they are certainly free to do so, and it is exactly like comments from Users at any other arbitration page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Statement
 * For what it's worth, I am uninvolved, but this whole thing (not at all from 2011) is - trying not to over-state - wiki-horrifying. The lack of conscience displayed there by "" is not just a wholly nasty/underhanded attack on a single User (Dingley), but everyone who had the misfortune to fall into that conversation became compromised -- more importantly, the very basis for every other good-faith user working together (all of us) is shredded there, and there is only one User to blame, Werieth.  Good luck to the committee . . . grouping for words that convey any conclusion, all I came up with was, nonplussed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Andy Dingley
I oppose this unbanning. Although seemingly not mentioned here, was another highly active sock in 2013–2014. I encountered them then, and found them so problematic just of themself that it went to ANI. It soon became obvious that they were also a Betacommand sock. A variety of ANI ructions ensued,, User_talk:Andy_Dingley/Archive_5, User talk:Arnhem 96, User_talk:Andy_Dingley/Archive_5 et al. This ended with me blocked for refusing to accept Werieth as a gf editor (I thought they warranted indef blocking for their own attitude, let alone the obvious socking), and a group of admins who clearly supported Betacommand so much that they were happy to proceed on this basis. My blocking admin sought an indef block of me and described me later as 'I consider you to be de facto banned'. When Werieth was finally blocked as a sock it still took appreciable time before I was most begrudgingly unblocked as the issue was now 'moot' (i.e. they'd still been right to block me), rather than any sort of apology for actually having been right all along.

There is no discussion in this unban request of Betacommand's support amongst this handful of admins. If they were blocking other editors to support him when he was blocked, what are they going to get up to if he's restored?

I also question the GF of an unban request that can't even acknowledge their past socks.

Betacommand is too toxic an editor to be let back. There is no evidence that they have changed their behaviour. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Headbomb raises ROPE in the comment below. But who will Betacommand's supporting admins want to hang with it? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Headbomb
The plan is sound, curtails the past problematic behaviour, and my interactions with Betacommand/&Delta; in the past years have all been very positive and productive. Give him the WP:ROPE, he'll be under plenty of scrutiny from the community. It's a rather easy thing to re-block if he misbehaves again. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Addendum, I'd like to add I'm entirely fine with and supportive of the 'MASEM restrictions' below, so to speak. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Fram
Oppose unban, for all reasons outlined at the advisory RfC recently, and for this unsatisfactory unban plan. "I have made mistakes in the past (CIVIL, socking)" And, umm, the actual reasons you were banned in the first place? The problems didn't arise out of the socking or out of incivility, it was the actual editing that was too often the problem. Plus what Andy Dingley said; an unban plan should at least list the socks, not just some vague "I have socked" statement. Fram (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * "Where I was in life in 2011 vs where I am at now is drastically different." The problems (we know off) ended in 2014, not 2011. Fram (talk) 09:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
Andy Dingley's statement summed this up very succinctly for me: "Betacommand is too toxic an editor to be let back. There is no evidence that they have changed their behaviour." Those of us who lived through the years of ongoing drama caused by Beta won't soon forget the turmoil they caused. No person is completely irredeemable, but the worse the editor was, the more they flipped off the community, the higher the bar is for their return, and I cannot think of many banned editors for whom the bar is higher than it is for Beta. I think we would require much more in the way of assurances and protective restrictions then are provided for here to allow Beta to even dip his toe into editing again. Further, the idea that an unblock plan which includes Beta's being allowed to use bots (even delayed for 6 months) is one that will pass community muster is totally unrealistic, considering it was bot editing that was at the root of Beta's problems. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Masem
Support the unblock request, though I would also suggest the plan include the use of semi-automated tools (AWB, etc.) among the six-month ban on bot use. Beta's identified the two big areas that caused the problems in the past - NFC enforcement, and bot tools. Nearly all the problems related to behavior was related how editors confronted Beta about these actions and Beta's inappropriate responses. Keep Beta out of NFC and automated editing and that takes away 90% of the problem. The rest has to deal about editors with grudges against Beta (which can be seen above already), and we should expect that Beta should be civil in face of hostility (though taking cues from how the current sanctions regarding interactions for TheRamblingMan should be taken, so that editors are not purposely taunting Beta into mis-action). --M ASEM (t) 20:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph
I support the unblock request and I would support Masem's restrictions as well. I am sure that if you unblock, there will be editors with sharp eyes ready to pounce if there is a CIVIL or NPA or BOT violation. As such, I think the risk to the encyclopedia is manageable versus the potential. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Iridescent
I know Arbcom say they don't want material from the RFC being repeated here, but I'm going to regardless: I don't believe he even understands he was so disruptive, let alone any kind of indication that he won't go back to his old habits at the first chance. Why are we even entertaining an unblock request when he's lying in the unblock request about why he was blocked? The absolute minimum I'd be willing to accept to even consider shifting my position from "keep banned forever" is a total and permanent (no "after six months" or anything else of the sort) ban on automation, anything to do with copyright and anything to do with deletion, and even then I'd be reluctant. Wikipedia's willingness to give second chances is laudable; when it comes to a sixteenth chance (or whatever we're up to now) for someone who every single time they're given another "final chance" immediately goes back to what they were doing before, less so.

