Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3/Proposed decision

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: AlexandrDmitri (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Kirill Lokshin (Talk) & Elen of the Roads (Talk)

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Arbitrators active on this case

Active:

1. AGK
2. Casliber
3. Coren
4. Courcelles
5. David Fuchs
6. Elen of the Roads
7. Jclemens
8. John Vandenberg
9. Kirill Lokshin
10. Mailer diablo
11. Newyorkbrad
12. PhilKnight
13. Risker
14. Roger Davies
15. SilkTork
16. SirFozzie

Inactive:

1. Cool Hand Luke
2. Xeno

Recused

1. Hersfold

Is there going to be any movement on this

Excuse me for being blunt, but the proposed decision date has already passed, and there hasn't been any movement at all on the proposed decision page. Now I know that most of your discussion takes place where no one can see it, but I worry that this case might not get closed out by the time that the ArbCom changeover takes place, and that this is percisely the kind of mess that shouldn't be handled over the course of two terms.

Finally, while I'm not accusing anyone of doing this, if action on this is being delayed because it might affect the ongoing elections, I'd like to say that such behavior would be extremely inappropriate. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Elen and I are not running this year (we're both on the first year of our terms), so that's not it. We've both been in contact with Kirill during this case. The last time we talked he had a few more questions for the parties he was working on to clarify some areas where we weren't sure whether to address certain behaviors in the decision or not in the decision. However, I don't think it will be too much longer until you see some Arbitrator proposals in the workshop, and then a proposed decision shortly afterwards. I apologize that we didn't hit our proposed date (and that we didn't change it sooner to reflect this fact), but to mangle a certain comedy bit, while we're not there yet, it's just a little bit further. SirFozzie (talk) 05:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I haven't been sitting still on this - I've had sciatica, so I can't actually sit still anyway. If Kiril has finished, we intend to workshop the pd onwiki as far as possible, so people will see what's going on. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The cynic in me, as mentioned above, thought that ArbCom was deliberately dragging its heels on this in order to not influence the election. Now that the election is over, are we going to start to see some action on this? Soon? Sven Manguard Wha? 02:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

"For this case, there are 14 active arbitrators, not counting 2 who are inactive, so 8 support votes are a majority."

According to "Majority reference" table: 1–2 (Abstentions) result in 7 (Support votes needed for majority) Bulwersator (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Slight misread there. There are 14 active arbs (so 8 is a majority) and 2 inactive arbs (total of 16) SirFozzie (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. What is meant is that there are 16 arbs in total, of which 2 inactive and 14 active. To get the majority calculation (14/2)+1=8. After that, if there are any abstentions amongst the active arbs on any elements, that gets factored in on those items. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Community sanctions confirmed although they failed?

I think there's a bit of cognitive dissonance in holding those positions simultaneously. I think it's fine to say that the sanctions were grounded in real concerns, but on the other hand the whole pattern identification business turned out impractical when participants in the drama couldn't agree that a script-generated sequence of edits was a pattern. The restrictions while well-meaning didn't work as intended. So, it makes little sense for ArbCom to confirm or "take[s] possession" of them as-is. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Kirill's principles on the Workshop page led that barring external factors, the community decision on sanctions for individual editors generally holds sway, and that barring cases of (let's say) manifest injustice, ArbCom will generally respect the indication of the community. If the specific sanctions aren't working, then one course would be for ArbCom to take direct ownership of them and implement an AE regime; alternatively they can recognize the existing sanctions and also impose more restrictive conditions. Or I suppose they could substitute a restrictive sanction similar in intent and severity but different in terms, but I've not seen that yet in the PD. Franamax (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand_3/Proposed_decision#Betacommand_restricted appears similar in intent to the community ones. Given the number of administrators involved in the previous disagreement over what is a pattern, I doubt that moving the discussion to WP:AE will make any difference in outcomes unless the restrictions are much more straightforward to interpret. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Alternative remedy suggestion

Picking up on the comment by Courcelles, one possible alternative remedy would be to ban Betacommand from everything except running automated tasks via a flagged bot account approved by the Bot Approvals Group. He would be permitted to edit from his main account only on talk pages or noticeboards and only to discuss his bot operations (with an exception for his or his bots' userspace). Any other edits would have to come through his bots, and must be approved tasks. This would allow, for example, User:Δbot to continue clerking the SPI venue (I've heard no complaints as to his operations there). –xeno^talk 13:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

What usually happens to the bot account of a banned user? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, alternate accounts of banned users are typically blocked to enforce the ban (bot accounts being a subset). Even if they were not, a user who was banned could not reasonably continue operating a bot because they need to be able to respond to queries about their bot operations. –xeno^talk 14:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

They could respond elsewhere than on-wiki (a separate wiki, email, blog, forum, website for starters). They might be allowed to edit their own talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 15:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC).

Given the main focus of Δ's edits, I think this is a pretty reasonable solution. However, I don't think a total ban on mainspace edits from his main account is needed. Perhaps something less restrictive but easy to enforce, like he may not edit more than one article per day with his main/non-bot account could be allowed. (Something similar was proposed in the workshop.) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't really seen any indication that Betacommand is interested in editing the mainspace except via pattern-based editing, but I'll leave that question to the active arbitrators. –xeno^talk 14:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I would be interested in hearing from Betacommand on the possibility of prohibiting him from any form of automated or scripted editing, except within the approved-bot paradigm. I'll ping his talk page and invite him to comment here, although I would understand if he wants nothing to do with these proceedings. AGK [•] 14:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

If we could work out the details, so that its not a farce like the VPR where I cant even get approval for fixing whitespace issues, and will actually let me be productive, Im all for that. The main draw back with the VPR is that too many people want me banned. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 14:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that was marred by bad examples of what the task was supposed to be doing. Link to discussion. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• To me, the central problem is how Betacommand interacts with the community and our readership. Those interactions which are unsatisfactory are always related to those automated or scripted edits that have not been approved and tested in advance, for instance when he uses automated scripts (like Twinkle or AWB) for which there is no approval process. His bots - vetted by the community's Bot Approvals Group - run without controversy, and δbot has been running well for some time and without issue. I understand that other bot operators (like MZMcBride) have offered to take over the running of δbot, but I think that does a disservice to Beta - and to ban him because, ostensibly, his usefulness is in running bots and "anybody else can do that, so we don't need him" would be astonishingly callous. If there are feasible alternative remedies than to remove Betacommand from the site, we should hear them out.

  When we turn to the proposed decision and consider how to resolve the issue with Betacommand's approach to interaction, I rejected the one-year ban, because the problem is with Betacommand's interactions - which a one-year break from Wikipedia would not solve. An indefinite ban, with a return only upon the presentation of a satisfactory plan for contributing constructively, would be a solution in that it would ensure Betacommand could only return if he became capable of contributing without the generation of a plethora of heated discussion. However, if we could agree that Betacommand was only problematic inasmuch as he runs (and apparently messes up) unapproved cleanup-style runs (not vetted bots), then a sensible solution could be to ban him from making any edit that was not approved in advance by BAG. Of those remedies that would meaningfully resolve the "Betacommand problem", I am inclined to pass the least severe proposal; if we do so and the problem persists, a siteban could be instituted by motion with little difficulty (and a remedy resolving that we will siteban in the event of continued issues with Betacommand may need to be included). Apologies for the verbosity, but I wanted to set my views down clearly before we proceed. AGK [•] 15:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

AGK Im not sure you are seeing all the facts, there have actually been almost no issues with my cleanup edits. Yes there where a few issues when I started testing a google books integration feature. But that was fairly short lived. Other than that my cleanup edits have actually gotten me a barnstar (User_talk:Δ/20110901#The_American_Civil_War_Barnstar and a request for other pages to be cleaned up). And most of the complaints have been procedural. (what is a pattern, and speed issues). and really not about content of the edit. When a user comes to my talk page I have been going far out of my way to address their issues. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

This is really the point of my proposal re NFCC, where more heat than light was generated. There is no fundamental objection to "good stuff being done", there are as far as I can see four classes of issue:

1. Individual NFCC objections ("Oy! That's my picture!").
2. Objections to how Δ dealt with the above.
3. Systemic errors
4. Procedural objections (edit rate pattern, etc.)

Now having the NFCC stuff dealt with at a noticeboard deals with 1 & 2. 3 is a matter of testing and revising the software, which Δ is willing to do when an issue is found. 4 is the tail wagging the dog, and can be dumped if we fix the first three.

Rich Farmbrough, 15:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC).

• I'm interested in alternatives to banning, especially if there are useful bots to be saved. I'd like to see this on the front page. And I'll get around to wrting the clean start proposal in a moment. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• There are no alternatives. We're past that now, with ArbCom voting to ban Δ from the project. Unless you want to suspend this proposed decision page and get back to the drawing board, addressing the serious issues I raised back in November ([1]), you might as well close this case. The rest of this is just wasted effort. You, ArbCom, are going to ban him because it's the easiest, most expedient thing to do; not because it makes sense, is a good decision, or addresses the serious underlying issues in this case that have been generated by parties other than Δ. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• I am willing to give Xeno's suggestion some serious consideration. I do not believe that Betacommand is eligible for a clean start under current policies, nor do I think anyone should be under the impression that there is much likelihood that it would succeed. In fact, I suspect any subsequent account would be quickly identified and we'd be back on the same hamster wheel. Will see if I can come up with some suitable wording for a proposal. Risker (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

  I had a go at a draft wording: Betacommand is indefinitely prohibited from editing Wikipedia except from an approved bot account to carry out clearly delineated tasks specifically authorized by the Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group. Except for his userspace (including usertalk space), his main account may only edit on talk pages or noticeboards and only to respond to queries about his approved bot operations. Feel free to tweak, etc. –xeno^talk 18:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

  He needs to be able to use his main account to make edits required to file and comment in his BRFA's, as well. Courcelles 19:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

  Ah yes. Well-spotted. –xeno^talk 19:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

  I've proposed this formally as remedy six. Courcelles 18:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to explore Xeno's suggestion, if Betacommand believes this would allow him to continue to be useful; I've started two proposals for article-space restrictions on the workshop. See Workshop#Article edit rate restriction. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Be useful to clarify now if there is to be a limit on the number of bots. A phased increase might be worth considering. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This seems like a terrible idea. If someone has a long and intractable history of editing disruptively in some area (say articles about penguins), usually they get topic-banned so they have to stop editing about penguins but can still edit any other topic they like. The proposal here is the opposite, something like "so-and-so may henceforth only edit about penguins, subject to the endorsement of the penguin approval group". I don't have any problem with Δ editing like a normal editor (i.e. completely manually and on a normal human scale) but IMHO he should be completely removed for a while from bots and scripts of any sort (thus the 25 page/day limit proposal). To Silktork re "saving useful bots": the bots involved are mostly not that useful (I'd say they're worse than useless, but that's just me), and any useful ones can be reimplemented by others. We should not let "vendor lock-in" dictate our actions in any case. 67.122.210.96 (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Δbot is worse than useless? When I say 'bots', I am talking about proper and approved bots doing tasks the community actually wants, not script-based wikignome editing. –xeno^talk 13:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm using the term "bots" to refer to all of Δ's automated editing scripts. I do understand that some specific bots of his (like the SPI thing) are considered useful in some circles. I still very much dislike this remedy from both directions: 1) the disruptive bot issues I've already stated; 2) the remedy effectively boots Δ from the editing community and turns him into a type of minion who can only run the damn bots. If I read it properly, it means he can't make legitimate human edits (e.g. addition of sourced material) to articles; can't comment on AfD's; can't ask questions at Reference Desk, etc. I don't dislike Δ and am not trying to remove him from the project. If you think Δ can operate BAG-approved bots non-disruptively, then fine, but there should also still be an outlet for him to edit the way almost everyone else does (i.e. manually, or anyway at human-like speed). So I prefer my proposal[2] or some variant of it, over remedy 6 from the current PD. 67.122.210.96 (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Has Betacommand ever indicated a desire to do such things? –xeno^talk 22:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Give how discussions seem to work at BAG [3] I don't know if this is actually going to solve anything with respect to drama. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Response to those opposing proposed remedy 6: this remedy would not force BAG to be a "hands-on enforcer of arbitration remedies"; the Bot Approvals Group is already the sole body tasked with reviewing and approving bot operations, so this does not create any "new" responsibilities for them: it simply restricts Betacommand from doing anything OTHER than bot-approved tasks. And while I agree that the Date delinking saga was a fustercluck of epic proportions, but I don't see that as applicable to the present case. Basically, this remedy will prevent Betacommand from deciding to commence some automated task on his own without demonstrable consensus. If Betacommand does 'game' the remedy (by sneaking in some kind of unapproved side task, or something), then it will be very easy to pull the rug out and go ahead with the ban. In fact, for convenience and expediency, you could enact the ban and then provisionally suspend it with remedy 6. –xeno^talk 22:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The clean start option

I am glad this comity is considering clean start as a possible remedy. I beg members to be objective in weighing this option. There are assertions that this form of remedy implies an external blame is at core. Please read the policy again and if I may be so bold as to ask, please also show the prose that supports the assertion. It is problematic that Betacommand is under current sanctions, because that would preclude availability of this remedy. The proposal to vacate sanctions could be adopted and the clean start immediately ensue. With well crafted word, and the prohibitive sanction against evading scrutiny, this remedy does no harm to the encyclopedia, nor place jeopardy upon it. With respectful intent, thank you for considering this case, and this request as well. - My76Strat (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I find it difficult that anyone would in good faith suggest a fresh start option. That's literally the same as shoving all of someone's past crimes under the rug and then enrolling them in the witness protection program. Jtrainor (talk) 12:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think a clean start option is viable either. That said, this RFAR has become the opposite of what you describe; rather than address the current situation as is, and try to find a solution to that, it's become a drag-everything-out-from-under-the-rug-that-EVER-happened and crucify Δ for it. The double jeopardy option being used here on this case is the opposite of the clean start, and just as unacceptable. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• To the contrary. We should consider past behavior when determining remedies. If we never considered what people did in the past, we would always give people a slap on the wrist. He won't be punished twice for doing something, rather he will be punished for failing to change his problematic behavior. Buffs (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• He already has been double penalized. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the third time Beta's been to arbcom. I fail to see how the stuff that led to the previous two isn't pertinent. Jtrainor (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Please read Double jeopardy. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read it, since you clearly don't understand how it applies (or doesn't apply) here. Jtrainor (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." (a.k.a. What JTrainor said). Buffs (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• @JTrainor: I have of course read it. You apparently see nothing wrong in persecuting Delta for things he's already been brought to ArbCom for, and previously sanctioned for. I do. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Even in court, where "prior bad acts" are strictly prohibited for determining guilt or innocence, they can be brought into evidence to establish a pattern of behavior, either in establishing a past modus operandi for purposes of a circumstantial case, or in the sentencing phase to establish a habitual offender status. Arbitration isn't a legal proceeding, thus not only does double jeopardy not apply (Wikipedia, like any private organization, may make its own rules regarding behavior, and are not required to provide the protections mandated of the government in the Bill of Rights), but that this is the third time that the community has had to resort to bringing Beta/Delta to an arbitration hearing is material to the case; it indicates that the community is finding itself unable to resolve these issues on a frequent basis. rdfox 76 (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

@Jtrainor - What do you find difficult? Can I ease the difficulty? I do stand available to answer any direct question you may have. In general, I do oppose the comparison of Betacommand's conduct with criminal conduct. This because generally I see no comparison. And I am just naive enough to believe it is not necessary. We have a southern saying: "you don't kick a man when he is down" which I have come to understand, and agree. Perhaps we could see a bit less "kicking", or not. My76Strat (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Need a link to the *current* community restrictions

I know I found them when reviewing evidence a month ago, but I am not entirely certain that the version of community sanctions I have found is the most current one, particularly given all the amendments and modifications done over time. Could someone please link me to the *current* iteration of Betacommand/Δ's community sanction? Risker (talk) 04:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If this is not the in force document, please advise my talk page so I may also know because I believe it is. Thank you. - My76Strat (talk) 05:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• There were several iterations of community restrictions, ranging form an outright ban on running bots to the current ones, which are detailed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Betacommu. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, this is a years-long saga, so to some extent the current community restrictions are what the community currently thinks they are, with various ArbCom remedies mixed in there too. Originally there was a prohibition on "automated or appearing to be automated" edits, but to the best of my knowledge ASCII has linked to the correct description of current community santcions. Franamax (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Also I think Beta is still prohibited from running bots, except where Beta has been allowed to run bots. (!) Franamax (talk) 06:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The general prohibition on automated tools (passed in May 2008) turned out to be unenforceable because you can't prove that a script is used, so my understanding is that the current "pattern" restrictions (passed in Aug-Sep 2008) were worded to work around the need to unequivocally prove infringement on unauthorized tool usage. Fast forward to Oct 2011: interested parties couldn't agree that a script-generated sequence of edits constituted a pattern, so that wording failed to be effective as well (except at producing drama). ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Yep. Nevertheless, this committee has decided that the sanctions have failed, and have taken ownership of them. Further, there's a heavy implication that the failure is entirely Δ's fault. It's a facepalm situation. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Courcelles is correct

There absolutely are ways forward instead of back. And Xeno's proposal above is one such. The attempt to follow the "community imposed sanctions" was another, which resulted in more problems than it resolved (perhaps suggesting that the "community sanctions" were a complete failure, in terms of drafting, implementation and observance).

Regardless, if the result of this case is a ban, or something that destroys the value (either net, or potential) that Δ can bring to the project, it will be a sad day.

Rich Farmbrough, 16:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC).

• The problem is the ArbCom is already near unanimous in banning Δ. Unless someone or several someones (count me in if you'd like) want to sign a petition or something to get ArbCom to back up, the result of this RFAR is a fait accompli. It's over already. See 2.1. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The majority is 9 in this case. There are clearly a number of Arbs looking for a way forward, and a number who have not commented yet, who I would expect to be forward looking (but then I am an optimist). Rich Farmbrough, 19:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC).
    
• I hardly think so. We are by no means agreed on how to resolve this dispute, and discussion is ongoing. If Betacommand is sitebanned, it would not be by a unanimous vote. AGK [•] 03:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• If good faith discussions on this RFAR really are happening, then there should not be an active vote on final decisions. It's kinda like people voting on who should win a car race when the the lead cars are three seconds from the finish, and barring spontaneous combustion they could glide across the finish. The fate of this RFAR is already decided unless the proposed decision voting is suspended pending further discussion. Of the 6 arbs voting support/opposed to banning Δ, it's 5 support 1 oppose; that's 83%. To avoid banning 7 of the remaining 10 would have to oppose. That's about as likely as a white Christmas in Tahiti. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Let the process run its course. Whether something is likely to happen or not, it doesn't mean it will. Buffs (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• So you believe in snow in Tahiti then. No, more likely, you're very happy at the outcome regardless of proper process, and would rather just seem him banned. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Pretty sure WP:AGF is a policy, not just a good suggestion, but I guess that's optional now...

I take little joy in ANYONE'S banishment from WP. Hell, I tried to help Axmann8 and he's turned into a virtual pariah across WP. What I would prefer is for delta to become a productive member of WP who will follow the rules; he's been given so many second chances it's kind of ridiculous and ArbCom as a whole agrees with this assessment.

As for "proper process", I haven't seen anything that is out of line for ArbCom.