Statement by CBM
I'd like to refer to a longer comment I wrote to Arbcom in 2011 about codependency, which is still completely relevant. The cause of the editing restrictions, arbitration case, and ban was not violations of CIVIL nor the use of sockpuppets (although those are also issues). The cause was the inappropriate use of automated edits over a period of years, often related to NFC, and a refusal to change or stop those edits in light of repeated feedback.

Nothing in the wording of the appeal suggests that a different pattern would emerge if Δ were allowed to return to editing. Indeed, I don't see any strong reason why he should be allowed to return.

However, if there is a desire for yet another chance, it should involve a complete recusal from all aspects of NFC on wiki (no discussing NFC in any on-wiki forum, including his talk page, no assisting with others who do NFC maintenance - a complete recusal). And there should be a complete recusal from all bot-related activity for the indefinite future, with no schedule for ever becoming a bot operator. The appeal as written is an appeal to continue the cycle of codependency which was only finally broken by a complete ban from the wiki. Nevertheless, if the ban is lifted, I fear that we will again see Δ either ignore or game his restrictions, rather than to take them to heart and avoid any possible appearance of breaking them. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 21:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Responding to the question by Newyorkbrad: if the committee is dead-set on allowing Δ to return (which I think would be a mistake), the key issue to consider is that Δ has never shown an interest in moderating his own edits. There is no chance he will be productive in NFC or bot related areas, and a complete and total prohibition from these would be essential (i.e. a hard edit limit in terms of pages per minute, no discussion of bots or NFC on any page, and no NFC enforcement in any namespace, indefinitely). The pattern in the past has always been to ignore restrictions as much as possible, and to game them or claim they were too vague when they could not be completely ignored. Unfortunately, in the current appeal Δ still seems to claim that the issue was with vague restrictions rather than with him not making an attempt to keep within the restrictions he was given. Similar editing behavior should be expected if he is unbanned. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 00:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Responding to several arbitrators' comments: if this appeal is declined, I hope you will consider setting a fixed time period before the next appeal can be made. As Mkdw writes, this process has required significant time and effort from the community. While everyone should have the ability to appeal, frequent appeals are not likely to help anything, but they take up even more time and energy, and cause even more frustration for everyone involved. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 10:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Looking at history, if &Delta; were unblocked, a re-block would have to go through several lengthy ANI/AN discussions, which would drain even more energy from the community. Somehow, the theoretical principle that "re-blocks are easy" runs into practical challenges with bot operators compared to graffiti vandals. There is a close analogy to the problems with re-blocking chronically incivil editors, I think. The reason that several bot-related cases have made it all the way to arbcom is because they are not always easy to resolve with ordinary blocks. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 15:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by OID
Per the above two comments. To be more explicit about Andy Dingley's comment above, Betacommand has been overtly and covertly protected/supported by members of the admin corps. Even if he did return, at some point he will cause problems, and then editors like Dingley will end up paying the price again. I cant see a future where his coming back ends well for anyone. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Davey2010
I don't believe I was on or atleast around when all of this occurred or ended however looking through the various cases I have to agree with Andy "Betacommand is too toxic an editor to be let back. There is no evidence that they have changed their behaviour.", I'm all for second chances and they may well be a reformed character however judging by the amount of crap they caused I honestly don't see any net positive in unbanning them, However as I said I wasn't all that around so I don't know as much as those above but from my reading of it all I don't see any positives in unbanning them, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 23:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Carrite
This was an enormously problematic editor. The way to minimize problems is to minimize enormously problematic editors. There are plenty of other Wiki projects for them to volunteer at, they don't need to be here. Carrite (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Dennis Brown
Per and, the whole circumstance is such I can't support. I can understand why some might feel Beta is getting special handling here, and it does look that way to me. No unblock statement should be accepted that doesn't first acknowledge the original and ongoing reasons it has been kept in place. This just has the odor of backroom discussions to me. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Ealdgyth
I'm not seeing here where Δ is actually addressing the issues which they were banned for in Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3. Specifically - they willfully violated the terms of their community imposed sanctions. They "often performed tasks without approval from the community", "often saved edits without reviewing them for problems", and "often performed tasks at edit-rates exceeding four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time". To be fair, this appeal does mention the incivility problems, but it doesn't really address how Δ plans to improve that issue. The other three problems are not addressed at all. I'm not seeing any explicit recognition that they tried to deceive the community with the Werieth account. And allowing them to participate in NFCC discussions is just plain insane. As for the possibility of running a bot account - no. Just no. It would take years to get the community trust back enough to allow them automated editing. And I'm not seeing how this appeal is actually any improvement on gaining the trust back, given the problems that are swept under the rug that I've listed above.

And these are just the problems with this appeal from the third and final ArbCom case, it doesn't even begin to delve into the problems ignored from the community ban discussions (for both Δ and Werieth) as well as the two earlier ArbCom cases. (And as a freaking aside - why in HADES do we allow user accounts with symbols? It's a royal pain in the ass to have to either type the unicode, type the wild keyboard equivalent, or copy-paste some character just to be polite and address the user by their current account "name". I wonder if Δ's use of the symbol is not some unconscious "finger in the eye" to the community as well...)

And Δ's own statements above do not help the matter. "For those who want a complete topic ban for both NFC and bot related areas, I see that as overly broad. The issues in the past have been with NFC enforcement edits, not the discussions. Similar point can be made in regards to bots, issues where with the mass editing not the discussions." Uh, no. There WERE problems with the discussion style - see the findings of fact 2.2 from Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3. Yes, I do think a "broad" topic ban as a good idea. Yes, I think it should be permanent. Δ - you still do not see how out of touch your ideas of your own editing is with community norms. Until you can learn to listen to what the community is telling you, you will keep having issues. Learn to edit without bots or automation. Learn to accept the fact that your own self-evaluation is not how the community sees your editing and that you need to change how you behave. All I see from this set of suggestions is that you want to return to editing the way you were before you were banned. That isnt' going to fly with the community and you need to internalize and accept that before you have a hope of re-earning the community's trust.

Statement by Ivanvector
No comment on the unblock request.

I request that the Committee rescind remedy 3 of the Betacommand case, and permit Δ to submit future unblock requests per the usual community processes as generally defined in the banning policy. The remedy as stated shrouds the process behind the veil of Arbcom, which can make it seem to the community that the Committee is failing to respond to unblock requests when in fact none was submitted, and which led very recently to an embarrassing circus of an RfC featuring a number of long-tenured and well-respected members of the community behaving like petulant children. That should not be allowed to happen again. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I realize that. Still, Arbcom should not be creating situations like this where ban appeals from some users have to be submitted in some prescribed format which differs from policy and varies from case to case: it creates unnecessary confusion and leads to the sort of conflict we saw a month or so ago. There is precedent for Arbcom doing whatever it feels appropriate in any situation, which has left a long history of various users being banned with a whole spectrum of different and sometimes unusual conditions; I made a list in the RfC to illustrate that problem. In this case in particular, the condition that Arbcom has to green-light an appeal before it goes to the community anyway just seems like unnecessary red tape: it's ultimately up to the community anyway. Arbcom should either lift the ban or not, or else step away and leave this for the community to deal with, and I don't see any reason in this case why the community is incapable of doing so. Arbitrators are supposed to be, well, arbitrators, not prison wardens. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