Lastly, Tahiti doesn't have any records of snow, but they've only been tracking low temps for 5 years now and overall weather for the past 23 years. However, since it has snowed in Hawaii...in June...recently..., I would assume it is possible to have the same in Tahiti. Likewise, complaining about the outcome when the outcome hasn't happened is absurd...come to think of it, complaining itself seems kind of silly in this instance. I guess you can go to Jimbo and see what he says, but I think it's probably best to simply let it run its course. Near as I can tell, even in the "worst case scenario", they aren't permanently banning him, but only for a year. Try to think of it as a positive; perhaps that year will do us all some good. Happy New Year! Buffs (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• (e/c) Hammer, we're (many of us) aware of the level of admiration and mutual respect between yourself and Buffs. Please don't bring that here. That comment is pure sniping and I see no way it will help the Arbs arrive at a Proposed decision. And do recall that right up until the motion to close is carried, Arbs can change their votes, especially if palatable options are proposed. Personally, I'd like to see more attention paid to John Vandenberg's workshop proposals. Franamax (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Tell that to Buffs. This RFAR's been going on for a long time, and only when I begin to edit things does Buffs show up? Right. As to my comments, I was making comments about Tahiti before he showed up. No sniping is intended, only noting what is happening. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I've been reading it since it first came about (from delta's page, not from anything you did. Everything seems like it's rolling along just fine. I thought that your comments here assume the worst about everyone else (I guess I'm included now too). I too think JV's workshop proposals have both merit and real possibility. So, instead of sniping, why not participate in a better solution other than "he shouldn't have any restrictions". Let's work towards an amicable solution or at least one that better represents your views (for example, 10 months of a ban would be better than 12, right?...and I could support that. There's no need for a year just to make it a round figure...) Buffs (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Just adopt my proposal about mentoring proposed some time ago on the Workshop page. So, some editor in good standing who has the relevant experience with operating bots, will be in charge of setting restrictions on what Delta is allowed to do. This solves two problems. Not only are the problems that Delta has caused contained, but also the drama generated when Delta is alleged to have violated some restriction will end, because Delta's restrictions are now off topic to the community. This is now the sole task of the mentor. The community may raise some perceive problem about Delta to the mentor, but it's always the mentor who takes some decision w.r.t. restrictions. If Delta violates a restriction set by the mentor, then that's also an issue between Delta and the mentor only. The mentor does have the duty to report Delta back to ArbCom if Delta were to misbehave and/or not stick to the rules set by the mentor. ArbCom can then revoke the mentorship agreement, which automatically bans Delta from undertaking any automated tasks. Count Iblis (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You should read the /Evidence. Mentoring was tried before, including by one of the current Arbs. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I know, but that was conventional mentoring, what I'm proposing is far more restrictive; it will precisely address the problems while allowing Delta to do all the good work that he's capable of doing. Count Iblis (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The proposal that all his tasks be BAG-approved is essentially the same thing as your proposal to make "Delta's restrictions [...] off topic to the community". BAG is a very small group. There are fewer active BAG members than sitting Arbitrators. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

If Betacommand had autoconfirmed suspended with the intense mentoring suggested by Count Iblis, it could be a way forward short of a site ban. It seems the weight of the sanctions were intent upon holding him as a class below autoconfirmed anyway. My76Strat (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Who is UNINVOLVED?

Assuming the community restrictions are continued/imported as AE-remedies, who is going to be considered uninvolved for the purpose of AE discussion and decision-making? This is a serious question because these are not typical content disputes focused on a topic area, but are about systematic changes to many unrelated articles. Reading the proceeding here and also the previous AN[I] threads, one cannon escape the feeling that over time Δ has engendered a dedicated fan club who shows up with regularity at most discussions about him. And the positions of the participants in previous disputes involving Δ are a very good predictor of their position in subsequent ones. A rather obvious and prolonged factionalism has developed around the "Δ-problem". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 06:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, the recently but inconclusively closed discussion Wikipedia:AE#Suggested_change_to_practice:_comments_by_non-neutral_editors should be of relevance here. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Accounts FoF incomplete

I think there were some CU-confirmed socks besides the "official" list given in this Arbitration. See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Betacommand. Amusingly, one of these was doing in 2009 the kind of "clean up" that was again in focus in the autumn of 2011: Special:Contributions/Shimane Kanagi. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Casliber's query

The antecedent is stated here. I.E. the case was a request for clarification as to whether a proposed task fell under the aegis of a previous ARBCOM imposed restriction. Rich Farmbrough, 18:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC).

• Indeed, the entire nature of the case is suspect and ill-handled. See this, which is still unaddressed. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

  We aren't a bureaucracy and your question was answered by Coren...who just happens to be on ArbCom. But what do I know... Buffs (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• You will note of course that Coren's comment, which was quoted by CBM, was from 31 October. My posting was from 8 November. So, as I'm sure you are now able to see, Coren did not respond to me and answer my question. In fact, as I've previously noted, nobody from ArbCom has addressed the issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually I realise there is an antecedent, in that the complexity and finickiness of the restrictions meant that there was alot of squabbling and lots of people unhappy. Hopefully the new remedy sorts this out. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Δ's all bad, right? Right?

Some months ago, I began developing a list of Δ's accomplishments on Wikipedia. This was in response to a rather vocal group of editors who despise Δ, and seem to think everything he has done is sort of a inverse Midas; 'anything he touches turns to crap'. Given the committee seems to be hung up on trying to decide whether Δ is a benefit to the project, it would be in their interest to consider this non-exhaustive list of his accomplishments here. See User:Hammersoft/Δ vitae. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

HS, this is nothing but a straw man argument. No one has said that Δ hasn't accomplished anything of note/anything good. He certainly has.

This Arbcom case is reflective of the things he hasn't done well on, specifically: performing actions that were explicitly against prior sanctions/community consensus.

I also agree that his positive contributions should be taken into account when "dishing out" sanctions; his total edit history should be considered, not solely the problem edits. Buffs (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

No, Betacommand is not all bad. He is not even, as bad, as some have portrayed him to be, at all! Hammersoft, I appreciate your efforts here. I misjudged you from our first interaction, and feel sorry that it took until now for me to realize I was wrong about you. I have a genuine empathy for the way you feel as I interpret your writing. It carries your emotion. Hey, I'm with you friend! My76Strat (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• @Buffs: Interesting. People put up evidence of Δ's behaving badly, and that's ok. I put up evidence of his accomplishments here, and I suffer criticism from you for it. Wow. Look at 2.1. It's not gaining majority support, but four ArbCom members felt it was just to say "the community has determined that Betacommand's edits are a detriment to the encyclopedia". If you don't like the presence of User:Hammersoft/Δ vitae in this discussion, you are welcome to develop your own page detailing what you see as his failures. But, criticizing me for posting something in response to an ArbCom motion is out of line. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It is important and I am glad someone has done it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I never said the list of accomplishments was wrong (in fact, I complimented it: "I also agree that his positive contributions should be taken into account..."). As Carl agreed below, your argument that a group of editors thinks he is "all bad" is an absurd statement (with no evidence) that should rightly be ignored as a logical fallacy. Please stop resorting to hyperbole and assuming the worst of others; likewise, please read what people actually write instead of assuming that they automatically disagree with you. Buffs (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Over history, you've accused me of violating WP:AGF more times than I care to count. Enough. This case isn't about me. You got a bone to pick with me, then go elsewhere. This isn't the platform for it. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• You are absolutely right on one point, this isn't about you. My criticism is about your use of logical fallacies and why they shouldn't be construed as a valid argument. Again, this isn't about you, but if you continue to put in phrasing which is logically invalid, it deserves to be challenged and pointed out WHY it is invalid, lest people make judgements based upon it. My note of WP:AGF is not a comment on you violating anything, per se, but a comment on another logical fallacy which you continue to utilize: poisoning the well. I offer the following examples from this discussion alone:
  1. "...you're very happy at the outcome regardless of proper process, and would rather just seem him banned."
  2. "The fate of this RFAR is already decided...To avoid banning 7 of the remaining 10 would have to oppose. That's about as likely as a white Christmas in Tahiti."
  3. "...in response to a rather vocal group of editors who despise Δ, and seem to think everything he has done is sort of a inverse Midas; 'anything he touches turns to crap'."
• So, just dial back the hyperbole, stop demonizing those who disagree with you, and just present your opinion without being so hypercritical of others. Buffs (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Awareness of Betacommand's positive bot contributions would be worth stating as part of the case, especially if we are going to vote on a motion that allows Betacommand to contribute through bots. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Hammersoft, thank you for creating this page. In my view, the evidence page has been of less value without such a submission. AGK [•] 12:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• I do think the claim that a group of editors "despises" Δ is a straw man argument. Δ has a long history of problematic editing and has been flouting his community sanctions, but this does not mean that he is "all bad", although it does reflect on his suitability to participate on Wikipedia. It's a mistake to assume there is some personal animus when editors point out the problems with Δ's editing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is it the business of Arbcom to hand out back-pattings and attaboys? Jtrainor (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• So the business of ArbCom is only to deal out sanctions and criticism? --Hammersoft (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It's the purpose of Arbcom to deal with disputes that the community is unable to resolve for itself. You want to compliment Betacommand, give him a barnstar. Jtrainor (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• So I'm not permitted by you to present evidence that supports him? Only evidence against him is allowed here? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• HS, stop trying to pick a fight. You have this evidence presented (and rightly so). Quit presenting more logical fallacies to sort through: "Only evidence against him is allowed here?" as well as argumentum ad misericordiam
• Jtrainor, HS is entitled to present evidence he feels is valid to the matter at hand. As several ArbCom members have clearly posted (and others agreed...including myself) ArbCom should consider the entirety of delta's contributions, not solely those which some view as problematic. Buffs (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Hammersoft; can you finish adding the dates, order it by date, and put it in /Evidence. Thanks. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Some dates are impossible to discern. I've added a link to the file in /Evidence. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• I also expanded on it. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

  Good add, HS. Buffs (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

BAG-approved Only + ??

I have followed this case as a completely uninvolved observer. I expected a choice between a ban and something like this (Bot Group approved tasks only) - I think they are choices that would address the issue rather than skirting it or nibbling at it, maybe the only choices that would do so. However, if Beta's to stay active, it is not enough to allow interaction with users - the quality of that interaction should be addressed as well. I'm not workshopping a proposal for you - I think it needs to be handled more skillfully and gently than I could - but there needs to be a remedy directed at the quality of Beta's interaction with other users in conjunction with the BAG-approved only remedy. Jd2718 (talk) 11:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It's very difficult to understand what factors go into an editor's failure to collaborate effectively, but my understanding was that Betacommand's interactions were problematic when he ran general scripts and automated edits - not when he was operating a bot. If we remove him from those areas where he fails to work within the rules (including by interacting with professionalism), then we should significantly mitigate the problem. I think this is a fairer, more elegant solution than slamming down the sitebanhammer. Of course, this is just my view; the other arbitrators may disagree. AGK [•] 12:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

A key point is to make sure, if he is limited to running a bot, that he is also limited to BAG-approved tasks, of course. The block log of BetacommandBot includes, among other things, issues with unapproved tasks being run on the bot account. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I would rather consider as evidence the running of the current bot. Taking as evidence behaviour from over two years ago would imply that people are unable to modify their behaviour over time or according to circumstances. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

A key difference is that the SPI bot is not editing articles, it's archiving what is essentially a structured discussion page. That sort of task is much more straightforward than article editing. For example, my bot PeerReviewBot is also just responsible for archiving certain discussions, and I can basically just let it run on its own, but if I wanted to make a different bot of mine edit a large number of articles it would take custom testing for each separate job. The need for good communication skills is much higher for article-editing bots than archival bots.

Another issue is that BetacommandBot was not operating in the way the bots normally operate; the need for bot approval was ignored and the editing rate was engineered to be absurdly high. After that bot was blocked, Betacommand continued running bot-like tasks without approval on his main account, even when doing so violated his community sanction, right up to October 2011. So viewing the SPI bot as evidence that BetacommandBot could work again is, to stretch an analogy, similar to saying that someone in prison for bad business practices is now rehabilitated because they have been successful at making license plates. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Δbot has been operating since summer 2010. It was approved for operation by BAG (approval) and ArbCom (approval). Since that time, it has never been blocked [4]. It has performed ~6800 edits since 1 October 2011, 35,844 in total [5]. In reviewing where this bot has been discussed [6], I can find no reference to discussions complaining about its operation, or abuses of its operation by its operator Δ. If you have diffs proving abuse of this bot or its operator in using this boat, then please provide them. Otherwise, there's no evidence to conclude that Δbot has been anything other than examplary in every respect. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

My point is that running an SPI clerk bot is quite different than running a bot that would be doing article maintenance. I looked at the contribs for Δbot in article space. I expected to see none, since there is no task approval or even task proposal for such edits. But there are actually a number of edits [7] for "adjusting filename after rename". Given that Δ was doing unapproved bot-like tasks on his main account at the same time that the SPI bot was running, and also given that even SPI bot was doing some unapproved things, it's hard to see how the SPI bot is evidence that he has changed his ways. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Given the paucity of edits in the set you note, and the fact that 24 of 27 of them occurred in a narrow window in a time period in which he was doing the same type of edit on his main account [8], I'm willing to assume it was a mistake of being logged into the wrong account, which he quickly rectified after a few minutes. It's not been repeated in the ~7000 edits the bot has done since then, nor was any damage done to the project in the process. I fail to see any maliciousness in these mainspace edits from the bot account. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Nobody has alleged "maliciousness". The real issue is carelessness, if the situation is as you suggest. I mentioned it only because it leans against a claim that the SPI bot is a spotless example of bot operation. The real problems with Δ's editing were the edits to the main namespace, on his main account, that violated his community sanction. Given that the tasks for SPI bot are all intended to be on the Wikipedia namespace and Δ's user space, that bot is not evidence that Δ would follow rules for a bot editing the main namespace. On the other hand, we have BetacommandBot as a long term example of how Δ actually did operate such a bot. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• The point is, it was a brief oversight, rapidly corrected, that has not been repeated, and did not cause any damage to the project. Do you have anything to show some pattern of abuse by him with regards to the operation of Δbot or not? What you've provided so far is a brief mistake. Hanging him on a cross for it? Come on. Also, BetacommandBot has been blocked for nearly three years now. So, it is utterly impossible for Δ to ever improve? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• HS, if his edit history is to be included as part of the decision, bad parts as well as good parts should be considered. However, as you showed, they should be placed in perspective. I think ArbCom will read and correctly put this in perspective. Buffs (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm basically saying SPI bot is irrelevant to his ability to operate an article-editing bot. As to the last question, we can look at the history of arbitration cases, community sanctions, bans, and the evidence in this case, and everyone can come to their own conclusions.

My opinion, which I have previously expressed, is that if we don't want a full ban, the best option is to impose much firmer sanctions that do not rely on the ability of Δ to modulate his own editing. The BAG-only option seems like it has a possibility of achieving that, I think. It's parallel to the previous requirement that he has to post on VPR, but it no longer assumes that he will follow the rules of his own accord. And, by moving enforcement to AE, it makes the penalties more likely to stick if Δ violates the restrictions. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Is anybody suggesting an article editing bot? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • If remedy 6 passes, it says that Δ is not allowed to edit mainspace at all with the account "Δ" and he has to file a bot approval for any task that he wants to carry out in the main namespace (also in other namespaces, with a few exceptions). — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
    • But not nobody is suggesting he run such a bot, and it's very unlikely such a bot would ever be approved. So why the concern? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
      • If the remedy passes, and Δ chooses not to make any requests to edit the main namespace, that would be fine. I believe from arbitrator comments the goal of remedy 6 is to give him the opportunity to edit the main namespace in some form. Once the case is closed, it will be up to Δ to decide how to proceed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Exactly. BAG has a mandate to ensure any task they approve has consensus to run. Delta has had problems checking to ensure what he wants to do has consensus amongst the editorial community. By taking the decision to run a task or not partly out of his hands (I say partly only because any task Delta does not wish to run will not be sought approval for) and forcing it into a venue already charged with that mandate, it is my hope the problems would be eliminated. Yes, it pretty much has the end-effect of meaning Delta can't do a task that only effects five or ten articles, but at this point we need a remedy that is ironclad and easy for all parties to determine if it is violated or not. Courcelles 19:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

What have we got so far?

• Betacommand's edits have been substantially repetitive minor edits. (Proposed Finding 1)
• The community can impose sanctions. (Proposed Principle 2)
• The community imposed sanctions on Betacommand for concerns regarding edits and behaviour. (PF 2.2)
• The sanctions have not resolved concerns. (PF4)
• ArbCom can overturn or reduce those sanctions. (PP 3)
• Those sanctions may be increased for repeat offences. (PP 4)

Remedies:

• The sanctions stay in place - with the community (Proposed Remedy 1.1)
• The sanctions stay in place - with ArbCom (PR 1.5)
• Betacommand is banned (PR 2.1/2.2)
• Betacommand is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation (PR 4)
• Betacommand is limited to BAG approved tasks (PR 6)

What do we need?

• Findings on why the sanctions are not working. Is the problem the sanctions, Betacommand, the community - or a bit of all these?
• Findings on Betacommand's recent edits
• Findings on Betacommand's recent interactions/behaviour
• Findings on Betacommand's recent bot operations
• Findings on the community's current attitude to the sanctions

• Details on how remedies are to work:
  • If Betacommand is limited to BAG approved tasks - how many bots can he run? do any of the current restrictions, sanctions, topic-bans apply to the bots? if so, which ones?
  • If prohibited from using any automation, how are automated edits to be traced/identified? Would such a ban apply to the existing bot(s)?
  • If Betacommand is to edit in any form (bot, manual, automated) while under restrictions, how is the community to investigate violations and impose the proposed enforcement, given that there appears to be some drama in connection to previous investigations?