you're right about all that, except for the "not up to the community" part. Remedy 3 states, in part: I read this as indication that the Committee intends not to act without the community's endorsement, thus this is an arbitration ban in name only, and functionally a community ban. If it's not up to the community, then what is this ARCA? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to comment. I do think it would be a good idea for the Committee to establish something like a "standard provision" for arbitration bans, which simply refers to the appeal process in the banning policy (including revising that policy, if necessary). Ideally this would also allow for revisions to those processes to apply retroactively (say if we brought back BASC, or something) so that we don't have "old" cases like this one hanging on to an outdated process. Adding extra language about community input (or about whatever) breeds the sort of confusion evident here: did Δ submit an appeal? did it meet the prescribed format? what is the prescribed format? et cetera. I don't really see any reason why all arbitration bans and appeals can't be handled through a common process, I suppose excepting cases involving private info, but even in those cases the Committee has always been pretty good with transparency within appropriate limits. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish
I edit-conflicted with Ivanvector, who said it better than I did and with whom I concur completely (other than I lean toward favoring some kind of loosening of the restrictions, per WP:ROPE – perhaps a provisional unban with a prohibition against automated and maybe semi-automated edits), so I won't re-state essentially the same stuff in other wording. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  22:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Nyttend
I don't believe that unblocking with restrictions would be appropriate. If I remember rightly (and based on what others have said), most of Betacommand's blocks have arisen from restrictions that were imposed on him. Whether he's persistently violated those restrictions, or whether his opponents have persistently gotten rid of him through specious complaints, I can't say (I've not looked into it at all), but permitting Betacommand to edit with restrictions virtually guarantees that we're going to have yet more disputes over his editing restrictions. If he can be trusted to edit properly, drop the restrictions; if he can't be trusted to edit properly, leave him banned. Nyttend backup (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Legacypac
This editor has been blocked for many years - a punishment that exceeds the crime. He means well, has continued to he helpful, and I've got enough AGF to believe people can grow in maturity and wisdom in 5 years. Legacypac (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Cullen328
I read a lot of material going back years which refreshed my memory and I strongly oppose allowing this person to return to editing. I have many reasons but one sticks in my mind. This person blatantly and flagrantly lied to the community about their Werieth socking. Had they told the truth when asked, Andy Dingley would not have been blocked. I see not a shred of contrition and I can never trust a person who lies like that without a detailed acknowledgement of past misconduct and a sincere pledge to avoid all past problem areas. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Softlavender
Editor (A) demonstrably cannot be trusted, and (B) is highly toxic and disruptive. Under no circumstances should ArbCom unban the editor. If the editor still insists on somehow appealing the ban, if push comes to shove it should only be put to the community at large. But ideally the request should just be shut down. No matter how much good an editor may have done at their best, if the mountain of evidence proves they are by far a net negative and cannot be trusted, the answer has got to be no, for the sake of the encyclopedia and for the sake of the community and its individual editors. Softlavender (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by LindsayH
I believe in the possibility of people changing as much as anyone; i also, however, find it hard to believe that, in the absence of evidence, this editor has changed. Legacypac has it wrong: This block is not a punishment, but a way of preventing further turmoil and damage; there is no reason to believe that that turmoil will not continue if Betacommand is unblocked. Andy Dingley says it succinctly and best: A toxic editor should not be allowed here ~ at least until he shows some signs of understanding and accepting the behaviour that led him here; the misleading, at best, request is not such a sign. Happy days, LindsayHello 10:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by David Eppstein
The unblock request shows no recognition of, contrition for, nor promise to avoid repeating some of the most problematic behaviors that ended with this block, including both abuse of automation and deception leading to the unfair block and almost-ban of another productive editor. Unless these issues are addressed I think an unblock is premature. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Serialjoepsycho
There seems to be here only what I can term as a conspiracy theory. The notion that there is some cabal of admins have misused their position of trust to protect this user. This should be ignored in regards to whether to unban him or not. If this is true then a separate case at the appropriate location should be opened to review the facts pertaining to these admins actions and where applicable remove them from this position of trust.