I feel if we are to allow bots, that there should be a limit for at least a year to see how it works. Perhaps limit to three? The community sanctions would not apply to the bots, though the topic ban should still be in place. All forms of editing sanctions should come under ArbCom (which is what PR 1.5 is saying). SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Findings on the community's current attitude to the sanctions: "The community have not been able to come to a consensus regarding maintaining or dissolving the community sanctions on Betacommand." SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Findings on Betacommand's recent bot operations: "Betacommand's bot, User:Δbot, has been operating without problems since its creation in July 2010." SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I've looked in the evidence page and don't see evidence for recent poor interactions. Would someone please supply such evidence, or we'll have to assume that Betacommand is responding within reasonable parameters. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

In my evidence, there is at least [9] and [10]. Here is a long thread in which another editor tries to improve Δ's communication [11]. Some other examples of the same "I'm right, you're wrong" opinion are [12] [13]. There was also the incident in which Δ was changing references in various ways (apparently ignoring WP:CITEVAR). Some of his comments there include [14] [15]. Before I look for more, are those the sorts of things you are looking for? — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

All evidence is useful. I'd rather have evidence, no matter how small, than assumptions. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to avoid simply copying every diff from his talk page. If there is a particular sort of interaction you are looking for, I can look for it. It also depends on what you mean by "recent". As you know, the MickMacNee case closed in August with Δ being admonished [16]. Three was not an enormous amount of activity on Δ's talk page in between then and the incident in October that started this arbitration. Going farther back in the year takes us into the NFCC removals, which generated more discussion, but were covered by the NFCC ban Δ received. This comment with blinking text is interesting, though [17] — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Ideally what I would like is a balanced and neutral analysis of Betacommand's interactions with the community over the past 12 months. So if there is a dif which has him saying "That is wrong because it was agreed 30 days ago...", the agreement 30 days ago is looked at, and compared to the action in dispute, so the response can be judged in context. I realise that is asking a lot, but isolated difs of fairly standard disagreements are not adequate evidence of either good or bad interaction. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Anything could be interesting when taken out of context. In reference to the "blinking text"; what actually happened is this:

1. 00:15, 17 June 2011; Δ removes an image (since CSD#F7 deleted) from 2011 Pan American Games medal table for lacking a rationale for use on that page, per WP:NFCC #10c [18]
2. 00:16, 17 June 2011; Intoronto1125 restores the image apparently without adding a rationale to the image [19]
3. 00:18, 17 June 2011; Δ reverts Intoronto1125 [20]
4. 00:18, 17 June 2011; Δ places uw-nonfree on Intoronto1125 [21]
5. 00:18, 17 June 2011; Intoronto1125 claims without providing evidence that a couple of administrators have approved the image to be used on that page [22]
6. 00:20, 17 June 2011; Intoronto1125 reverts Δ's 00:18 talk page warning message, calling him an "idiot" in the edit summary [23]
7. 00:25, 17 June 2011; Δ's "blinking text" response [24]
8. 00:30, 17 June 2011; Intoronto1125 claims there's a rationale on the talk page of the image [25]
9. 00:32, 17 June 2011; Δ points out he is in the wrong, as there is a rationale but not for that article but for another article where it is used; a violation of WP:NFCC #10c [26]
10. 00:37, 17 June 2011; Intoronto1125 doesn't understand [27]
11. 00:38, 17 June 2011; Δ again shows where the problem is [28]
12. 00:40, 17 June 2011; Intoronto1125 says he'll change it [29]
13. 00:43, 17 June 2011; Δ again points out where the problem is [30]
14. 00:46, 17 June 2011; Intoronto1125 reverts [31]
15. 01:11, 17 June 2011; Intoronto1125 reverts himself, removing the image [32]
16. 01:12, 17 June 2011; Intoronto1125 asks Δ if he can put the image back up [33]
17. 01:37, 17 June 2011; Δ tells him yes, and that he doesn't dispute the rationale [34]
18. 02:45, 17 June 2011; Intoronto1125 again reverts himself, restoring the image [35]
19. 03:05, 17 June 2011; On Δ, Hammersoft indicates he does dispute the rationale [36]
20. 05:51, 17 June 2011; administrator Future Perfect at Sunrise removes the image [37]
21. 05:53, 17 June 2011; Future Perfect at Sunrise turns the article into a redirect, awaiting the results of the games [38]
22. 05:54, 17 June 2011; Intoronto1125 goes back to a version of the article before Future Perfect at Sunrise removed the image [39]
23. 06:17, 17 June 2011; Future Perfect at Sunrise again removes the image [40]

There's the context. I find it interesting that Δ is taken to task for making some text red and blinking, yet Intoronto1125 is never remonstrated for calling Δ an idiot or for edit warring in direct violation of WP:NFCC #10c. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Dont forget that I also have an edit notice that describes the issue and how to fix it too, on my talk page. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Re Hammersoft: numbers 3 and 4 were already problematic, and that sort of reverting with a uw template is not what we would call "good communication". Best practices would be for Δ to leave a friendly and non-templated note explaining that the user just needs to add a rationale to the image, and to give the person time to respond. But arbcom should already know about the problems with Δ's NFCC removals, since the arbcom motion to ban him from NFCC is pretty recent. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• The point is, you're finding fault with him for making text red and blinking in the face of someone who was violating WP:EW, WP:NFCC, and WP:NPA. Yet, you take him to task for that, and not Intoronto1125. Red blinking text might be a slight violation of WP:CIVIL, but that would be a stretch to even claim that, especially in the face of the personal attacks and edit warring. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, yes. The bot operator needs to stay calm under pressure. Operators doing things where this is predicable stress, like NFCC enforcement, need to be even more patient. In this case, a your timeline shows, Δ made the situation worse by reverting just two minutes later. There was nothing there that could not have waited for calm discussion or a back-and-forth on the user's talk page. No reasonable editor would expect that an immediate revert and template warning would help cool down the situation. If Δ can't deal patiently and kindly with editors who don't understand what the problem is, he's not suitable for that kind of work. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• I guess you'll have to count me as an unreasonable editor, as I've countless times re-removed an image failing WP:NFCC #10c and placed a warning message at the same time. So, pray tell, what policy did he violate? Also, you're projecting failure on his part for running an NFCC bot because he won't be able to handle the stress of it. Grabbing at the future? For this? Any reasonable editor wouldn't expect him to be running an NFCC enforcement bot. Oh wait, I'm suddenly reasonable again :) --Hammersoft (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The above example dif, and the explanation, and the discussion surrounding it have been useful. I have got a good feel for the situation, and it confirms other impressions I have picked up. Thank you. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Well, not two months into the job of ArbCom and you've already gained a talent for being cryptic. Nicely done :) (and I do mean that as praise). --Hammersoft (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

"The fact that this was moved to voting prematurely "

Is this a joke? The case languished in the Workshop phase with little movement for just short of two months. TotientDragooned (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, none of the remedies are passing (i.e. if they closed it now, their "solution" would be to do precisely nothing). Since it doesn't look like any of the older remedies will pass, I'd say it's a fair assessment of the situation. --NYKevin @299, i.e. 06:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess ArbCom is as prone to "no consensus" solutions as are other fora on Wikipedia... ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

An offer and a request

An offer

For whatever it is worth, I am very willing to mentor Betacommand through whatever sanction, short of a site ban the committee may willingly adopt. I am generally available, and have an established rapport with him, such that I am confident "intense mentorship" could succeed.

In offering this service, I am willing to accept a tandem block, if and whenever Betacommand may warrant one. I would agree to be bound by a clause equivocating his failure, as a failure of my own. I would like to establish advance benchmarks that Betacommand and I can work in good faith to achieve which would clearly enunciate the path to normal editing. It would be a great advantage to success if a streamlined process was in place to request and perhaps effect temporary modification along the way if and whenever circumstances may warrant. And I assure with the weight of promise and the bond of word that I will monitor Betacommand and maintain a record of every potentially relevant action, discussion, or third opinion sought to show, demonstrably, the proactive steps taken to achieve "productive editing rehabilitation" and analysis of progress made. Respectfully submitted with prayerful hope and regard. My76Strat (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for candor

The above offer as well as some recent edits to the workshop page may be impossible to consider for procedural errors, missed deadlines, or any other reason, that being very new, I would reasonable not know. I hope where I may have been out of process I haven't been out of line. If the burden of my being tardy is too great, please advise me that I am too late. If there is any reason otherwise that I should compile what I believe is compelling, please advise so that I may begin in earnest, the proper construction of a document I do wish to respectfully present. My76Strat (talk) 06:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

As the committee is currently entertaining alternative proposals, I'd start, if I were you, by reworking this workshop proposal to name yourself as mentor and to list more specific conditions. Note also that there is a significant amount of skepticism towards forced mentorship, and also some skepticism towards Betacommand. Practically, I just don't think it's in the cards. As far as procedural rules are concerned, the only major one is "don't edit pages you're not supposed to," namely the main case page and the proposed decision subpage (the talk pages are OK). I'm not aware of you violating that. There's also, as always, WP:CIVIL, but I don't think that's been an issue either. You also mentioned having additional evidence. I think you should get that onto the evidence subpage as soon as possible. --NYKevin @324, i.e. 06:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I can not thank you proportionate to how helpful your reply is to me. The strength of your counsel is abundantly sufficient to move both mountain and me. Please accept my highest regards, with respect and esteem. My76Strat (talk) 08:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Remedy 6 - BAG approval

Please don't do this. It's hard enough recruiting and keeping BAG members. Instructing us to wade into this field of figuring out what Betacommand can do with a bot, both in light of the community consensus and this case's restrictions, is simply sliding the headache to us. MBisanz ^talk 13:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It appears they are vacating all other restrictions, so you can approve him to do whatever you want to, no strings attached. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

He has been free for some time to use bots for approved tasks, so the current resolution would strengthen the current sanctions by allowing him to do even less without BAG approval. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for commenting, MBisanz; I've been looking to hear from other BAG members on this point. Risker (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a BAG member, but I've become semi-regular in the area. I too have concerns with kicking this to BRFA.

To put it bluntly, BAG dosen't do a good job anticipating community objections to tasks and dosen't do a good job of handling objections to bots when the objections are are not code based. Both of these are on display with the Shared IP archive saga. Most BRFAs involve the user filling out a form, then a BAG member asking a question or two, then granting a trial period, then granting approval if the trial goes smoothly. Rarely do more than two or three BAG members ever comment on a single request, and rarely do they bring bot proposals to community attention for discussion.

This isn't to say that the process dosen't work perfectly fine 95% of the time, as most of the people that come to BRFA (both coders and commenters) know what they're talking about, the tasks are rarely controversial, and there's rarely a compelling reason to go over someone's tasks in painstaking detail so long as nothing breaks during the trial. That being said, BRFA's infrastructure just isn't set up to handle hot potatos. BRFA isn't at its core a community consensus based process, it's an expert vetting process. There's never been a question that Betacommand knows what he's doing when it comes to coding, he's an expert in that. The issue has more to do with the tasks themselves, and BRFA is the wrong place for deciding if a task is going to make waves or go off without a hitch. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Procedure for determining and consequences for breaking remedy 6?

Like, say, running unauthorized tasks with the bot? Given the years of drama surrounding this, ArbCom needs to spell out the enforcement procedure, if any. And most importantly, who is authorized to make this determination: ArbCom, BAG, or any "uninvolved" admin? And what are the appeal venues? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

This is item 3.4.1 on the proposed decision. Normally, violations are reported to WP:AE and a clerk makes a decision. BAG would not be responsible for enforcement on that page. Remedy 6 says "clearly delineated tasks specifically authorized by the Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group" so the clerk would need to determine whether the task being performed was clearly delineated in an approved bot request. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I saw that, but it's vague: "user may be blocked". By whom? The triple venue for appeals specified there (ANI/AE/ArbCom) is too unstructured to be practical. If past history is a predictor, we can expect drama over that too. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

ANI is not a venue for appeals for arbitration sanctions. That would be the main benefit of the arbcom outcome, if they continue go with the current trend in voting. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the mention of WP:ANI. PhilKnight (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Quality of Interaction with Other Editors (implicit remedy, no supporting finding)

The main remedy currently passing almost passing is 6 (3.3.6 Betacommand limited to BAG approved tasks). There is also a proposal to vacate current sanctions. (3.1.6 Community sanctions vacated). Most of the tangle of previous sanctions would be superseded by 3.3.6.

However, the interaction sanctions stand apart; they would be voided, and not replaced or superseded. There is no finding currently proposed that identifies an improvement in the quality of Beta's interactions with other editors, nor am I aware of evidence that would support such a finding. Arbitrator AGK, above, offered that the interaction problems occurred around scripts, not bots. Arbitrator Silk Tork, two comments further down, offered above that he would prefer look at only current evidence from a bot account. Neither reason adequately supports an affirmative action to void interaction restrictions.

A remedy addressing the quality of Beta's interactions with other editors needs to be crafted (or continued). If, on the other hand, the arbitrators choose to eliminate sanctions related to Beta's interactions with other editors, they should do so explicitly by remedy, and such remedy should be supported by findings of fact. Jd2718 (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

At 8 support votes, remedy 6 is not currently passing (it requires 9 to do so). --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it 8 support votes? JClemens has !voted both in support and opposition, so whether he is counted as a support seems to me to be an open question. EdChem (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

When an arb goofs up, it's probably best to read their most current vote as reflecting their current feelings on the matter. Jclemens (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Should I take this to mean "Thanks for pointing out the ambiguity in my !votes on that remedy, which I have now clarified"? I certainly don't expect arbitrators never to make an error in voting, nor to be prevented from altering their view after further reflection, but for editors or ArbClerks to guess as to the intended meaning rather than getting clarification seems unwise to me. Regards, EdChem (talk) 10:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

For ease of reference: Lightbot's final block discussion

Since this was another editor restricted to use automation only in BAG-approved cases (and was mentioned by Kirill), the discussion surrounding the final block should be informative here: [41] ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

That's interesting. The bot was blocked for doing what it was agreed it should do, and the block has never been overturned? Does anyone know why? Am I missing something? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't involved with that, but it seems like the issue is that the bot was making edits such as [42] [43] where the change described in the BRFA had already been made, and the bot's change was instead to use the {{convert}} template even though the right conversions were already present. Since the BRFA did not describe adding this template in cases where the conversions were already present, and since mass-converting MOS-compliant articles to use templates like that is generally contentious, someone blocked the bot. One BAG member said that he understood the purpose of the BRFA was that the bot would add the convert template, but enough other people did not see it that way that the bot remained blocked. If the goal really was to use {{convert}} on all articles with units, replacing hard-coded conversions, this needed to be discussed much more explicitly, probably on a village pump, as it would affect such a large number of articles. Lightmouse has been inactive since October, and thus has not pursued the matter further. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The blocking admin has provided the following link on his talk page, which seems to confirm what CBM inferred. [44] ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That discussion is also interesting because Lightbot was assuming that in the case of an existing manual conversion the first of the values is the correct one, and was "fixing" the other to match. It has some similarity with the issue where Δ had decided that the ISBN was the correct piece of information in a citation, and was regenerating the entire citation based on a Google books lookup of that number. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Remedy 7

I am afraid Remedy 7 ("Betacommmand restricted") will leave us in essentially the same position.

• It is not possible to tell whether automated methods are used to make any particular edit.
• We saw when this case opened that editors can filibuster enforcement of the existing sanction by claiming that a group of edits were not "similar", and Δ has demonstrated that he is not inclined to follow these sorts of sanctions voluntarily.
• Regardless of the outcome of this case, even under the tightest sanctions, Δ would be able to generate lists of articles and post them on other websites for editors to look at. So the part of #7 which permits him to do this is only allowing him to do something that we can't prevent.

There is a small advantage that #7 would be enforced at AE instead of ANI, but overall #7 seems like a very small tweak to the existing sanctions. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, creating such lists could also be used to deal with Delta's communication problems. If we implement something along the lines of Remedy 6, then Delta could be put on a 0RR or 1RR restriction. Then he could run a bot to check on reversions of his bot edits and then post them on some file which others can deal with. You can also imagine a deadline system where Delta is allowed to revert the unreverted items that are still on the list after a week. The community would then have a week (or whatever other time frame is seen to be appropriate) to either declare the bot edits to be wrongly reverted or to be correctly reverted and then remove such items from the list. Count Iblis (talk) 14:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Any sanction that requires other people to continually monitor Δ's edits and revert them after they happen is doomed from the beginning. One of the main problems with Δ's editing is that he does not have the judgment required to go about doing bot tasks without significant prior review; that problem dates all the way from BetacommandBot to this arbitration case. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid this remedy is an invitation to a festival of wiki-lawyering and perhaps WP:TAGTEAMing. Besides not addressing the issue that was the proximate cause of this arbitration (no consensus on what pattern or similar edits means), what does "both Betacommand and the subsequent user will share editorial responsibility for the edits made in this fashion" mean in practice? If the edits prove controversial in the community, are both editors going to be blocked? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not see any reason to be afraid. It's a reasonable remedy that addresses the valid concerns raised by all participants and the best interests of Wikipedia overall. IMO - My76Strat (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It's leaving us where we started or perhaps slightly worse in therms of the complexity and practicality of the restrictions. So, yeah, drama lovers have nothing to fear indeed. You could start selling popcorn. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand your contentions. I just do not ascribe to them. While we debate if the glass is half empty or half full, ArbCom is satisfied that in any regard the glass is not empty. I applaud such insight. My76Strat (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

But is that what this remedy is saying? I read it as "you thought those were complex and impractical restrictions?! we double that!" If the intent was to vacate the remedies by making them impossible to parse or apply, then this remedy surely is successful. I don't want to speculate why this comes from the Arbitrator who drafted the decision in the Betacommand 2 case. Sorry if I sound too cynical to you. You may want to read what your friend Hammersoft wrote about ArbCom Failure. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• Don't ascribe any friends to me here. I have no friends here. Got it? Even Δ. Sometimes people agree with me and I with them. That doesn't equal 'friend'. I value the freedom of being able to say what I want without regards to whose emotions I'm trampling on. It also means I don't have to keep track of whose happy back pocket I'm in. In being cynical, I happen to agree with you, most especially about some of the astonishing absurdities this case has brought. For example, Remedy 1.7, 6-0 in support so far of superseding the community sanctions, without any consensus existing on what the replacement sanctions will be. In total, ArbCom's behavior in this case reminds me of a bunch of Golgafrinchans not being able to invent the wheel because they can't decide what color it should be. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• Not quite sure you understand what 1.7 says. It basically says that the restrictions imposed by the community were inadequate and/or inadequately phrased and ArbCom will determine what his restrictions should be. That they haven't decided on what those restrictions (if any) are, it doesn't mean that the first part of the statement isn't true. Indeed, the restrictions have led to problems since they were phrased in such a nebulous manner. Buffs (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• I understand it perfectly, and that you feel I don't. If 1.7 passed with nothing else passing, then there would be no sanctions in place. Right now, no new restrictions are passing. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• Hammer, I don't know about those goldfinches (never read the book), but if you're saying that ArbCom is about to deliver us to the worst of all possible worlds, I agree wholeheartedly. I at least had some understanding of what the previous community sanctions really meant (with respect for your own arguments about "patterns", to me it was pretty clear from a common-sense non-semantic standpoint). I can't really make head or tail of the wording in remedy 7 - "repetitive" edits? The gist seems to be to transfer the whole argument over to AE, where Arbs repeatedly decry the lack of admins willing to participate, with absolutely no further guidance other than that something or other is prohibited. Why can't we just have X many articles/day, Y many reverts/article, Z many (existing) bots? Those goldfinches are models of clarity by comparison. Franamax (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The purpose and intent of proposed remedy 7 is just what I said in my support comment when I proposed it: I think that if Betacommand channels his automated or repeated edits into a list of edits that can be reviewed and implemented by another user, we keep the best of his contributions (identification of pages with problems and a method of addressing the problems) while eliminating the big problems that people have with his contributions (errors and occasional mis-prioritization of tasks). Proposed copyedits to address any perceived ambiguities in the wording or to simplify the interpretation of the remedy would be most welcome here.

I appreciate all the comments in this section (and everywhere else) but I must say I am puzzled by ASCIIn2Bme's remarks, including that "I don't want to speculate why this comes from the Arbitrator who drafted the decision in the Betacommand 2 case." Anyone is free to disagree with any proposal I make or even to try to convince me to modify or withdraw it; following such comments is part of my job. But if the implication is meant to be that I am intentionally trying to create confusion or to stoke drama rather than work toward a fair and productive solution to the case, that is highly offensive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

After straining to find reasonable assumptions of good faith, I am inclined to believe it was framed to offend. I share a measure of your disdain and request ASCIIn2Bme to retract the statement, or explain the intent. Regarding the proposal, I do wish ArbCom would evaluate if and how a mentor could facilitate implementation and ultimately the full remediation of Betacommand, which I hold to mean released from all restrictions. Sincerely - My76Strat (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

NYB I speak only for myself, and I have no doubt of your good faith. I personally am not sure exactly what to do when this stuff is not going through a workshop phase first. Where and how are we supposed to comment? I asked specific questions of another Arb about this and the response to my questions was "Thanks for your comments". It's hard to tell whether the AC actually cares what other people have to say. Franamax (talk) 02:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• I echo and concur with you Franamax. Further, I think the way this entire case has been handled has been exceptionally poor. Just one of the many serious problems with this case is at Proposed FoF 6.1. This FoF isn't based on any discussion on the evidence or workshop pages. There's been no opportunity for anyone, much less Δ, to review the supposed evidence and have an opportunity to rebut. Instead, it's just defacto; ArbCom says its true so it must be true. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that Newyorkbrad felt attacked, but if I were to speculate about his reasons for posting this remedy, it would certainly not include deliberately causing confusion. If I understood the history of the community restrictions following the Betacommand 2 case, they arose because that case did not address the matter effectively. ¶ Alas, the subsection of the community that usually deals with Δ can't agree about the meaning of soup. Whether this happens because it involves many programmers instead of LL.D.s, again I don't want to speculate. Nevertheless, I think there is rough consensus in the community that the restrictions need to be simplified. I don't think remedy 7 manages to do this, rather the opposite, so I expressed my frustration in that regard, perhaps not in the best way. Regards, ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it's definitely tomato soup, it just has certain quantities of rice, chicken, lentils, cucumbers and ox-tongue in it. I've proposed a few really seriously late principles and specific remedies in my workshop section. Can any of those be worked with, or moved forward as a body? Franamax (talk) 08:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

In regards to Franamax's comment on the Arb who said "Thanks for your comments"; I think that must be me. I had proposed a clean start option, and had received a number of comments for that, mostly critical of the proposal, and at the way it was done. Franamax left a message for me, which I took to be a rhetorical question designed to make me reflect on my action, and not intended to be fully answered. I took the message in the same spirit as the other comments I had received, and as part of my learning curve, and I thanked Franamax. As regards answering the question why I "didn't place those ideas first at the /Workshop page?" The idea had been raised in a few places before I formally put it on the Proposed Decision page, including Δ's talkpage, this talkpage, and the Workshop page. I felt the proposal was worth serious consideration as I believed it was a viable solution (still do). I feel that all viable proposals are worth considering, even if rejected, as the reasons for rejection can be helpful to a fuller understanding of the issues, even if only to answer the question - "Why wasn't XYZ considered?". As for why the PD page rather than the Workshop page for the formal wording of the proposal. I think that was mainly because the PD page had been opened, and because other proposals had already been directly placed on there rather than being workshopped first. I hope that clarifies matters, but if not, I'm prepared to expand. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

SilkTork, please don't be discouraged by any responses that this specific proposal has generated or will generate. Proposing new ideas and seeing how they are regarded by ArbCom is good, and doing it publicly is excellent. Transparent decision making is an area that ArbCom can improve, and actually examining different proposals on-wiki I believe engenders confidence in the arbitrators and helps with portraying a group of individuals rather than a single-minded 'iceburg' (90% of which is below the surface, hidden from view and mysterious). EdChem (talk) 05:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

SilkTork, I noticed your edit here on my watchlist earlier, sorry I didn't read it 'til now, I'm symptomatic I suppose of the general sense of exhaustion settling over this case. Yes, I was referring to you, yes I was rather unsettled by your utalk response, no, they weren't rhetorical questions - I was genuinely interested in your specific thoughts, especially in light of your answer to a Q in the election where you had mentioned reserving even the workshop page for arbitrators. In the case of the clean-start proposal, I think that would have been better as formally workshopped, where we could have kicked the crap out of the idea and saved your fellow arbs the effort (the workshop proposal you link is struck through). :) I do agree with EdChem that at least arb discussion on the PD page is vastly preferable to a pre-formed solution emerging from a private arb:wiki. I'd still prefer to see more detailed proposals going to the workshop first, as I've belatedly tried to do. (Also noting RD's request for more details there, which yeah, maybe I'll try that) I was more expressing frustration than dissing you in particular, though I would be interested in seeing an expanded answer to my Q's at a place and time of your convenience. Franamax (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

@SilkTork I agree with EdChem. It hadn't occurred to me that you might be discouraged about anything. To my eyes you have catapulted to the uppermost of my regards. I would also hope, and like to believe, that you proposed clean start in earnest. A generic appeal, to measure an intangible would be disingenuous; folly in fact. I interpreted the sum of your posts on the subject to be sincere. If you had to write the dissenting opinion, (re clean start) I would love to read it.