I don't find it unreasonable to ask Δ to further address their actions beyond a generic comment such as I have made mistakes in the past (CIVIL, socking). In addition some of the addendum's suggested such as as the prohibition of using certain specialized semi-automated tools like AWB that provided any bot like behavior that would allow him to do any disruptive action is a similar nature o their prior bot related disruption. I have to say no at this time without the above.

In principle I can support unbanning this user. In the end they can always be banned again. This is from 2012. I question what it would take from those who have said no to unban his user?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re Δ)
Having refreshed my memory about why Δ was banned, I firmly oppose unblocking based on the current plan. As others have also noted, there is no acknowledgement of the relatively recent socking, no list of socks, no acknowledgement of the disruption caused, no acknowledgement about the fundamental reasons for that behaviour, no demonstration of how they have changed and how they will avoid causing further disruption, and no reason why he should be trusted this time after betraying that trust so many times previously. Thryduulf (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Mendaliv
The remedy in Betacommand 3 requires Betacommand not only submit a "plan outlining his intended editing activity", but that he should also "demonstrat[e] his understanding of and intention to refrain from the actions which resulted in his ban". It appears that Betacommand is supposed to demonstrate this in the context of presenting the plan to the community.

Like the others, I'm not wowed by Betacommand's compliance with this latter portion, though I somewhat understand why it is so brief. I believe the intent of this ARCA is to submit the plan outlining intended editing activity so it can be fairly evaluated separately from concerns as to how repentant Betacommand is. Dealing with it all at once would likely result in almost no focus on the intended editing activity. As this discussion has progressed, it's clear that had Betacommand focused more on the conduct that resulted in his ban, we would not be talking at all about the plan.

From my perspective, I think this is a decent enough plan, though I would agree with others who say semi-automated editing as with AWB should be off the table along with fully automated editing. And of course, Betacommand should comply with the portion of the Betacommand 3 remedy requiring him to "demonstrat[e] his understanding of and intention to refrain from the actions which resulted in his ban". —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 00:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Od Mishehu
I'm generally against usernames which can't be typed on a standard English-language keyboard on English Wikipedia. In the case of a user who has caused a significant amount of trouble in the past (in fact, this user has his own section of WP:AN as a centralized location for discussions about him), I believe that changing his username should be an absolute requirement. If the user is willing to do this, I would support allowing the user to re-enter the Wikipedia community gradually - and the proposed restrictions (including specific semi-automated tools, such as AWB) look like a good start.

Statement by Paul August
Simply put no.

I urge anyone who is inclined to give Betacommand another (4th, 5th?) chance please read:


 * Requests for arbitration/Betacommand
 * Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3

As the arb who wrote the first of these decisions, and who has been an interested observer of the subsequent two, based on my intimate knowledge of Betacopmmand’s past actions, I can say with confidence that granting this request would be an extremely bad idea.

I see no evidence (certainly not in this request) that Betacommand understands what the problems are, nor do I believe, that Betacommand has the ability to understand them. Betacommand’s one-size-fits-all approach, and predilection for bot-aided-mass-edits is inherently problematic. Betacommand’s inability to communicate, would only compound the inevitable problems such edits entail.

Paul August &#9742; 16:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * To those who seem to want to continue to give Betacommand still more chances in the future, please consider that this appeal has resulted in a considerable expenditure of dozens of editor's time. We should do something to avoid future such occurrences. At some point Betacommand's ban should be permanant, fool us once shame on you, fool us five or six or ... shame on us. Paul August &#9742; 15:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by jtrainor
No.

This is clearly just another attempt by Beta to return to abusive bot usage.