I have commented regarding clean start several times. And have levied, that I believe the authentic value of clean start has diminished, for synthesis. The majority, who opposed clean start, stated an implicit correlation to external blame; practically akin to exoneration. Reading the policy, no such indication is apparent. I must ask, how is Wikipedia better served by such a contrary light shed upon our governing instruments? In this place, we ought to see our policies in force; enforced unmolested! So where did the prevailing notion gain prominence? Certainly not some consensus I hope! For here, again, we ought to see, consensus subordinate to policy; for it is!

The letter of clean start and the spirit of its intent is well suited for application in this case. So now I have asked a third time. I posted evidence with diffs highlighting this issue. I find it rather telling. I posted motions, nothing really said or done. I thought I'd see a yes or no, in answer. Some participants regularly see one or two Arb comments to their workshop efforts. Others, see little, or none. As charges were laid against Δ for inadequate edit summaries, I asked if certain other edit summaries would also be problematic; to no answer, nothing. So I have also felt ignored in this case, and the other one for that matter.

I find this question, the reconciliation of policy with the rationale for oppose, to be central to Wikipedia's main dysfunctional elements. It's hard to find many who will even consider that consensus has its place. For if it reigns here, and can not be reined, here; I have a lot to consider. My76Strat (talk) 09:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Small tweak to #6 for self-reverts

For #6, one small tweak is to allow Δ to revert his own edits or edits by one of his bots in any namespace. During the testing phase of bot development, edits must occasionally be reverted, and there is no reason the sanction should prevent him from doing that while it allows him to develop bots. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that is covered under "or to make edits necessary to file and participate in his own Bot Request for Approvals." SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 02:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I would read the quoted passage as ony giving him permission to post on the BRFA pages, not to mainspace. The first sentence of #6 says he cannot edit mainspace at all, while the second sentence goes on to further restrict what edits he can make to other namespaces. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Betacommand vs. Δ

The PD refers to Δ by his former username (except in FoF1). This seems to be rather unusual since the usual practice is to use the current username and not a previous one (see, e.g., the Abortion case in which User:Anythingyouwant is referred to as such and not by his previous username Ferrylodge, even though he had a previous arbcom case under that name.) It might be a good idea to either add a sentence in the FoF like "As Δ is best known under his previous username, we will refer to him as Betacommand in the remainder of this decision for ease of reference" or replace all the "Betacommand" with "Δ". T. Canens (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I've proposed reverting him to Betacommand by remedy. That should simplify things throughout the entire project. Jclemens (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• ? Do you also plan on forcing every non-alphanumeric character username? Such names are allowed under policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually arbcom does not have the authority to forcibly rename me. I have a global account which I use on multiple projects. Arbcom's authority only extends to en.wiki. The way SUL functions you cannot use different names under the same account. Until that happens arbcom cannot force a rename as it affects other projects where they are 1/696 projects which I have an account on. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 18:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

They could make you an offer you can't refuse. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Theoretically, they can ban you until you agree to a rename...though that strikes me as complete overkill. T. Canens (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Would someone please explain why typing Δ's name (7 characters, code without spaces = & Delta ;) is such an onerous burden? His chosen username is shorter to type than many of the arbitrators but no one is proposing forcing them into "simpler" names. Further, it is impolite in my view to insist on using someone's former name. You wouldn't (I hope) refer to a trans woman by her birth name, nor to a divorced woman who chose to revert to her maiden name by her married name. Admittedly courtesy in the online world isn't the same as in face-to-face interactions but I think the general principle of a right to self-identify extends to respecting an editor's choice of username. Now I recognise that there were good reasons to use the Betacommand name in labelling this case as it follows the earlier ones but surely we can respect Δ sufficiently to refer to him by the name he has selected.

If ArbCom does choose to pass a remedy forcing a name change - and forcing an editor back to a name surrounded by controversy - I would like to see a principle, grounded in extant policy, passed that provides authority for this action. Aside from the points that Δ has made about SUL and Hammersoft has made about the explicit policy allowance for non-alphanumeric names, this has the potential to be seen as another example of ArbCom overreaching its mandate and authority, and for little gain that I can see. EdChem (talk) 04:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, he provides no shortcuts on his user page, and not everyone is a HTML guru. In fact, most people were using the template {{BCD}} to represent him. I've added the alternative to that template's documentation and to WP:UUN. (And some are still surprised how it works [45] ) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The substance of policy is beyond the purview of ArbCom - that is, ArbCom must follow policy, in this case WP:USERNAME#Usernames with non-Latin characters, not change it. Accordingly, this proposal is beyond ArbCom's authority. While I have no opinion on the case as a whole, this particular proposal is itself a WP:POINT violation. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the overall case name, I gather this was chosen because of the earlier cases prior to assuming the Δ username. Otherwise, while I don't feel quite as strongly about this as Philosopher, I've opposed the remedy. PhilKnight (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'd like to respond Jclemens' 07:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC) comment [46]. Jclemens might not like the idea that Δ changed his name. But, the name change was reviewed by ArbCom in a request for clarification, and was allowed to remain. Please see discussion. I also concur with others above that ArbCom, should it somehow pass this "remedy", will be acting in violation of policy and outside of their remit as granted by the community. Further, Δ has never made any secret of the connection between the accounts, and in his very first two edits under the new username, he redirected his old user page [47] and talk page [48] to his new account. He has been totally transparent about the move, and has never edited from Betacommand since the move [49]. What "problem" is this "remedy" seeking to solve? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

There is the matter of the fact that Betacommand started editing under Δ in order to circumvent a block. In my opinion, this has less to do with "triangle guy" and the name he chooses, and more to do with the fact that he violated another policy in order to circumvent his block. Forcing him to go back to his old name is certainly reasonable in that light, but I think it is complete bull$#!t to make him change it just because it is hard to type. Our policy explicitly allows that. Buffs (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Circumvent a block? The Betacommand account was abandoned on 11 July 2010. That account was used to edit the very day he switched to the new Δ account. The last time the Betacommand account had been blocked prior to it being abandoned was 9 August 2009 [50], 11 months prior. I fail to see any block evasion. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

  If that's the case, I stand corrected, but I see no evidence that the indefinite block was ever lifted from Betacommand. Buffs (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Please look at the block log. The last time Betacommand was indefinitely blocked was 13 July 2009. That block was lifted less than four hours later. At the time that the Betacommand account was abandoned (a year after that last indefinite block had been lifted), no block was in effect nor had been in effect for 11 months. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

A queue is forming...

Just a note that a current AN/I thread (<permalink to archive>) is somewhat stalled in anticipation of a decision here. I'll draw attention to my proposed principle on automated/high-speed/scripted editing - I believe this should be held to a much higher standard. Even in normal course editing and review, it's difficult to check over another's edits when many changes are made at one time. When even one error is finally sorted out from the diff, this is a matter for concern and becomes subject to blanket reversion. When there are hundreds of these edits occurring in a short period of time, it becomes simply overwhelming to maintain any standard of quality. To me, the question arises why the humans who are working hard here should be expected to just give up and accept whatever the high-speed editors decide is the right thing to do, even when it's wrong. Franamax (talk) 06:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• And in a blink of an eye Wikipedia became sentient. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Franamax I disagree in part with you conclusion. You and no other is expected to give up, retreat, or succumb in any way. It's BRD, the way we collaborate, and you can revert, and discuss, and see your preference remain in the article's of your interest and concern. Are you suggesting that Δ should never be allowed to be the bold editor in BRD? As an aside, while you express almost a loathsome disgust for automated edits, high speed edits, High-speed editors and beyond, I assure you, without such capability, without so many people doing it, Wikipedia could not succeed! It absolutely could not be possible. My76Strat (talk) 08:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Last time I checked, WP:MEATBOT was policy, but just like WP:CIVIL, it's hardly ever enforced. Open editing being the foundation of Wikipedia everyone is free to consume magawats (and megabucks) changing all instances of {{Reflist}} to {{reflist}} and then back, per BRD, or else Wikipedia will fail its mission. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Franamax may not have explicitly said it, so I will. No, Δ should not be allowed to be the bold editor in WP:BRD. He has proven himself to be disruptive over a long period of time and can't follow policy, arbcom decisions, or community-based sanctions. Enough is enough. When does the madness end?

I think he should be banned for a significant period of time (that's up to ArbCom to decide, but I will accept any decision). Likewise, if he is not given a ban, but further editing restrictions, those restrictions should be as clear as possible and it should be made 100% crystal clear that, should Δ violate Term X, he will be given a Y punishment for a violation of said infraction (much like violating WP:3RR automatically leads to a block).

I also agree with Franamax's sentiment that this is dragging on too long. A decision needs to be made. Perhaps an alternately phrased restriction/block/ban is in order? Buffs (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• The claim that Δ can not follow ArbCom decisions is provably false. 18 July 2011 ArbCom motion forbade Δ from making edits enforcing the WP:NFCC policy. Since that time, Δ has made more than 5000 edits without being appropriately blocked for violating that motion. Six months and more than 5000 edits. I wonder, how many edits and how much time has to elapse before he proves himself capable of abiding by an ArbCom motion? What about community sanctions? Remember the edit throttle? No blocks for that since May of 2011; that's eight months and more than 12,000 edits. Indeed, when is enough enough? I do agree that any new sanctions must be crystal clear; we got into this current mess is because "the current community sanction is drama prone because of the varying interpretations of "pattern" in the community" [51]. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • As I documented in my evidence, Δ has been skirting right at the edge of the NFCC ban; there is no sign he has taken the spirit of that restriction to heart. He violated the speed restriction on June 20 and 27; July 2,7, 8 and 14; and September 2, 3, and 17. It may be true that he was not blocked for that since May, but he was still violating it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• As I've noted to you before, complaining about him operating within the NFCC restrictions is a non-starter. Either he's complying, or he's not; not some nebulous idea of yours that he's violating because he's doing some arbitrarily determined "skirting" near it. Going backwards on the edit throttle, 17 September he was over it by a whopping 4 edits, September 3rd just 1, September 2 just 1, July 14 by 1, July 8 by 3, July 7 by 2. July 2nd is the only serious violation. It's obvious that since then, across 7000 edits and near 7 months, he has been trying like the dickens to comply. But, that's not good enough, is it? Tell you what; you try an edit within that standard, even for just a little while. See how successful you are. Do you NEVER exceed the speed limit in real life, even by 1 mph? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • First you say "either he's complying, or he's not"; then you argue it is OK that he has routinely flouted the speed restriction. There is also the issue of posting tasks on the village pump, another requirement he has routinely ignored. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• I rightfully, and correctly, pointed out he is complying. You complain he's in violation of the restrictions because he's nebulously defined "skirting" close to violating. Please define, in crystal clear terms, this nebulous area. Otherwise, there's no way to rebut your comments. Please answer the question; have you never violated the speed limit, even by 1 mph? As to posting tasks, as was proven this past fall whether he posts or doesn't post he'll be taken to task for it. Even the insertion/removal of a whitespace was deemed to be a "pattern" that required "approval" (which would never be granted). That whole fracas was proof the community is utterly incapable of handling this issue, which is why we are here. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• "...then you argue it is OK that he has routinely flouted the speed restriction"

Any evidence for this other than the evidence by 69.149.249.38? The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3/Evidence#Replies by Toshio Yamaguchi regarding evidence presented by 69.149.249.38 shows that there is no uniform interpretation of the restriction text by the community. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Any time Δ makes 41 or more edits in a 10 minute period, he has averaged more than 4 edits per minute over a 10 minute period of time. It is easy to create a list of 10-minute periods in which Δ made more than 40 edits, because this just requires scanning all his edits and counting how many occur in each 10 minute period. Moreover, I was responding to Hammersoft's comment in which he already accepted that the violations were present. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

So this 1 edit left over constitutes a violation of the restriction but Δ is supposed not to come even close to the limit? Wow. I fail to see how any editor is reasonably supposed to follow such a restriction other than to stop making edits entirely. This is applying two different scales to the same measure. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• This is a concern I have as well; it's not enough that he comply. He has to comply with nebulous standards applied by CBM, not written down anywhere, and not agreed upon by consensus. This, on pain of CBM continually claiming he's violated the spirit of his sanctions. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Normal Wikipedia practice is for editors to abide by the spirit of things, not just by the "letter of the law". But Δ did not just violate the spirit of his editing restriction, he broke the literal wording, and did so on a routine basis, both by editing too fast and by failing to get permission for editing tasks beforehand. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Please spell out your nebulous standards for "skirting" near the edge of his violations and provide diffs of how he violated this (so far) unwritten standard. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I said he did not just skirt his restrictions, he directly violated them. It's true that we expect editors to do more than simply comply, but Δ did not even do that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Would you please put down in writing the nebulous, unwritten standards you are holding him to? PLEASE? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

@Toshio Yamaguchi: editors performing normal, manual editing of individual articles don't come anywhere close to 40 edits in 10 minutes; only editors doing automated or semi-automated editing do. So Δ could just stop doing those and he would be fine. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I could very easily come close to 40 edits in 10 minutes without the use of any automated or semi-automated tools by simply opening a bunch of tabs in my browser, applying some changes to the page markup and then saving all changes in a row. I fail to see how that is a proof of using any automated or semi-automated tools or scripts. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Right - the point is that Δ could avoid the problem by focusing on making well-thought-out edits to a small number of articles (the way most editors do) instead of making similar edits to large numbers of articles. Nobody is surprised that the reason he exceeded the speed restriction was because he was doing the latter instead of the former. The problem is that he has continued to edit as if he is nothing more than a bot; I'm not surprised that one of the more popular remedies formally treats him as one. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• This is what you want of him, but you haven't spelled out this or any of your other nebulous restrictions on his editing. I'm sorry his editing offends you, but I certainly couldn't abide by your nebulous, unwritten standards any better than he could. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • That is what the community has always wanted of him, and what we expect of all editors. Relatively few editors are unable to keep their editing in line with community norms. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I made a large number of NFCC enforcement edits in a row as well, like I did for example with the following edits: [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57]. So what is the argument against placing me under editing restrictions as well? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
      • The edit restrictions did not come about solely due to fast editing; they were a response to a long history (even back then) of problematic editing by Δ. The community is not fast to impose edit restrictions. It takes effort, so to speak, to get to the point where there is consensus for them. In the case of Δ the real argument when the sanctions were imposed was between them and a ban, not between them and nothing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Toshio, that "tabbed browser" argument has been used many times in the past. If you would look through the history rather than arguing de novo, you would see that the original "no automated edits" restriction was changed to the rate limit because everyone knew that Beta was still using a script but there was no way to definitively prove it. I've said it before, I'll say it again, if Beta had aimed to make 3 edits/minute (30 per 10 minutes), he would never ever ever have violated the letter of the restriction. It was Beta who made the choice to push it to the max, and it was Beta who went over the limit. Why the post facto attempts at justification? Franamax (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• @Hammersoft: Now you said, "Even the insertion/removal of a whitespace was deemed to be a "pattern" that required "approval" (which would never be granted)." There was never a guarantee that he would get permission, just a requirement that he has to have permission before he performs the task. The fundamental point of that is to allow the community to deny him permission if they choose to do so. The priority is to prevent disruption, not to allow Δ to perform any particular task. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Please answer the question; have you ever exceeded the speed limit, even by 1 mph? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

HS, again, you insist on adding irrelevant questions to the mix (in this case a red herring). Whether or not Carl's ever exceeded the speed limit is completely irrelevant. The point is that delta has exceeded his appointed "speed limit" (on multiple occasions, not just once). It is clear to me and others that he lacks the diligence and capability to respect his community-imposed sanctions. You cannot justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior. Buffs (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for your insightful analysis into my incredibly bad behavior. Now, the question is for CBM, not you, and there is a point...not a red herring...to my question. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll answer the question for myself: yes, yes I have exceeded the speed limit. Each time with the full knowledge that a police officer could nail me for it, and with the additional knowledge that if I keep doing it and keep getting busted, eventually I'll have to appear before a judge and explain why I should be allowed to keep my license to drive. I'm not going to complain about that system being unfair, it's my own choice if I want to break the law. Even the night I really seriously broke all speed limits going to a house, but the cops who were chasing me had already left before the ambulance did. I'm quite willing to wear my own infractions, and I don't need anyone else to justify my own actions. Franamax (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If you have a point, why would you need CBM to respond? Can't you make your point without demanding a specific user respond to your demands.

I too will answer the question for myself: Yes, indeed I have sped. I don't do so anymore (much to the chagrin of others). The only time I speed is if someone's life is on the line (taking my wife to the emergency room because she is bleeding uncontrollably), it is unsafe to drive at a slower speed (If everyone is traveling at 70 mph through a narrow 45 mph construction zone, I'm going to go 70 because it is safer to do so), or if I do so accidentally (in which case I correct the problem as soon as I notice it). In every instance, I am willing to get a ticket for speeding because it is worth the price I pay. Moreover, I've been driving for 20 years and I've never received a ticket for speeding. If I get pulled over, it's because I deserve it and I'm happy to pay the price.