And on another note, someone needs to force rename his account to something that isn't completely impossible to type on mobile. Jtrainor (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite
Oddly, I think the pitchforks and torches above are actually the best reason to unblock - simply put, Beta would be watched like a hawk by dozens of editors keen to see him banned again. I see that as a no-lose situation, frankly. Black Kite (talk) 14:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by PGWG
I would support this unblock request - it's been 3+ years since the last socking, significantly longer since the original block, and we all change. If this is just a ploy or attempt to game the system, that'll be quickly identified and I see no shortage of people willing, if not eager, to pull the trigger. PGWG (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by TonyBallioni
Please do not add more bot drama to the encyclopedia. Most editors simply do not care about bots or bot policy. If I am aware of a bot issue it is a sign that something has gone very badly wrong because I think along with Wikidata, it is the most boring area on Wikipedia and do my absolute best to stay away from it. We have the editor who is known for running the most controversial bot in Wikipedia's history. Do we really think that they are not going to try to get involved with bot policy and do we really think that their involvement there will be a net-positive to the encyclopedia, even if they don't run a bot themselves? Please save us the drama of more automation conflict. I strongly oppose this unban. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by 😂
We absolutely should unban Δ. It was a net loss to the community to ban him from the get go, and he's been blocked for far more than a sufficient time (per Legacypac). FACE WITH TEARS OF JOY [u+1F602]  17:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Acalamari
Quite a few of the comments in opposition to the unbanning of Δ are bordering on or, if not, outright personal attacks. We get it: Δ is banned and quite a few people don't like him but neither of those are a free pass to insult him and malign his character. I don't care if he allegedly caused "years of disruption" - Δ is still a human being and last I checked, no personal attacks is still a policy. Commenting on his actions is absolutely valid criticism but to continually refer to him as "toxic" and to call him other names isn't acceptable.

And please, please, *please* call him Δ. To continually refer to someone by a name they have long since abandoned is offensive and disrespectful; again, a person being unpopular is not a free pass to be disrespectful to them. It doesn't matter if his name can't easily be typed - there's such a thing as cut and paste or you can use "Delta". Acalamari 12:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Begoon
No, please don't unblock Beta. The RFC clearly indicates community opinion. -- Begoon 12:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Lankiveil
I actually believe that Δ means to be constructive if allowed to return, but from what I see there is still a lack of understanding there about how they got into trouble in the first place. The first step to avoid repeating your mistakes is to understand them. I'm not seeing a deep enough understanding there on the part of Δ to stop themselves from getting into difficulty again. I do not recommend an unblock at this time.

If allowed back under some form of restricted access, I think it is imperative that we put forward a condition that any blocks of Δ (or whatever account they end up using) should only be appealable to Arbcom, rather than to the drama boards. The whole situation with them in the past was dragged out for far longer than it needed to be due to a small group of admins who were happy to cover for them and drag the drama out for as long as possible. Such a condition would prevent a re-run of those unfortunate events, while still giving Δ some protection against heavy handed blocks for minor infractions. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC).

Statement by Beetstra
Definitely unban. It has been long enough. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Betacommand 3: Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).


 * In accordance with the majority decision of the Committee, the clerks have been directed to close this request as unsuccessful. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 20:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Betacommand 3: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * For this decision there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 2 (DeltaQuad and Kelapstick) who are inactive, so 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.


 * - I think we see it the same way as Alanscottwalker. The terms of the Arbcom decision require community input before any action to modify the ban. The ultimate decision on any modification remains up to the Committee. That said, I can't imagine we would simply ignore an obvious community consensus - and if we did, there'd need to be some solid public explanation. Unrelated point - I do kind of agree with Ivanvector's point about avoiding different regimes for different bans, which is something to avoid in future case outcomes. However in this instance we've been reasonably transparent - as I noted at the RfC, we received a perfunctory appeal in 2015, which didn't contain an editing plan. We didn't receive any appeal in 2016, and here we are in public with the 2017 one. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Euryalus about the structure of the remedy, and with Ivanvector that it hasn't really proved itself very practical. But there isn't really a "shroud of arbcom" here, nor do I think there's been bad faith among people who believed we were stalling or said as much on-wiki; just a case of miscommunication and the telephone game. Now that we're here, I would like to encourage comments to focus on things Δ is actually personally responsible for, not on bad decisions made by others in the course of interacting with him. Also, for the record, we've looked and found no current socking. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The answer seems very clear to me. Mkdw  talk 04:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There is sizeable consensus that there is not a desire to unblock Δ. This has been an extensive an unblock appeal ARCA and the whole point was to elicit feedback from the community. Any outcome other than decline at this point would be undermine the process. While this process does consume quite a bit of time and effort on the part of the community, it was effective in delivering a definitive answer. I think a similar process or following the unban policy would both be suitable solutions should there be another future appeal. Mkdw  talk 04:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would also like to add that any future appeal will almost certainly need to address this ARCA and the comments from the community. Mkdw  talk 18:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I am reviewing the noticeboard thread and statements above. If there is anything else to be said, commenters should focus on whether or not Δ is likely to contribute productively if unbanned and what restrictions, if any, would maximize the odds. There has been a bit too much focus on procedure leading up to this request&mdash;the requirement that Δ submit a plan in connection with any appeal was really just a fleshing out of what the committee and the community would expect from any banned or indefblocked user seeking to return: an explanation of how or she would edit, and what he or should would do differently so as to avoid the problems of the past. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not see a good reason to unblock. The "plan" is all too short and perfunctory; sure, one can have stuff on one's plate, but if that's the case and it prevents a solid plan as required years ago, then one is maybe not ready. This is not a community unban process, of course, but ArbCom would be a fool not to take the community seriously. In other words, I do not see enough "what he or she would do differently". Drmies (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems to me consensus opposes an unban - barring any sudden turnaround in the next couple of days I think we should wrap this up as declined.. make a good point about whether future ban appeals should be via the unban policy rather than appeal to Arbcom; I'd be interested in other views on this as a matter of transparency. I think this discussion has been a useful process, and at the very least, it should be a precedent for future committees to consult with the community as a first step in a Δ unban request. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd suggest the standard twelve months. I can imagine (and sympathise with) Δ's frustration - for most editors this would have been a perfectly reasonable unblock request; but in this instance the community still doesn't have the requisite level of trust. Unsurprising, given the second, third, fourth, fifth chances already granted and abused; but frustrating nonetheless. The only advice I can give to Δ is to give it more time; and/or to show some bona fides through assiduous and error-free work on a related project. I'd also reiterate the point made above, but for some reason not universally acknowledged, that the period since the last breach of trust is 2014 (Werieth), not 2011 (Δ). If the Werieth saga had not occurred, we might have seen a different result in this ARCA. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging outstanding arb votes - this has been open for more than 2 weeks (and the RfC for a while before that). Discussion seems to have ended, so when you have a moment let's wrap it up with more closing yeas or nays. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The consensus clearly appears to be that we should not unblock, and I see no reason not to accept that view.  DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally I feel that unbanning would be swiftly followed by a block if problematic editing recurred. However, there is a consensus not to unblock, which I will abide by - hence decline Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we should support the consensus and not unblock. There would be no point in asking the community's opinion and then ignoring it. Doug Weller  talk 15:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As a practical matter, returning editors have to be able to work with the community as it exists, and there's a lot of people here who obviously do not want to work with Δ under the terms he proposed. Time to wrap this up as a decline, and with the advice that a future appeal should contain much more detail about past problems and how to avoid them. (IMO omitting any mention of the Werieth incident in the original appeal was a misjudgment.) I'd suggest working on another project and demonstrating improved collaborative ability, but I admit that successful work on wikidata may not convince some of the opposers :) Still, it seems like a good fit for Δ's style. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I am generally more willing to unblock where there is a good chance that the editor will be able to edit constructively including with conditions, partially because reblocks are cheap. As OR says an unblocked editor needs to be able to work with the community and it is clear from community comments in this request that the community doesn't feel able to work with Δ under the current terms proposed. For that reason, I decline this request echoing the advice OR gave for a future appeal above (briefly, I agree that 12 months is a reasonable period before another appeal). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)