Since you won't make your analogy without a specific member of ArbCom responding to your personal whims, I'll tackle this. No, the same is NOT true for delta. He is a reckless driver who's been pulled over and thrown in the proverbial jail many times. His punishment for going 80 mph in a 70 mph zone is drastically different than mine. Claiming that his punishment should be no worse than mine would be is ridiculous. Buffs (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

But it's not like going 80mph in a 70mph zone since 80mph is a speed most people actually drive at sometime. It's more like 200mph, a speed reached only by race car drivers and bot operators. I'd like to see an actual example (not just theoretical possibility) of someone having made 40 mainspace edits in 10 minutes without using a bot or script. Unless I miscounted, the most edits Toshio Yamaguchi has made in a 10-minute period is 15, around 2011-10-21T10:06:58Z, a bunch of additions of the same navbox template to math articles with a bunch ~30 seconds apart almost like clockwork, suggesting script assistance. Sven Manguard has made >40 edits in 10 minutes on a few occasions (see /Evidence talk), but those were across multiple namespaces, I also suspect scripts were involved, he apparently used a script (Huggle), and the edits were full of errors. 67.122.210.96 (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I think people mentioning WP:BRD completely misunderstand BRD if they are proposing applying it to bot edits. BRD means, for example, that if I'm considering a good-faith but potentially controversial edit to the Great Pyramids article that adds several paragraphs claiming (say) that the pyramids were actually built by penguins, I shouldn't agonize too much about its possible reception by other editors. I should just boldly make the edit. The rationale is that even if it took me hours to write the paragraphs, if the edit turns out to be unacceptable, another editor can look at my change for a few moments, decide it's not appropriate, and just click "undo" to revert it, so my bad edit hasn't burned much of anyone's time but my own. The whole basis of "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" is similar--we open ourselves up to (among other things) routine vandalism, on the theory that it's easy to revert.

With bots, it's the opposite. Someone rather easily launches a bot operation that makes 1000's of edits, and it's then extremely difficult for human editors to examine or undo them. Please see User talk:75.57.241.57/x (one of several pages related to a single incident) as an example of the level of effort that it takes to revert a bot operation gone wrong. Someone (I won't name him here since this was an isolated error by an otherwise good editor) got over-enthusiastic with Twinkle and protected several thousand templates without consensus. It took days of hassle including N hours of custom programming (by me, with the help of discussion from other editors that consumed a lot of their time as well), and more hours of drudge work by a helpful admin who did the unprotections, to reconstruct exactly what Twinkle had done to each template and undo it. I've been involved in some other messy high-volume cleanups as well, but most often what happens is that the bad edits simply never get cleaned up because it's too much hassle, and the encyclopedia suffers long-lasting damage.

TL;DR: BOLD is only for actions (like most single edits) that are easy to undo ("revert"). It should never apply to difficult-to-undo operations such as large clusters of edits (automated or otherwise), edits that make irreversible disclosures or provoke conflict, etc. Anyone who has never actually reverted a bot rampage themselves (which can mean having to write another bot to clean up after the first bot) shouldn't go around saying that it's easy or expect other people to do it as part of BRD. If you really think BRD applies, let's see you do the revert. 67.122.210.96 (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Like Well said. There is a principle proposal along these lines in the Workshop Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand_3/Workshop#Edits made by automated methods are held to a higher standard. It could use some tuning, but it is more sensible than proposing that bot wars BRD should be a standard of Wikipedia operations. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

FoF 6.1 evidence?

Would an arbitrator please indicate the evidentiary basis for FoF 6.1 - Ongoing communication problems? Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

HS, I'm not an admin, but... it seems to me that this stems from both cryptic/incomplete/misleading edit summaries to just not responding to requests for information that have been cited in previous ArbCom issues. Buffs (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't find it now, but there is an arbitrator's comment to the effect that his off-Wiki responses during this case have been problematic. There is reference to problems off-Wiki in the discussion of the two alternate findings of fact. Jd2718 (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Jclemens wrote: Some of the specific communications in question involve matters known to the committee but not in evidence. But sure, an Arb could respond directly. Jd2718 (talk) 02:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'd like a member of ArbCom to respond please. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes it is difficult to be clear on some matters because there are privacy concerns. Betacommand approached a number of Committee members off-Wiki in an inappropriate manner. As the conversations were private they cannot be shared without Bettacommand's consent, but the conversations were unhelpful. For clarity, Bettacommand also communicated with me by email, and those conversations are NOT the ones referred to. The conversations I had with Bettacommand were legitimate and appropriate. The rest of the Committee have not seen those conversations as they are private, and Bettacommand has not given consent for them to be shared. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 02:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Slight correction: Any off-wiki communication to any arbitrator on a matter before the committee can be shared with the entire committee at the discretion of the recipient committee member. We don't post off-wiki conversations on-wiki without consent, however. Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• The FoF also refers to on-wiki communications. I presume those are not private? Where's the evidence? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I wrote the "on and off-Wiki" comment as I wanted to be clear that we were also referring to the off-Wiki conversations mentioned above. My focus was on the off-Wiki communication, and I assumed that the "Betacommand's communications" wording in 6.1 was including the edit summaries previously mentioned as being unhelpful, plus any other communications that Betacommand might have made. I have discussed with him that phrases such as "ArbFucked" are not helpful. On reflection, "Betacommand's communications" might be the better phrase. However, as 6.2 is not getting support, it's perhaps a minor point. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• So do I have this right? You're using off-wiki e-mails with some members of ArbCom, an area where you don't have jurisdiction to rule against him. You're also finding against him for other communications he "might have made" (without providing any diffs to such purported communications. Wow. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• The page you link to does say "The Committee may take notice of conduct outside its jurisdiction when making decisions about conduct on the English Wikipedia if such outside conduct impacts or has the potential to impact adversely upon the English Wikipedia or its editors." ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• And pray tell, what potential impact is there of a private e-mail? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• It depends what it contains. I don't want to speculate. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

"minor edits"

I have a quibble with

1) Δ (talk · contribs), previously known as Betacommand (talk · contribs)... has participated in Wikipedia since November 2005. During that time, a substantial portion of his editing has consisted of repetitive minor edits ...

Minor edit is Wikipedia terminology for edits like spelling corrections, that don't add or remove content. They are flagged as "m" in edit histories which stops them from showing up on some watchlists or searches. The controversies around Δ's editing are mostly about edits that generally do add or remove content (usually remove), so they don't qualify as "minor" in that sense. I could go with "insubstantial" (except when they are wrong), but then why bother making them? 67.122.210.96 (talk) 07:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Betacommand limited to open source tools

moved from project page --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I use two non-public svn systems. I do not plan on changing that. I open my code up for those who I can trust and who I know will not abuse my tools. If anyone is interested in accessing my web based repo they should contact me. However as it stands I will not publicly release my code until such time as I have done extensive testing on it, and it has been proven stable over a very long period and that I have had time to build in the idiot proofing needed for such a public release. Since I rarely add in the needed fail-safes for people unfamiliar with my code, I rarely make anything public. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 19:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing that if the remedy passes, you won't be permitted to edit mainspace at all unless you change your mind. I don't see why you would need to idiot-proof your code, to be honest. You'd just be clarifying what precisely you'd like to do. I think transparency has been a significant issue here, and I can see how this could alleviate the problem. --NYKevin @029, i.e. 23:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

When I have code that can go on a rampage and that edits at over 5,000 edits/hour Im not just going to had it out to just any vandal. If you want clarity all you need to do is ask. Ive been fairly up front. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 23:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit throttling is handled in the MediaWiki software since v1.4.5, released 2005-06-03. Any wiki running v1.3.x or v1.4.4 should be pulled of the internet, or be destroyed. The default edit rate is 28800 edits/hour. If there are any problems with vandals editing too fast, the tech staff can reduce the permitted edit rate. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Beta, are you saying there that your private code is running without you having done extensive testing on it? That seems a matter of concern. Franamax (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you may be taking things out of context, I test and review my code thoroughly. However there are a few known cases where bugs exist which I am working on fixing, however that is why I review every edit before saving in cases where I know my code has a small chance of breaking things. However there are other pieces of code that I know have been tested to the point of being 100% bug free. However when code is in development bugs may be introduced. Sometimes they are an easy fix, other times it can be a very complex bug fix. In every case where the code is still in development I manually need to check every edit prior to saving, so yes and no. All fully automated editing is thoroughly tested and checked. However developmental code is just that, still in development, or cases where the error rate for a given task is too high for automation. (for example updating file names after a rename. Due to the complexity of wikimarkup and the fact that files can have almost identical file names the probability for error is high enough for manual oversight.) ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 23:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

PS ask User:Piotrus about my reference cleanup tool that he has been using, it still has a few bugs which is why I havent publicly announced it. Piotrus requested a tool, I wrote it for him, tested it, got it working about 90% of the time, and then let Piotrus know about it and that it still has the chance to break a page (which it does on occasion) so that he needs to review each edit before saving, and that he should notify me of any bugs he finds. He has been using that tool for awhile now and reporting problems to my talk page for me to fix. Normally I do all the testing and bug fixing before making a tool public, during that time there is a period where bugs are expected. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Δ, I'm puzzled--why is your code somehow more dangerous or abusable than the tons of other bot code already out there? Why would someone capable of modifying your code to do something vandalistic not be capable of writing their own vandalbot? The MW:API including the editing interface is reasonably well-documented after all. I agree that vandals shouldn't be allowed to run bots making 5000 edits per hour, but I see that possibility as basically a server bug rather than something enabled by any particular client code getting loose, so I'd support adding a server patch limiting edit rates to 100 edits/hour (or some comparable number) for any accounts without a bot flag. I do understand your feeling of sitting on crufty, unreleasable code (we all have code like that) but maybe you should take the view that long-running bot code shouldn't be deployed unless it's production-ready (i.e. cleaned up, documented, etc). For shorter term tasks, I'd consider it a reasonable compromise if some other editors (BAG members, say) were known to have private access to the code.

How does the following modification sound: code doesn't have be released for bots where the BRFA process establishes that the approval is for a non-recurring, one-off task that is expected to be completed (i.e. over and done with, no follow-ons expected) in 30 days or less from initial deployment. Longer-running bots are expected to have clean, documented, release-quality code in a public place. 67.122.210.96 (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I know the dangers of powerful code in the wrong hands, Hell I remember the squidward vandal that completely trashed all of our anti-vandal tools back in the day (literally I saw the programs crash in response to a few of his attacks) I know my code can reach 5,000 edits an hour as it has done that back in 2007-2008. Most frameworks have a core feature that throttles the bot so that it cannot exceed a specific limit. Mine lacks that. As for code accessibility I have always had a simi-open practice with my code, if I can trust you and you know what your looking at I tend to share without any real issues. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Realistically though, it's not all that likely you'll be running a 5000 edit/hour bot for a while yet. So you could release a throttled version or a simplified internal API in the public version, write new bots, and still have your fast code if it becomes needed. No-one especially wants to see your code for fast-commits and no-one reputable would want to run it anyway - so can't you just dumb that layer down? Franamax (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

If it was just a minor re-write I wouldnt mind, but doing it in such a way that doesnt cripple existing code would require a massive re-write, that is honestly not worth the hassle required for such a stupid thing. I can control the throttle in each script as needed, and thus those throttles are easily ignored, modifying the core code to make a non-trivial, functioning throttle just isnt worth the effort to re-write. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand how limits in a framework can do much to stop deliberate misuse--the frameworks are published as source code, so I'd surely expect vandals to be able to turn off the speed limits. I don't remember Squidward but is there any particular reason to think that s/he started with any particular bot code (whether yours or someone else's)? In any case, sure, any code you release should have similar safeguards to the other code that's out there. 67.122.210.96 (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no clue what framework squidward was using but he reached 60 edits a minute, making the likelihood of human editing minimal. Adding in the needed safeguards to my framework isnt a easy task and that type of re-write is just a waste of time, when a better method is controlling who has access to said tools. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

No bot can make 5,000 edits per hour while following the rule of only making one connection at a time, because the servers are not that speedy at handling single requests. On the other hand, any framework can edit at that rate if enough instances are run sdimultaneously, or if multithreading is used, so that more than one connection is made at a time. Indeed the edit rate could be made arbitrarily high, until the server admins get upset and prevent the bot from editing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, someone had mentioned that Δ had been running multi-threaded bots in the distant past. I'd like to hope that his current bots aren't like that, and that the server notices multiple active connections. 67.122.210.96 (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have a theory about what this is actually about. It sounds to me like Δ is using a multi-threaded bot framework that's manually throttled, and is concerned that it could be used to vandalize more disruptively than a typical single-threaded bot could be. I appreciate the sense of responsibility and I can understand the view that a typical script kiddie might not be able to write a multi-threaded bot from scratch. But I'd think they could do just as much damage with N separate instances of single-threaded bots, so it's basically up to whatever the server side uses as DDOS protection, which I'd expect (don't know) has been an issue from day one. Δ, why don't you have a private chat with some of the server devs on irc and ask them if they think there is a serious attack hazard in releasing your code, given the public editing API and the vast amount of bot code already in the wild. If they're not worried then I wouldn't worry either. 67.122.210.96 (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You are only seeing half of the issue, yes the servers can handle the code without any issues, but how much damage could be done to a project or projects before the vandal bot is caught? the individual servers wouldnt have any physical damage, but you must also consider the damage to the content of the projects and the requirements to clean such a mess up. Im not worried about server issues Im more worried about the extent of the damage that could be done, and the required cleanup hassle. I know from rare cases when something breaks in the code and a mass-revert is needed its not a simple task. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

What I'm getting at is that I'm still not convinced that a vandal getting hold of your code is somehow more dangerous than a vandal getting hold of bot XYZ, where XYZ is one of the many bots with published code, even if your code is multi-threaded while bot XYZ is single threaded. If the server devs say otherwise, I suppose I'll take them seriously, but otherwise I don't think there's much to worry about. Forgive me for saying this, but I think we've had much worse problems from bots run by "legitimate" editors (I'll refrain from mentioning any names) than we've had from bots run by vandals. 67.122.210.96 (talk) 03:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Middle of the road solution

It appears that the BAG-approved-only-tasks resolution is what is going to pass. I don't think that the open-source-only-tasks is going to pass, but I have no idea. How about a middle of the road solution then. Betacommand, is there any active/semi-active member of the Bot Approvals Group (there are eight active and six semi-active) that you would not trust in showing the code to? If not, find a secure way to make the code available to those people. To be brutally honest, I think that all of this concern over the code is nonsense, all we need to care about is the end product, but for the people who are concerned about the code, this seems like a good compromise. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

If one of them would like to request access to the code they can email me. I have already stated that I use a non-public web SVN repo. (I just had to re-start it after reviewing this proposal because I had passwords in an old revision) I can give access to that if/when needed. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the issue of code release is mostly to make sure that someone else can run the bot if Δ has to stop for some reason. I doubt that any of us want to sit around reviewing the code for bugs if it's running normally. 67.122.210.96 (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That is one of the desirable properties of open source. It ensures that the community can rely on software being available and fixable; it ensures the developer is 'replacable', and usually means they are naturally replaced when there is someone else better able to maintain the software. That isnt my motivation. I dont think Betacommands bots are so important. His ability to write new bots is what is important.

The primary motivation is to ensure that people other than Beta's close friends can review the code. When a developer knows their code is going to be public, they ask peers to review it. When a developer knows that their code is going to impact a large numbers of users, they ask for a review to ensure most corner cases have been thought out. Open source results in roughly the level of quality as the userbase demands. Public source code will also allow anyone to confirm that the software did make the bot edits, if there is a series of concerning edits. If he breaks this remedy, it will be provable. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, if there's a real dispute about questionable edits, it's not so easy to forensically prove that the code Δ is actually running is the same code that is in the public repo. Think of the controversy over voting machines (sure, they might publish a "code repo", but that code isn't necessarily running in the actual machine). I could imagine some contraption on toolserver that was maintained by toolserver admins and ran user bots directly from the code repos, but if we really need something like that we're in worse trouble than I thought. Basically we have to go by AGF about what the code is doing. 67.122.210.96 (talk) 05:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. If an edit is declared as being run from a publicly-available code repository, then the edit should be exactly replicable using the same version of code. Anything else is non-approved code. Franamax (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The software voting machine problem is that the votes go into a hidden black box where the software resides, and the software might drop a 'vote', or the votes might be leaked to a non-public location, etc. As far as I can see, in this case the modified software could only perform public edits which are possible using the code in the public repo. What would be the point? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hm, I guess you're right. It would depend on exactly what the code did, and you might have to roll back the affected pages to just before the disputed edits in order to reproduce them, but I suppose that's all doable, given some reasonable constraints on the code and a serious enough controversy. 67.122.210.96 (talk) 08:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Removed comment

All,

I removed a comment as it insinuated that delta committed a crime or could possibly be fired from his job from misuse of company property (if proven true). Since this allegation had no link or backup to the claim, I removed it IAW WP:BLP and explained it on the user's talk page. It should also be noted that this comment was the user's SOLE contribution. Perhaps it isn't a WP:SOCK, but since the vast majority of WPians don't start at editing in ArbCom, I think I'm hearing a WP:DUCK quacking... Buffs (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think you're being a bit over-dramatic there, but fair enough. I've decided to be generous and do a little unpaid arbitration work tonight so that this isn't dismissed as an unsubstantiated smear. I think this comment followed by this exchange is probably what I was remembering. He says he can release parts of his code but not the "majority" because it contains his employer's copyrighted framework. If JV wants to go down the open source route, he should probably get this clarified, lest his license to practice wikilaw is revoked. Some of that also looks to have implications for the other remedies too, the non-disclosure stuff and the other technical details, but I'm damned if I'm doing any more pro bono work for the committee tonight. Good luck MBisanz ;) NanuVavu (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Even though NanuVavu pretty clearly doesn't need a new-user welcome template with handy links, and used "probably just a lie", for which the comment merited removal, I don't think any crime or violation was suggested. I'll confirm that my impression also was that Beta relied partially on a framework outside of his own control, and I think the diff supplied above may be where I got that impression. I'll also state that I have read an off-site web page in the past (which I believe was linked from this site, not from extra "sleuthing") where Beta discussed the capability of that software to make very rapid edits using a multi-threading model, and Beta presented various statistics to show high edit rates. I was actually trying to thik of a specific question for Beta on the lines of "does your software rely on subsystems that could not reasonably be obtained by another editor?" or something, until this new editor said much the same thing. This issue has affected the exact choice of wording I used in various proposals, i.e. we don't want to see the fast code, but we should be able to replicate the operation without it. NanuVavu put it badly, but I believe it to be a valid point. Franamax (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I guess I can go along with the idea that we don't really need to see this, er, polydimensional code. Per my "general discussion" workshop comment, program bugs per se haven't particularly been the issue in most of these incidents: the programs usually do work as intended, and the problems have mostly been in task selection, large editing runs without enough testing and feedback, problems dealing with other users, etc. It's not even that helpful to do anything sounding like pushing responsibility for Δ's software problems onto other users or expecting us to do the work of reviewing it. Δ, you've mentioned that you've given access to the code to a few other users. Would you be ok with saying who a couple of them are? That might be good enough for the auditing purposes discussed in the previous thread. 69.111.193.96 (talk) 07:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC) (address changed)

Requiring that his bot be open source does not require that the framework is open source as well. This polydimensional framework has been in development for years. The polydimensional framework API should be stable. If it was cutting edge, there will be research papers about it already. The proposed remedy forces Betacommand to use a bot framework which does have a stable published API that permits linking. The only problem would be if the polydimensional framework API is a trade secret, and Betacommand decides that he doesnt want to write his bots (existing and future) on a bot framework which does have a published API that permits linking. Some bot operators have been able to develop closed-source cutting edge frameworks which are research (the Cobi vandal bots?), and we've seen the research papers come out of this. Sadly it isnt a good idea to let Betacommand continue to do this. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Cobi's bot sources are here. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

"Frustrated" 6.1 < 6.2

An editor "frustrating" others is not sufficient for an ArbCom sanction, e.g. admonishment. In general, Wikipedia discussions of users should be phrased in terms of behaviors, rather than in terms of emotional states of editors, e.g. "frustration", which are more subjective.

An editor violating behavioral policies, e.g., by failing to reply to reasonable requests for explanations of edits or constructively to engage in discussions, is a legitimate concern for ArbCom.

Thus, proposal 6.2 is superior to proposal 6.1.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

6.1 and licensing

Re Kirill "I don't believe we have the authority to force a user to release material under a particular type of license": right, arbcom can't force the release of code. But it can certainly decline to let the bots keep running if Δ doesn't choose to release the code. Whether it's important in this particular situation is a different question, but IMHO it is a legitimately available remedy. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 08:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Looks like Jclemens and Coucrelles already made this same point before I did. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom offering solutions when no problem has been properly identified & general failure of ArbCom

This case has been dragging on for an excessive period of time now. At this stage, we have ArbCom agreeing via proposed principles that:

• (Principal 2) The community can impose sanctions
• (Principal 3) ArbCom can review those sanctions
• (Principal 4) Recidivism

Ok, moving forward we have the following findings of fact being agreed upon;

• (FoF 1) Δ has done a lot of editing, some or all of which (they can't seem to decide) has been done using tools. (this has the effect of criminalizing tool usage, btw)
• (FoF 2.2) Concerns have been raised about Δ's editing which resulted in community sanctions
• (FoF 4) The community sanctions have failed (but have refused to specify reasons why they failed)
• (FoF 6.1) There's been ongoing communication problems (but have failed to identify any on-wiki evidence to support this finding)

In short; so far ArbCom hasn't identified the problem. If you can't identify the problem, tossing around remedies isn't going to solve anything. So not surprisingly, in its remedies ArbCom decides

• (Remedy 1.7) The community sanctions are superseded (so far, by nothing; i.e. an empty remedy).
• (Remedy 3) Δ can appeal (the nonexistant) ban (i.e., an empty remedy).

And here's the kicker; 16 remedies haven't passed or have failed outright. No small wonder; again, if you can't identify and support with evidence the actual problem, you can't craft a remedy to fix it. 2 1/2 months ago I noted ArbCom's incompetence in the establishment of this case. Move forward to today, and the fumbling about is still happening.

Rather than focusing on remedies at this point, ArbCom needs to go back to the drawing board and try to ascertain what in fact the problem was when this all started.

Lost in all of this is the fact that ArbCom screwed up. See FoF 5. In July of 2009, ArbCom assigned two mentors to Δ (see unban decision), who failed in their appointed tasks, and neither of whom informed Δ they would no longer continue to mentor him. In fact a year after they'd been made mentors, they still had the mentorship note on the top of his talk page [58] that one of them had placed there the year before [59]. Worse, ArbCom didn't even take notice they were not receiving monthly reports. Where's the FoF that ArbCom screwed up in their self appointed duty? Where's the FoF that the mentors who had been assigned to Δ failed in their appointed duties?

Here's another good one. 7 January 2012, ArbCom proposes Δ be limited to WP:BAG approved tasks (Remedy 6). Did they bother to ask BAG about this, or even notify them they were being included as a possible remedy? Nope. I had to notify them myself, five days later [60]. Of course when someone from BAG did show up less than a day later, they opposed it and begged them not to do it.

So in summary;

• Why is ArbCom failing to identify on-wiki evidence regarding communication problems and how and why the community sanctions failed?
• Why is ArbCom proposing remedies when they haven't properly identified actual problems that have evolved since the last ArbCom case regarding this editor from last summer?
• Why did ArbCom fail to identify a proper basis for this ArbCom case to provide focus under which people could properly submit evidence rather than the free for all it became?
• Why has ArbCom failed to admit it failed in its assignment of mentors and its self assigned duties in that respect?
• Why did ArbCom fail to discuss Remedy 6 with WP:BAG before proposing it, or at least notify them of it when it was proposed?

It's high time ArbCom took a good long look in the mirror.

I would really, really like some members of ArbCom to respond to these queries. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

There is much that I agree with in this. And it will come as no surprise that members of the Committee are also not satisfied with the progress and development of the case, and some of the questions here are also being raised within the Committee. It is a shame that some Committee discussion takes place by email where it can't be seen. Be that as it may, what matters here is that a reasonable and workable solution is found. That the remedies are not passing indicates that there is an uncertainty as to what the problem is. What is a fact is that there is an unacceptable amount of dispute and discussion attached to Betacommand's editing. As part of the general picture, and to see the roots of the current situation, it is useful to be aware of the past; however, it is the more recent activity that is pertinent. Have Betacommand's edits and behaviour in the past 12 month been a cause for concern? Can we analyse those concerns to see what is happening? What can we learn from that analysis? And not just for the individuals in this case, but as a general principle for how we conduct ourselves moving forward. It would be helpful in that regard if people could provide pertinent evidence and analysis. The drafting Committee member posted some questions over 2 months ago, though the answers tended toward opinion rather than pertinent evidence and analysis. I note that on the evidence page there are a number of comments that Betacommand is more sinned against than sinner, or perhaps that there is perhaps a too critical eye kept on his edits, and too keen a tendency to question or sanction. I took a look at Betacommand's block record, and in the past 12 months there have been 9 different admins who have blocked him. That's a large number. If someone could look into each of those blocking incidents and provide an independent report for the Committee, that would be very helpful. (And if more than one person does it, then even better.) Meanwhile I will contact each of the admins to see if they would be willing and able to provide us with their recollection of the blocking incident. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I was pretty much going to post what Silktork has just done - we erred in not pushing for (and reviewing) evidence - the case is one where there is a problem in role of dispute resolution vs conduct review (sigh) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

As in Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand_3/Evidence#Q_for_arbitrators? I presented quite a bit of evidence about things that have happened in the past 12 months on the evidence page before the long-past deadline. But there was very little guidance from the drafting arbitrators about what evidence they were looking for. That might be a possible area for improvement in future cases. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to interject, and I've been trying to steer clear of this case for a while, but I absolutely have to take SilkTork to point here. Silk's statement "If someone could look into each of those blocking incidents and provide an independent report for the Committee, that would be very helpful." is just plain wrong. If ArbCom is to be effective, it needs to be able to conduct its own investigations, and reach conclusions that the committee is happy with, and which can lead to the resolution of a case, from those in house, ArbCom investigations. Yes, outside input is nice, but ArbCom needs to be able to function without it. This late into a case, remanding investigative responsibility to the community, especially in a case where nearly everyone who'd be equipped to effectively assist in such an investigation has become involved already, strikes me as irresponsible. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Gee thanks Sven - we've also been hassled for doing it too much ourselves as well in the past. I think it is meant as a collaborative approach. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It's ArbCom, people are going to be pissed off at ArbCom no matter what they do. I admit that my statement above was too strongly worded. That being said, there's an acute shortage of people who are truly neutral in this conflict, and while I'm not sure that ArbCom members are any more neutral than anyone else, I still think that asking parties with clear biases to conduct an investigation, well I just don't consider it good practice. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I also thought that CBM and others had presented adequate evidence of Δ's problematic high-speed editing including recent such editing. And I thought the case's main tension was disagreement about what the community's expectations from bot operators should be--i.e., that there weren't many actual facts in dispute, so it was mainly a question of identifying the right principles and remedies. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 07:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

My recommendation to solve this case

ArbCom should recognize the very serious failure they made in not upholding its self assigned tasks they agreed to in the 2009 unban decision. In dropping the ball, they set the stage for a series of unfortunate events. Refusing to recognize their role in this failure is tantamount to allowing Δ to fail, and blaming him for the troubles directly descendant from their joint mismanagement of this case. Whether such recognition is made public is immaterial. But, subsequent to that recognition, ArbCom should allow themselves, the community, and Δ a do-over to the effect that they go back to their agreed upon resolution as of 11 July 2009. Thus, I propose Remedy 9;

9) ArbCom vacates the current Δ3 case, and reinstates its 11 July 2009 decision, including the assignment of two mentors. This set of restrictions is amended to permit operation of Δbot, and the development of code to be used by other people, recognizing that such other editors bear full responsibility for the execution of said code. Further, the edit throttle is set to the community sanctioned average of 4 edits per minute over any 10 minute time period.

I would sternly advise that any would-be mentors understand their roles are voluntary, but they must notify ArbCom and Δ if they withdraw from their duties. Additionally, ArbCom should sternly advise itself that it needs to maintain contact with the case and follow through with their role in it. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I concur that this is a valid proposal. It does not necessarily require ArbCom to vacate this case, which was to evaluate the restrictions and their effectiveness, but rather enunciate that enumerated failures are not the exclusive fault of Δ. In so doing, it would be prudent to clarify prose where ambiguity exists, and further charge all editors to AGF in their efforts to resolve discrepancies at the lowest conceivable level. It is asinine to expect Δ to address in civil discourse a question about a specific edit if he has also been called idiot in conjunction with the levy. And the role of mentor is not a passive provision to appease but rather an active role to ensure Wikipedia is the foremost beneficiary of a benefactors effort. My intention, if I was to function in such role is to not only be active, but also proactive. And my focus is not simply to avoid problematic situations but rather to see the complete remediation of Δ which fulfills the requirement for sanctions unto their ultimate removal. In fairness, I hope to focus only on the facts at hand while precluding the need to address every conceivable hypothesis of what could happen, and many of the charges and allegations surround these kinds of suppositions while veiling their glaring lack of basis. Remove the baseless innuendo from this case alone and you are left with circumstances that should resolve on any talk page discussion, which allows that at times the correct answer in a disagreement is to agree to disagree. Somehow if Δ disagrees, even in a civil manner, it is called disruptive simply for holding a minority view. It is far past the proper time for these things to have ceased. My76Strat (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

At this stage, I'm unconvinced that forced mentorship is an ideal way forward. I know that My76Strat has volunteered, but I just can't see it doing any good, regardless of who the mentor(s) is/are. Also: some of the remedies there are "for a period of 1 year". Are those reinstated too, and if so, when do they expire, if ever? Finally, the original decision says this: "prohibited from operating bots or running automated scripts of whatever nature" -- vagueness like that is what led to this case; this is going backwards. --NYKevin @918, i.e. 21:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, we're re-considering the case in an internal discussion, because it's obvious the committee is hopelessly divided in how to dispose of this case. I have taken into account the views put forward on this page, and will reflect those I agree with in my comments in our discussion; I am sure my colleagues will do likewise for the views that they agree with. AGK [•] 22:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

This would only be "forced" mentorship in name, I think that Delta himself would be happy to operate within such a system. What is likely to work is a system where the mentors have full responsibility over what Delta does (assuming that Delta stays within the restrictions that are set by the mentor), and only they are in charge of setting limits on Delta. So, community bickering over whether or not delta is staying within some limit is then irrelevant, the community can only complain about actual edits made by Delta; it's up to the mentor to take this feedback into account and fine tune the restrictions delta is operating under, if necessary. If Delta goes rouge, then the mentors have a duty to intervene. If Delta's edits cause friction within the comunity, yet the mentors repeatedly ignore that, then the mentors can be held responsible. One can think of this set-up as Delta himself being an intelligent bot operated by the mentors. Count Iblis (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with only this slight extenuation: It should not be an exclusive purview of the mentor to control setting limits but it should reasonably be a best first approach to remediation. And yes, as I have agreed, when a mentee fails for following his mentors advice, the mentor is not blameless. No one is forced to act in such a capacity but in doing so it is reasonable that you should hold also them accountable. My76Strat (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced that a second mentor is going to magically materialize just in time to resolve the case. I'm also not sure if ArbCom will allow My76Strat to mentor given that their view of things seems to be at odds with ArbCom's view of things; since a mentor's job is to fix things rather than sweep them under the rug, ArbCom might want someone who agrees with them about the existence of various problems. --NYKevin @145, i.e. 02:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

With so much of your above comment easily misconstrued, I'll simply ask; What do you mean to imply by suggesting things might be swept under the rug? My76Strat (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not intend to accuse you of anything, and I'd like to apologize if that's how you interpreted my comment. What I meant to say is that ArbCom may view your beliefs (on the workshop page) as predictive of such behavior, and accordingly refuse you as a mentor. --NYKevin @179, i.e. 03:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. I understand your reservations and do not insist that I am best suited for this task. I believe I am well suited, and I believe the best composition for a team of mentors would be one who is generally supportive with another who is generally critical of Δ's editing. And I don't object to being categorized as one who is supportive for that purpose. My76Strat (talk) 03:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

AGK wrote above that "the committee is hopelessly divided in how to dispose of this case." Is that really true, though? Eight arbitrators have supported Remedy #6 already, which means it will pass with the support or formal abstention of just one of the four arbs who haven't voted on it yet. Newyorkbrad, Risker, Coren, and Mailer Diablo should weigh in on this remedy. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Concur. At least one solution is closely at hand, so I'd say that "hopelessly" is a bit strong. Buffs (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

2.1 is now also a single vote/abstain from passing as well. Just need votes from the remaining ArbCom members. Buffs (talk) 06:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Δ's prohibited from running a bot or from running automated programs to make edits, right? Wrong.

Several people appear to be of the mistaken impression that Δ is not allowed to run bots or automated programs. This is in fact false.

• 25 May 2008, a restriction was placed on Δ; he was "prohibited from running automated programs to make edits (or edits that appear to be automated), on either a bot account, or your main account" [61]. These restrictions were superceded.
• 3 September 2008, a new set of restrictions superseded the 25 May 2008 restrictions. [62]. This set of restrictions did not contain any bot or automated process restriction. These restrictions remain in effect.
• 11 July 2009, ArbCom prohibits Δ "from operating bots or running automated scripts of whatever nature" for a period of one year [63]. This expired in July of 2010.
• 24 July 2011, User:Penwhale adds the community restrictions to WP:RESTRICT [64]. In so doing, he adds the phrase "de facto Bot Usage Restriction". This is a false statement, and remains there today.

Of note; it took the community nearly three years to decide to make this addition to WP:RESTRICT. Not that Δ was unaware of the restrictions in place, but that the community has done a poor job of maintaining that page, at least in this case.

If anyone has any evidence proving he is currently forbidden from running bots or automated processes, please do advise. I'm well aware of the edit throttle. That's not my point in this thread. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

As one of the drafters of the current sanctions, I can confirm he is not prohibited from running a bot. Instead, we just assume that almost every edit he makes is made via automated software, which is why the sanctions require him to get permission on VPR first (a la BRFA) before he does any large-scale tasks. Similarly, the sanctions have a speed limit on his edits because we assume that the vast majority of his edits are made with automated software. Note that we do not care whether it can be proved that he uses automated software; the assumption is just that he does, with sanctions that are intended to cover that reality. Unfortunately, when the sanctions were placed we did not forsee that Δ would simply ignore them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• There's no need to hijack this thread with your expressed opinion in the last sentence. Minus that, thank you for the confirmation. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I am hatting this off, in my capacity as case clerk, for the second time. Do not revert or continue this discussion here.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hammersoft / Buffs dialogue He is permitted to include his opinion (especially within context). No one is "hijacking a thread" Buffs (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Thank you for your insightful analysis into my incredibly bad behavior. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC) You aren't thankful. You don't believe it is insightful. And I never said it was "bad behavior". This was simply an attempt by you to deflect any criticism of your flawed logic. Buffs (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Your attempted attribution of my intents and feelings are of course well off the mark. I am thankful that you highlighted my incredibly bad behavior. You take me to task for expressing an opinion about someone's opinion, then express your opinion about me, and then accuse me of flawed logic. I find it humorous. So again, THANK YOU for your insightful analysis into my incredibly bad behavior. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Closing the case

There has been very little activity on the proposed decision in the last week and I want to encourage the arbiters, especially those who have not yet voted on the decision to weigh in. Remedies 2.1 and 6 in particular are both only one vote away from passing. I do not think that spending additional time trying to craft an ideal compromise sanction is worthwhile at this point. Arbitration is not magic pixie dust™. The advantage of an Arb case over an ANI discussion is that one or the other can pass (even if it is 9-7) and we can move on from the status quo, which is widely considered unacceptable. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks like 2.1 (site ban) is passing now. From this sequence of events [65] [66], I suspect that private negotiations have failed to reach a workable compromise. Sad. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

2.1 vs 6

Informal tally. Feel free to format better and update

            (2.1)  (6)
Kirill      sup    opp
SirFozzie   sup    opp
Jclemens    sup    opp
Coren       sup    ---
Fuchs       1st    2nd
Davies      sup    opp
Vandenberg  sup    sup
Courcelles  2nd    1st
Risker      sup    opp
PhilKnight  opp    sup
Casliber    opp    sup
AGK         opp    sup
Elen        opp    sup
SilkTork    opp    sup
Mailer      sup    ---
Newyorkbrad opp    opp

I think John Vandenberg should state a preference between 2.1 and 6. Right now that doesn't matter, but if another Arbitrator were to vote for (6), it would put that over the 9 votes bar as well. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

'6' isnt passing. Coren needs to vote on remedies 6-8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

What really strikes me as inappropriate is the passing remedy being decided basically by a month-old vote of a soon-to-be-former arb who hasn't been editing in about two weeks, and the almost non-participation of another soon-to-be-former arb, who has only made a series of pile-on votes on obviously passing/failing proposals a month ago, but whose "active" status caused 6 to not pass. I find it very......unfortunate for an indefinite ban to turn on basically happenstance. T. Canens (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Mailer diablo has edited a couple of days ago. I guess you could ask him to have another look too. I've done that a while back [67]. He replied [68]. I think that the Arbitrators who voted for 6 could procedurally still block the closure, but I've seen them withdraw their votes in that respect, so I guess they've had enough... ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Mailer has apparently now placed an opinion on the matter. 2.1 seems like a clear "favorite" with 10 supporting, but I don't see an opinion on 6 from Mailer yet. Firing off a friendly request now. Buffs (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've updated the tally above. At this point all 16 active Arbs have voted on 2.1. Only two have not voted on 6. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Mailer Diablo has now voted on (6). Only Coren is missing in action there. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

He didn't. He voted on 6.1. T. Canens (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops. Corrected. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Request to hold off closure

One more vote on remedy 6 could make a difference. Just a standard user requesting a hold on closure for an additional 24 hrs. Buffs (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It would need two votes in favor now. Then it would be a draw? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

2.1 passes unconditionally now, with 9 first-choice or unconditional votes. Wouldn't the only effect of 6 passing as well be adding it as an additional sanction (which would come into force in the case Betacommand is unbanned)? TotientDragooned (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That's what I was wondering about as well. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems that way to me. I'd hate to redo all of this mess a year from now solely to come back to a conclusion we'd already reached, but just didn't wait a little time for... Buffs (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Conversely, I'd hate to enact a decision based upon an incomplete count too! Someone could certainly voice an opinion and sway things the other way. Buffs (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I am going to start to close this at 8 Feb 00:00ish UTC. (After I return from today's pledge education activity) --Guerillero | My Talk 14:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• You can't. There are less than 4 net support votes to close. Even if there were 4 net supports, I think it'd be ill advised given the recent uptick in discussions across the various pages of this case. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I would advise against telling ArbCom clerks what they can or cannot do on ArbCom pages. Also, it's a bit insulting to insinuate that clerks are unable to figure out when the committee changes its mind, as watching for just such an eventuality is a rather large part of their jobs. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

    Is there any conceivable kind of activity that could move you to changing your mind? My76Strat (talk) 04:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

    Betacommand admitting to and apologizing for lying in response to my direct question on IRC during his attempt to influence my decision would be a really, really good start. Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

    Thank you for that. It would have been a sincere gesture of good faith had the committee proposed such a remedy. It think it is fair to ask Δ to acknowledge where his own culpability lies and give the bond of his promise to improve. It's a bit remiss that this has never occurred. A sanctioned editor is exponentially more likely to succeed if ever they had acknowledged an understanding of the basis of sanction. Equally, an imposed sanction, without such understanding is as likely to fail. In the absence of such acknowledgements, it is incumbent that a finding clearly asserts the contention to establish it as fact. Particularly to conclude that a party is lying. To be clear, I have directly asked in this case if integrity was an issue. I have asserted that I am unaware that Δ was known to lie. I do not support a direct liar and the record of this case did not contend my assertion that he is not a liar. It's a serious omission to have not established this fact, compounded by your stated conclusion that he has lied. My76Strat (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

    You asked a direct question, I gave you a direct answer. My alternative, when privacy prevents me from commenting, is to tell you straight up that I cannot tell you. In fact, the entire committee has seen my logs of the IRC exchange in question, and I asked if it was appropriate to put forth a finding based on that and another similar incident, and was met with mixed responses, for some pretty good reasons: "Do I have the right to CC-BY-SA Betacommand's half of the conversation?", for example. At any rate, the exchange is what it is, and reinforces my belief that no matter what Betacommand's intentions, he absolutely lacks the "plays nice with others" ability required to do the work at the only level at which he wants to work. Unable to collaborate effectively in his chosen realm, he is a net negative producer: letting him remain causes more drama and churn than simply saying "Thanks for what you've tried to do, but goodbye." I don't need a specific finding of fact to tell me that that is the best outcome for the encyclopedia, nor really the conversational evidence which wouldn't have cropped up unless Betacommand had approached me in the first place--although that did reinforce the correctness of my original position, in my mind. Jclemens (talk) 06:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

    Again, thank you for that response. The crux of my dilemma is that I have directly asked Δ to be truthful, and I took his word at face value. That is why in the case I stated: "The manner I use, and find effective is to simply ask him. He is not a liar by any evidence." this was not contended! It must have been a humorous aside that I proceeded with this notion intact while apparently another view had already been adopted. I also stated in the case: "I would take him at his word. I am not aware that his integrity is in question at any level. Are you?" Here again it would have been great to had been corrected since I was so obviously off base. Consider this comment: "You are describing a way to determine what actions an editor has taken and nowhere is it presumed that to ask the editor would even be viable. Some people participating in this case appear to have been engaging Δ for a considerable amount of time, and they are expressing frustration. If it is a goal to find the answer to an unasked question, that would be frustrating. I've only known Δ around 4 to 5 months and I already know some of these answers you say can not be known, and I know these answers because I did ask. In fact I asked Δ a lot of questions; and I got a lot of answers."; unanswered. I asked Δ specifically if he would agree to having his side of the private conversations posted. He intimated to me that he would if asked. He was not asked. Consider again: "If it is a goal to find the answer to an unasked question, that would be frustrating." In retrospect, it seems answers were found to unasked questions, and the direct questions asked by me, well that proved to be the least effective way to find an answer. That doesn't sit well with me. My76Strat (talk) 08:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

    Well, in this case, I never saw those questions. It would be nice if I always had time to read and respond to every relevant question on every case workshop, but this winter has been the worst in my time on the committee for having multiple, highly active cases open at once. Within that backdrop, my attention was more drawn to the others, although a fair amount of off-wiki discussion (as you might expect) has been going on trying to find common ground with which the committee can move forward on this case. Fact is, this particular case has been challenging because there is so much history, and much of the committee already has opinions about what will or will not work. Jclemens-public (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  • The case will close when arbcom wants it to close. As a clerk, my closure is dependent on them not the volume of posts on the talk page. --Guerillero | My Talk 05:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

@Jclemens: Are there prior cases where ArbCom violated its own stated principals in how to close a case? At the time your clerk said they were going to close the case, there were three net closes. We're now down to one net support to close. Your "advice" is chilling; in effect you're saying I am out of line for raising an issue with how ArbCom (in this case a clerk) is doing its business. I remind you that you operate at the behest of the community, not the other way around. This is no different than an administrator telling a non-administrator "I advise you to not tell me what to do". --Hammersoft (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• • OMG, DRAHMAZ! HS, at the time, there were 4 closure votes with none opposed. When you responded 8 hours later, the situation changed. What people are telling you is to trust that a clerk will do what he's supposed to to with regards to closure. You'll note that even I opposed closure before they had done so and ArbCom was responsive. Relax, Francis. This will be closed in due course and not before. Buffs (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

My statement was valid at the time I posted it. There was no inaccuracy. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Good Lord. Is there any procedural nuance you won't quibble about?!? It isn't going to close in the near future, so just drop it. Buffs (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for your kind words. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sarcasm! That'll solve everything!!! And it's sure to have a calming effect. FWIW, at the time the clerk posted this, there were 4 votes to close and one which would soon self expire. Putting noting that a closure date was imminent (should nothing change) was certainly apropos. Excellent work clerks! Buffs (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sure saying things like "Is there any procedural nuance you won't quibble about?!?" has a calming effect too. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

How about we have a calming effect by both sides disengaging? SirFozzie (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice...we stopped 2 days ago... Buffs (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Article 35

I propose Article 35 to an ArbCom code, specifically that 34 articles be developed to restructure ArbCom into an institutional element worthy to serve as a means of last resort. I am deeply concerned upon observing this process, my first; and respectfully advise the committee that I believe they, as a body, have failed their charter, seriously under-serving their largest constituent; Wikipedia herself! I'll leave the distinguished members to develop the other 34. My76Strat (talk) 09:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Take a number. You're the 2nd to complain today about something akin to ArbCom betraying the community. And Hammersoft preempted it with his talk of "ArbCom failure" just as the case was getting started. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• And with this thread above. It is also both hysterical from one view, and disturbing from another that ArbCom has permitted blatant sockpuppetry in this case (one sockpuppeter alone on this case has made more edits to it than any other editor but two), where in a standard AfD case the sockpuppets would have been stricken from the record and/or blocked. Not here though; ArbCom welcomes sockpuppeters, and even bases their decisions upon their contributions. This incompetence on their part is not isolated; FoF 6.2 has passed without any publicly provided evidence. Further, Δ is banned from the project and can appeal the ban in a year so long as he demonstrates "understanding of and intention to refrain from the actions which resulted in his ban", which is impossible since ArbCom has utterly failed to provide any basis for the ban. The gross incompetence demonstrated by ArbCom in this case is appalling. I would not at all be surprised if it is not isolated to this case. Yes, ArbCom, like any other position here, is voluntary. But, if you're not willing to do the work to which you've volunteered, you should step down. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe I laid out a basis for a ban perfectly well in my evidence. On the other hand, I have not seen any diffs of comments in which Δ directly acknowledged the problem, apologized for past behavior, promised to improve, or otherwise demonstrated a desire to solve the problem. Apparently the committee was in private contact with Δ and was also unable to get assurances in that context. I had hoped until the end that Δ would be willing to make a change in order to continue editing, avoiding a ban. I think it is unfortunate that he was unwilling to do so, but if that is that case then I don't see how a ban could be avoided.

This is not to say that I am defending the arbitration committee in general. They have often been far too reluctant to ban editors who are much more disruptive than Δ, and they have made fundamental policy mistakes in other cases. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• No public evidence has been provided to this case regarding "ongoing communication problems" since the last ArbCom motion. Further, ArbCom failed in its self assigned mentorship duties which included civility concerns, and has to date failed to admit their failure and its role in this case. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry?

Hammersoft, if there really has been sockpuppetry in this case, why haven't you opened a WP:SPI (or if you did, where is it)? Have you informed the committee of this? Shall we believe you on a bare assertion alone? --NYKevin @078, i.e. 00:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yes I have informed the committee of this through private channels. The record of sockpuppetry is in the contribs to the various pages in this case for anyone who wants to check it themselves. As an example, see User:NanuVavu, blocked for abusing multiple accounts by a non-ArbCom member. Yet, that accounts contributions to this page remain extant. This is not isolated. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Let's be clear: you emailed a committee member with concerns that an IP was also a regular editor editing while logged out, without any specific allegation as to which editor that might be. Is that correct? If something else has happened, I do appear to have missed it. Jclemens (talk) 02:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Given that arbcom has checkusers at their beckon and call, I have always assumed that all IP editors that edit arbitration pages are checked. Is that essentially correct? At the same time, I have always thought that we accepted that some editors will edit logged out on arbcom pages, and this is OK as long as they do not "cross the streams". Is that still the standard? — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
      • My own assumption has always been that it would be quite extraordinary, given the level of scrutiny given to case pages by clerks and Arbs, if blatant or even subtle sockpuppetry would go undetected. However, my other working assumption has been that the mere fact that an anonymous editor has contributed to a case is not sufficient of itself to warrant a checkuser, but rather that some sort of trigger is needed, such as the "crossing the streams" case you posit, identifying characteristics of a banned user, in general the standard indications that CU is warranted as overriding the general aim of privacy where possible. Franamax (talk) 07:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
    • @Jclemens; let's be clear; you're aware that a set of IPs is being used by someone highly motivated to contribute to this case who is obviously an experienced wikipedian and not using their logged in account in order to avoid scrutiny. Further, such IPs have been used to add evidence that has been cited by ArbCom members on the PD page. Further, that ArbCom has refused to do anything about such abuses. Again, if this were AfD, RfA, etc. there wouldn't even be a question about this. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
      • I have very little experience with RfAs, but I don't think IP users are prohibited from XfD participation. I recall that one of the most experienced TfD contributors doesn't use an account. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Hammersoft: I confirm we were made aware of potential socking on the case pages, but we chose not to investigate. Without evidence than an IP editor is a specific sock-master, the mere fact that the editing was anonymous is not cause per se to run a checkuser.

          NYKevin, I agree that a sock-puppetry investigation would be the most transparent venue in which to resolve concerns of case-page socking, but it is acceptable to e-mail an arbitrator privately; and moreover, such a solution could be more elegant. On a more general note, I don't think the issue of socking in this case is really worth significant focus, and I would prefer that we spend our time refining the proposed decision. AGK [•] 11:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hammersoft, if you're talking about me (I proposed the 3 25 page/day limit etc.), I don't use an account at all. If you're talking about the IP user who posted evidence of Δ editing above his speed restriction, I don't know who that was or whether s/he has a regular account, but obviously the data is verifiable (just click the links) so it doesn't much matter who it came from. I actually thought you were thinking of one or more of the named commenters. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 06:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hammersoft, there is nothing preventing you from:

1. Identifying the offending IP explicitly (don't be so covert. Just say who it is or what IP you are talking about)
2. Correcting the infractions by removing contributions...I know I did...

Could you be so kind as to be a little more clear? Buffs (talk) 06:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, 69.149.249.38 is in Texas and 67.117.145.9 in California, but both are SBC. Until now, I had the impression they were the same person, particularly because 67 previously used a 69 address, 69.111.194.36, which I see it's also in California. Thanks for clarifying that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the relevance, but in terms of raw data we have over the course of this case:

• Longview, Texas, United States

1. 69.149.249.38

• Oakland, California, United States

1. 67.119.3.194
2. 67.122.210.96
3. 67.119.12.141

• San Francisco, California, United States

1. 67.117.144.140
2. 69.111.194.36
3. 69.111.193.96

• Daly City, California, United States

1. 66.127.55.52
2. 67.117.145.9

• Milpitas, California, United States

1. 64.62.206.2

My76Strat (talk) 10:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

@AGK: So the sockpuppetting is not worth significant focus? At what point does it become unacceptable for sockpuppets to abuse the ArbCom process? We've got IPs making unfounded accusations that Δ is responsible for a denial of service attack against another person involved in this case (submitted 'evidence'). We've got IPs making an accusation of 112 edits in a ten minute period (submitted 'evidence') on 18 May 2011 when in actuality there were three edits [69] in the stated time period. Oh but not to worry, this is all perfectly acceptable because we've got an ArbCom member using it as evidentiary basis. And really, it's ok for sockpuppets to submit evidence. Afterall, the 500 word limit is really just a minor irritant to those willing to sockpuppet to submit evidence. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Hammersoft, put up or shut up. Post to WP:SPI or stop posting about this at all. Jtrainor (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• I don't need to, as My76Strat has already posted the evidence for everyone to see. But, thank you for your kind words. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Hammersoft's post justifies incivility. Please keep a civil tone when talking to other editors. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

What Toshio said! Buffs (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

HS, back to your query, I'm just not seeing any evidence of sockpuppetry. As for ArbCom allegedly using this sockpuppet's evidence, it only garnered a single vote, so it had no actual effect. Let's say for the sake of argument that there was a sockpuppet. It didn't have any real effect, so there's nothing to be done here. I concur that a SPI is probably a good route to follow for these accusations. If they were sockpuppeting, then they deserve to be held to account for their actions. Buffs (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I concur that the IP's evidence was indeed misleading on the one you posted. However, others pointed out valid speed limit violations. It's also quite clear that he's using some sort of automated tool to make these edits (wasn't that part of his restrictions too?). Buffs (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The California ones are probably all me (my address changed several times during the case for technical reasons mostly outside my control). I have no idea about the TX one or the story with that "112 edits" diff (even after I spent a while trying to figure out what went wrong with it). Some of the other diffs got results with discrepancies from my own checks, maybe because of some difference in how things were calculated. It's also possible that article or image deletions caused some gaps in Δ's contrib history that made some of the discrepancies in the counts.

In my own submission, I posted a diff indicating Tristessa had been DDOS'd, but Hammersoft should note that I didn't make any claims of any sort about how it might have happened. I simply thought it was a weird enough incident that I decided to call it to arbcom's attention so they could check into it further if they decided it seemed relevant.

I don't know why Hammersoft is pursuing these conspiracy theories anyway. For quite a long time, Δ-related drama seemed to in part be proxy battles about NFCC enforcement, so it was impossible to say anything about the bots without appearing to take sides in the NFCC battle. (On NFCC philosophy I'm actually mostly on Hammersoft's side; I'd just prefer for WP to deal with NFCC by much different methods than Δ used). However, with Δ banned from the NFCC area, we're left with what I'd have thought was a less "political" issue of straightforward recurring bot misuse. So I don't understand why Hammersoft is so angry. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• It isn't a "conspiracy theory", thank you very much. Attributing anger to me is also false. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I did my own edit speed calculation and added it to evidence. I think the issue is not in any real doubt. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 07:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree. Based on evidence, the issue isn't in any doubt. In fact, it's not been an issue since the last ArbCom motion this past summer, with the lone exception of a slight violation of 42 edits instead of 40 all the way back in September. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, what's not in doubt is that Δ has a history of unambiguously exceeding the numerical speed limit, which you seemed to be trying to contest. Your saying his editing speed is "not an issue" because of the "lone exception of a slight violation" IMHO mostly indicates a personal viewpoint of yours, that Δ is entitled to edit as fast as he pleases night and day, as long as each 10 minute period contains <41 edits, like the 35/10 here (December 26, 2011). Others of us see the 40/10 limit as having been intended as something more like 3RR, an electric fence that can result in an immediate block if crossed, but not by any means an entitlement to revert some edit 2x a day for sustained periods (that would be considered WP:GAME). And the 42/10 burst on 9/17/2011 would be less of an issue if it was an isolated group of edits. But in the context of Δ's general editing speed around that time (3000+ edits in September alone), I see someone using too much automation for the amount of friction he has been in. Anyway I have no idea whether the arbs care about this. I mostly felt that somebody had to check the other editor's numbers if they were being used to prove something. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, that is a way of seeing it. Someone who has an edit restriction where the maximum speed of editing is 40 edits per 10 minutes is of course gaming the restriction if they is editing with 1 edit per hour on a perfectly constant basis. That is obvious. This is the same reasoning that Carl has been using, finding editing at, say, 3 edits per minute for prolonged periods of time 'skirting' the edit restrictions and calling Δ at fault there. Yes, isolated incidents should not happen, but they are understandable, and they are not necessarily intentional. They are 'punishable' by block (like 3RR), but you have no policy or community restriction behind you to make 3 edits per minute a violation when the sole restriction is 4 edits per minute (40 edits per 10 minutes). Unlike doing 2 reverts per day for prolonged times, that editor would still be edit warring (and that may even be true if that editor would do only once 3 reverts on one day), and that editor may still be blockable. An editor doing 1 single revert needs special restrictions, either they are not violating anything here, neither can you say that Δ is violating anything when editing at 1 edit per day for prolonged time. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
      • In the case of the speed restriction, he objectively exceeded it on numerous occasions. I believe what I have said is that there was no reason why he should have ever come close to exceeding it, and that a reasonably prudent editor would have been able to easily stay within the limit. However, given the frequency of violations, despite warnings, it is difficult to argue that Δ was editing in the way that a reasonably prudent editor would. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Why, is doing 390 considered (or even automated) edits in 100 minutes bad? And what would then be the speed that he should use? The edit limit is 40 .. 200 in every 100 minutes (averaging 20 / 10) is far enough from deliberately 'skirting' it? Or .. 1 in every 100 minutes? You did deliberately set the limit to 40, did you not? And I am not arguing that he did not go over the limit, ever, I am talking about the time that he was, way, below the speed limit, because even when he stays under the speed limit, Δ is at fault (correction, Δ is not a reasonably prudent editor) because he gets too close to said speed limit. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Re: "Yes, isolated incidents should not happen, but they are understandable..." NO! THEY AREN'T!!! He had a restriction set upon him and he violated it, period. Either this limit actually means something or it doesn't! If he wasn't trying to push the envelope, this wouldn't have happened. Buffs (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Oh, yelling. Yes, that is going to help. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Love the sarcasm here :-) Buffs (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Good, because neither are going to get us closer together, I think. I guess we will be just as divided about this as the community at large is in this case, and as the ArbCom is about this case. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
      • But in all seriousness, your argument "I am talking about the time that he was, way, below the speed limit" is complete bunk. He exceeded the 40 edits in 10 minutes provision. Justifying it by comparing to 390 in 100 minutes, 200 in 50 minutes, etc. is like telling the officer, "Yes, sir. I know the speed limit is 40 mph and I was going 80, but I was only going to be on the road for ten minutes" or "I know I was doing 80, but I stopped for 3 hours later, so it averaged out to only going 20 mph." I too concur we aren't going to get closer on this. Buffs (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    • You know that I am now going to counter that with: 'Dear driver, you have been driving 39 Mph for over a year, you know that you are skirting the speed limit continuously? And actually, every time you were going downhill, you were doing 42 Mph for about 10 minutes. You know that that is too fast, and you know that 40 is the limit, and you have been repeatedly warned for that. Anyway, since you are continuously skirting the speed limit, and actually go over it every now and then, we are going to take your drivers licence'. We're not getting closer with these arguments, there are always two ways to look at it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Don't get me wrong here, if someone is going just over the speed limit, they need a rattle over the knuckles - if that happens 2-3 times a day, a fine is in order. If the speed limit is crossed significantly, then that also needs a more serious fine (in NL they are taking your driver licence and possibly your car if you really go WAY too fast (figure out yourself how to get home, not the cops' problem), and you only get them back after a serious explanation and a serious fine). But unless you also are making serious accidents, no-one will put you in prison. But that seems to be happening here. Do the math, put it all into perspective. Yes, you are right, there are violations, I am not saying there aren't, but (and that is the usual case in ArbCom cases) they are, as usual, totally taken out of the bigger picture, and thát is what ArbCom is deciding upon. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Dirk, I don't think your "car analogy" (comparing editing speed to driving speed) is quite applicable here. A car speed limit is designed to prevent accidents caused by driving too fast for the road conditions, while Beta's edit speed restriction was intended (at least partly) to keep the total amount of editing manageable (and don't forget the VPR approval requirement, though that became the subject of such intensely bogus wikilawyering by Δ's supporters that maybe there should have been conduct inquiries against them). As such, editing at 39/10 for hours at a time is less like driving 39 mph in a 40 mph zone, and more like "smurfing" (structuring) to get around velocity limits on financial or drug transactions. If you make multiple $9,900 cash deposits to avoid filing the IRS (tax agency) documentation required for a $10,000 deposit, your bank will report you for suspicious activity, and you can end up in jail. Or to stretch your car analogy a little further, none of us are supposed to use motorized vehicles (bots) at all without a license from BAG, but it's hard to tell from a distance whether a given vehicle is motorized. So we consider 40 mph as a plausible max speed for a bicyclist on a downhill with a tailwind (Sven Manguard and My76Strat have both managed to hit it briefly with Huggle a few times) and say that 41mph is bright-line evidence of using an unlicensed car/motorbike. But staying at 39mph for hours is something no unmotorized bicyclist can do, so it's also indicative of using a motor. Anyway, it's pretty clear that the restriction failed to achieve its intended goal. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• • • I know that there are limits to the analogies, and there are even to yours. You know what, Δ did not go 39 Mph for years. I bet you can find days in a row where he did not even get remotely close to that (IIRC, there was something like 20.000 edits in a year .. that is not even 1 edit every 10 minutes). And speed limits are for motorbikes and cars, not for bikes with electrical assistance. And I hope you're not going to put Lance Armstrong in jail, just because you are sure that he MUST have used a motorized bicycle on the road since he definitely was going faster than 40 Mph.

I've been looking around in other cases with banned editors, and I see POV problems, I see admins blocking other admins, I see sets of copyright violations, I see editors fighting over naming of things. Here, the worst you can come up with is, as you guys call it, disrespect of the restrictions and, in majority, some minor mistakes due to the editing. What, we even had a suggestion of lifting the bans where the community could not agree. And where are we here, because this ArbCom can not decide on things, and even they can not find anything worse than 'communication problems' (something that mentoring actually could help and also there, I've seen only few cases of real incivility by Δ over the last period of time - probably because some people deflected that early enough when Δ was approached in an overly harsh way - call it a form of 'voluntary mentoring' if you want) they DO decide to ban him (I'll refrain from analogies there, they are not pretty). People are complaining all around here about ArbCom incompetence .. this is yet another example of it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Is ArbCom-mandated mentorship a generalized failure?

I've done some background reading on the MSK case, and this struck me as relevant here as well:

As a result of this history I believe the original mentorship was a failure, and that the Mentorship Committee is not up to the task of monitoring problem users. So far as I can tell, there are no follow-up procedures, no functioning communications, etc. Fundamental problems are that the job requires one to be a policeman/therapist/teacher, while most of us came here to be editors, and that it is a bureaucracy requiring procedures and maintenance. Those deficiencies should be addressed, in another forum, before new cases are assigned to it by the ArbCom or by goodwill ambassadors.
— User:Will Beback 08:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Are there any cases where ArbCom-mandated mentorship has succeeded in the long run in reforming editors? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a fair question and comment to consider. I'd like to extenuate that on my behalf, I have mentored for the WP:AMBASSADOR program for over 1 year. My record there is free to scrutinize. In general, that program of mentoring has been successful. And it is not a name-only function. My76Strat (talk) 10:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not recall any case where mentorship, mandated as a remedy in an arbitration proceeding, has been successful. My own thought about this is that if people were going to accept mentorship, it will generally have been tried before the ArbCom level has been reached. Jclemens-public (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

What eventually happened with PHG? I seem to remember PHG's mentorship as at least partly successful, though I didn't follow it closely. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It so happens that one of the small articles I've corrected for ridiculous fringe POV was penned by him in 2005-2007 (and it's unrelated to the Franco-Mongol issue), so I'm probably biased in that respect, because he does write lots of stuff. I think some people have built-in bias towards suspension of disbelief. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Deja vu!

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=34323&st=20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.228.210 (talk) 04:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Please explain

So, what the ArbCom is now doing, is first deciding to ban, but upon realising that they did not have a finding of fact supporting such a decision, they then find a FoF to vote upon so that they have a reason to ban? Do you guys have any clue how this is appearing now? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Like the original decision was posted waaaay too early? While it's always nice to provide expeditious resolution to cases, I doubt my colleagues are going to say that, in retrospect, the haste with which we posted the original proposed decision proved to be optimum. Jclemens (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I noted the comment "This is hardly the decision I wanted, but we have other cases waiting, and we need to close this in the near future." by PhilKnight - we don't know what to do, but we need to hurry, and the community wants us to do something, so we ban (even if we ourselves are part of the reason things fail). Then we realise that we do not actually have a good reason to ban (it is obvious that no-one could decide on actual grave misdoings), and realising that the editor needed banning, we now just collectively decide behind closed doors to all vote for a reason that justifies the decision. That is how it looks to me here. That that supporting FoF is full of weasel wording, clutching at straws (one case of incivility - of course without the context), untrue for 99.9% of the time (but you can use the weasel word 'often' and it looks bad).

But why am I complaining, the case needs to be closed, and we need a reason to ban. Well, you already heard the complaints about the arbcom failing in this case - but the decisions they take stand, because admitting that the case failed is not an option. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting what PK meant. I understand what he says to be: no other modified restriction would be appropriate or would resolve our concerns. Therefore, the decision as is is probably the best option. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that his intentions are only positive. Lord Roem (talk) 04:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, Lord Roem, I would not give the highest judge in court a 'benefit of the doubt' that he would make the best decision and that he has the best intentions. If no other modified restriction is appropriate, then a decision a high court can take is that they either need to put more time in it, or actually, stop the case without decision. You're not making a death row decision (sorry for the exaggeration) because you are out of time and don't see another solution. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

So which would you rather have: convenient, fait accompli decisions, reached after months-long deliberations off-wiki? Or would you rather have the committee work out things in public, trying to find a middle ground where various options are explored and consensus is sought for a lesser remedy before banning is the default outcome? Likewise, you pretend as if there were no findings of facts, when Wikipedia's history is littered with efforts to rein in Betacommand and make use of his efforts. No matter which we do, some facet of the community is not happy with us, but I'm entirely comfortable that the person most responsible for Betacommand's banning is... Betacommand. Jclemens (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

An interesting analogy exists with your insistence on referring to the banned party as Betacommand. It allows a certain truth to ring through while conveniently ignoring the fact that Δ is a significantly improved version of the same editor. My76Strat (talk) 05:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

And ArbCom exists to give problematic users who show improvement an N+1th chance? WP:NOTTHERAPY may be instructive. Even if Betacommand is an improved version of himself, the accumulated weight of his past transgressions, by itself (and it wasn't, in any sense, all by itself) portends the outcome. As was pointed out elsewhere, this is the third named ArbCom case, and there's no shortage of other noticeboard complaints focusing on Betacommand's actions. Jclemens (talk) 07:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful, Jclemens. So you advocate double jeopardy here. There are past cases, and although we can't find anything significant here (except for complaints from the community), we ignore that actually there is nothing significant here, we just look and see that Δ has been convicted before, so it must be that it is still a problem. This decision is even worse than I expected of ArbCom, and adds to their incompetency since they did fail themselves to actually adhere to the sanctions of the last ArbCom. You don't care that there is now hardly anything bad enough to ban over (you could not find it until last night), you just say 'it was bad in the past, so we ban'. Thank you for this clarification. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Even if it were the case, double jeopardy applies in US courts, not on Wikipedia. Buffs (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

What I want, is either that you, even if that takes months and months of deliberations, reach a proper decision on wiki. But here, you obviously first decided to ban, but did not have a significant FoF that would accomplish such a decision (1 is general, 2.2 and 4 are things which are by far not necessarily Betacommands fault if they are a fault at all - part of the failure is the community and even ArbCom's fault, 6.1 is the closest to finding a problem due to Δ himself - one that actually could have been solved (if it is not already solved), if the mentoring by ArbCom would not have failed. You used those FoF's to decide to ban (some even vote to close because there is a ban decision ..), and then it stopped for some time. Now, in a burst of a couple of hours, you see Arbs vote on a last FoF, the only one that actually defines a problem with Δ. Yes, my question remains: do you guys realize how this looks? Either it looks like you just decide to ban and then realize that there is no FoF actually sufficiently supporting that, or you fail to have enough time to actually look properly into cases. Yes, I want want proper decisions, just as what I expect of a judge deciding over life sentences (or worse). Yes, there will always be people unhappy, and yes, they will always make mistakes, that will happen in all processes. But if a judge decides such things, at least the severity of the punishment is in line with the severity of the crime. It is good to read that you, Jclemens, are completely comfortable with first deciding to ban (diff), but only last night found reason (enough?) to do so:

• J: 'So, defendant, you are BetaCommand / Δ, and that is Wikipedia, right?',
• D: 'Yes' (FoF 1)
• J: 'And people have been following you around, didn't they?'
• D: 'Yes' (FoF 2.2),
• J: 'And you have been subject to previous restrictions which did not work?',
• D: 'Yes - but ...',
• J: 'No buts, please, we don't care here about the reasons, we are just establishing facts.' (FoF 4)
• K: 'So, what else, hmm, you don't seem to communicate very well, is that true?',
• D: 'Well, I thought I was being mentored about that, and except for one case where I yelled at an editor, that goes fine'
• J: 'That is all besides the point, please answer the question!'
• D: 'Well, I am being yelled at at a condstant level, and not only by editors, but also by Admin editors and even ArbCom editors - I may not always answer optimally .. and maybe editors don't understand what I am saying, even after repeated expl...'
• J: 'We don't care why, you were not answering optimally, so yes, communication is still a problem .. ' (FoF 6.1).
• J: '.. and that is enough to ban you ..' (Rem 1)
• J: '.. and enough to close' (bangs hammer)

... apparently not, because it takes then a couple of days of (off-wiki?) discussion (or you are just busy with another case or real life), and suddenly a realisation that the case needs to be closed (PhilKnight suggests that it needs a fast close because of time constraints ..), and that you actually need a proper reason, which, obviously, you did not have. And even this one (FoF 3.1), is citing the weasel word 'often' quite a number of times. Is 0.1% of the time over the speed limit 'often'? If the total average speed is less than 1 edit per 10 minutes over the last year then that suddenlty becomes 'a few'. One single case of incivility (where I can show cases of (mild) incivility against Δ by, low and behold, even an ArbCom member) - without even a timeframe, IIRC this restriction is there for 2-3 years? And a number of sub-optimal edits / mistakes (no violations not of the type of POV violations, CopyVio's etc.), and related to my last point, some cases of 'saving without reviewing' (I wonder how you can even prove such a thing, you must have been looking over his shoulder, or have a way of defining that edits must have been not properly reviewed). Those two points would be 'carelessness' .. at worst. And that in 10s of thousands of edits! And that is what you decide to ban over in the end? That is utterly out of perspective, and calling it 'ignoring the restrictions' is then a complete misinterpretation of the facts.

You consider this 'trying to find a middle ground where various options are explored and consensus is sought for a lesser remedy before banning is the default outcome'? No, this still looks like you were finding a way of banning Δ, not caring about the improvements he made (since last cases, or generally over time), looking at the accusations/evidence out of perspective (again, 30 speed violations in a year is less than 0.1% of the time, only one slight violation in the last 6 months, with an average editing speed which is significantly below 1 edit per 10 minutes (taking 20.000 edits in a year; far, far from the 40 per minute)).

I am convinced that there is a problem here, but your actions here certainly do not convince me that Δ is the (only) problem (IMHO, he is just a part of the problem - you may want to look at the current discussion about about how WP:AN/I works in this respect, and NFCC work in perspective of the SOPA/PIPA Wikipedia blackout), and whether this is the only or best solution. I remain, this ArbCom case is an utter failure, and this remedy is far, far too harsh for the passing finding of facts, especially before 3.1 passed. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

None of this has occurred in a vacuum. Has it occurred to you that the most germane principle in this case is arguably #4, recidivism? You have my agreement that the findings of fact could have been better stated, but just because the FoF hadn't been written doesn't mean that the committee members who voted to ban Betacommand before the FoFs were written didn't have personal knowledge of sufficient cause to ban. In my case, for example, Betacommand's attempt to influence me in IRC and his direct lie to me in that attempt, played into my general reluctance to support lesser sanctions. Jclemens (talk) 07:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I've seen that as well, Jclemens. Sure, that is a good principle, but it still needs evidence that actually there is still a significant problem, evidence that the current transgressions are bad enough. You argue, until the last FoF passed, that 'recidivism' is enough reason to ban an editor again? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that if someone gets convicted to 10 years prison for murder, and then 5 years after the end of the murdersentence, someone finds a dead body, that then a judge will say 'OK, you murdered before, I don't have significant proof that you murdered this person, but here you go, 20 years this time.'. You really should consider the Double jeopardy article. And do note, you made your ban decision, like all but one Arb (who notes in his ban-vote 'Not my preferred solution'), before having any FoF of actual recidivism pass. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I must respectfully proffer that most of your direct comments regarding this case gives cause that perhaps you should have recused yourself in this case. I don't know the impact this might have on the case, but it is disquieting that an active member openly expresses such a prejudicial bias. My76Strat (talk) 07:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear from my earlier statement, the attempt to influence me was during the course of the case, not previous to it. It would be entirely inappropriate for any arbitrator to recuse from a case during the case, on the basis of a party's attempt to influence them as an arbitrator in the current case. Jclemens (talk) 07:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it would not. If such an influence would disable an Arbitrator to make an objective decision, it should be a reason to recuse (note: I am not saying that that is the case, that is your call). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Beetstra's view here and further extenuate that it is entirely your decision. But if the actions known privately to you are sufficient to disallow objectivity there would be a problem. I am slightly concerned that a user said to have failings expressing himself can in this one example have communicated so clearly that no other explanation is possible. My76Strat (talk) 08:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So should we all have recused because Betacommand repeatedly used the term "ArbFucked" during the course of the proceedings? WP:BEANS aside, such an expectation would create a situation where a party can "foul" a selected arbitrator or two to influence the outcome of a case. It's not hard to see that I tend to be an arbitrator regularly favoring harsher sanctions, so if someone with whom I have no previous INVOLVEment decides to e.g. lie to me in IRC and I used that as cause to recuse, their chance of an unfavorable outcome would be reduced. That's why I will only ever recuse at the beginning of a case or if existing information comes to light that, had it been known at the beginning of the case, would have prompted my recusal. Jclemens (talk) 08:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, Jclemens, in a way, yes. After all, you first decide to ban him (in Δ's terms: ArbFuck him), and then still need to find FoF's which could, maybe remotely, support such a decision. Because that is exactly what it now seems to be - you ban Δ because you want to ban him, even if you can't find a real reason, you just make up a reason. It fits my initial question: 'Do you guys have any clue how this is appearing now?' --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not look at it in this light, but this raises serious concerns about the objectivity of the whole process here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

And, Jclemens, don't take it personally, it is the whole ArbCom here. After all, until yesterday evening (my time) there was only one vote on the FoF. You needed, collectively, a sufficient FoF to justify the ban decision, and that FoF is the closest you have. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Silktork, you here say: "What is true is that the sanctions have failed, and without agreement on an alternative to the sanctions, then a ban is viable even without this finding." Without this finding, you present no evidence that there is any disruption, or that it is Δ's fault that the sanctions have failed (actually, ArbCom itself failed some of its own sanctions of the last case), or that Δ is actually the cause of the disruption. You basically suggest 'because we can't find anything else, we just ban Δ and we are ready.' Could you please elaborate on that remark? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The point of the FoF is for the arbitrators to tell us why they voted on the ban. They are not required to give any such explanation, strictly speaking, but it is certainly a good practice for them to do so and I'm glad they are making the effort. A similar situation often happens in committee meetings in real life in my experience. After a long discussion, the committee may come to a decision and take a vote to record it. But if they have to also write a short paragraph expressing the official opinion of the committee about why they reached that decision, this paragraph is often harder than the decision itself, because different committee members may have different reasons, and not be willing to agree on the reasons even though they agree on the outcome. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, it basically leaves the option open, that the ArbCom can ban an editor for whatever reason they like, and whether that decision is subjective or objective, that does not matter. Δ is just truly ArbFucked, just as he expected before the case started. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

In general, arbcom seems to try for transparency when possible, and by looking for a FoF here they are trying to do that. But yes, in general, there is no obligation that arbcom has to justify a ban (in some cases where the evidence involves confidential info, they cannot justify it in public, and private communications between Δ and the arbitration committee seem to be an issue in this case). On the other hand it takes 9 arbitrators to make a majority without abstentions, which means that a significant number of different arbitrators all have to agree on the outcome. Given that the arbitrators are closely scrutinized for fairness when they are elected, if 9 of them agree, it is difficult to argue that the outcome must be biased. And if it is, they can always be voted out next time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I can understand that there will be things that need to be kept off-wiki (which, by the way, can be a finding of fact: 'Δ has, in off wiki communications, severely insulted most of the arbitrators', which would be a fair point of record without revealing the contents or something personal). I still doubt if that is ground for an on-wiki ban if there is no significant on-wiki abuse. And seen the total lack of sufficient presented proof for such a harsh decision, does only strengthen me in my conclusion that the ArbCom here has failed to solve the problem, or to even pinpoint the problem (lack of focus etc.), and they choose the easy way out. What else can they do than ban, concur that they failed to solve the case? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

This case has already drug on far longer than most, so the answer is "they can come to a consensus no matter how long it takes". I agree that "we need to move on" is a poor reason to close. As for the ban, barring any sudden change in votes, ArbCom seems to have ruled that betacommand has been a disruptive force within WP, no matter his positive/neutral contributions and for that he's going to be banned for a year. ArbCom agreed that there are problems w/ him and throughout the discussions came to the conclusion that the solution is that he should be banned for a year. That they didn't have a specific FoF prior to deciding the "punishment" is really irrelevant. It just means that they hadn't agreed upon how to phrase it. Buffs (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is nice. ArbCom agreed that there are problems w/ him and throughout the discussions came to the conclusion that the solution is that he should be banned for a year. They can't come up with reasons, but it is bad enough for him to be banned. I hope that legal systems don't work like that - we don't really have reasons, but we are going to put you on death-row anyway. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Solution looking for a reason. "Our solution is we are going to build the world's largest man made lake in the middle of the Sahara. We don't know why. Please don't ask any questions, or attempt to wikilawyer us out of our decision. We advise against questioning us or our clerks. Thank you." --Hammersoft (talk) 13:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Unban terms

According to the motion to unban Δ [70]:

Without prejudice to the foregoing, ArbCom may, at any time, by simple majority vote, reinstate your indefinite community ban by determining by motion of any arbitrator that you are (i) in breach of the spirit or letter of these terms or (ii) engaging in conduct injurious to the encyclopedia.

It seems like this is relevant to the current remedy. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The irony of your post is uncanny. While Δ is under sanction to "not engage in any form of wikilawyering, broadly interpreted" and in theory now banned for all manner of noncompliance, you bring in a counter example of pathetic wikilawyering against him. It is clear that "Without prejudice to the foregoing" is a condescending manner of saying regardless of how well you may conform, we can still ban you without process. And then to do exactly that, with your obvious blessing. Yes it is very uncanny, and unsettling. My76Strat (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow. ArbCom found to engage in "pathetic wikilawyering". I think we need a RfC on the enwiki ArbCom, preferably held on m:Meta for fairness. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Funny, I was considering a 'people against ArbCom-ArbCom', but maybe a meta-RfC is a better idea. This charade should stop. On one hand they can't find any fault but still decide to ban, and then they sanction Δ "not engage in any form of wikilawyering, broadly interpreted", so disallowing Δ in any form to defend himself (as it could be explained as wikilawyering - just a matter of interpreting the rules just as broad as making 0.29 edits per 10 minute period as 'skirting the edit speed limit'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

"we need to close this"

PhilKnight says "we have other cases waiting, and we need to close this in the near future". Why? Is there some deadline we are not aware of? Perhaps ArbCom isn't aware that Δ hasn't edited in more than a week. There is no ongoing disruption, no outstanding complaints, no questionable actions happening. Hell, he hasn't even edited mainspace in more than a month! But now we must rush to close this case? Why?

And still, as mentioned in various threads above we have serious problematic issues in play;

• ArbCom failing to admit its own failure in mentoring (but, that's ok, let's blame Δ anyway)
• No public evidence provided regarding communication problems since last ArbCom motion more than half a year ago. Only evidence is from May of 2011; 9 months ago. Since then, there's been more than 2000 various talk space edits, and you guys can't find a SINGLE piece of incivility in all those edits? Holy mother of flying pigs! Ban Δ for communication problems! He's out of control! Hey, an ArbCom member said it so it must be true! (Elen, if it's every time he opens his mouth how come there's no evidence?)
• No recognition that Δ has worked very hard to stay within speed limit (one slight violation in the last six months, over 5,000 edits in the last six months)
• No recognition of the major positive contributions Δ has made.
• No recognition that multiple people provided evidence of community hounding and harassment of Δ (It's ok, it's still all Δ's fault, right?)
• ArbCom's basing its decision on "evidence" they know to be inaccurate.

Not to worry though, just make veiled threats to not question ArbCom and its clerks, and then close the case without any basis in fact. Just sweep the whole unfortunate mess under the rug, and everything will quiet down in time.

ArbCom, we KNOW you're divided on this case, and from statements by various members of your body we know you are polarized by opinions you brought to the table when this case opened. But, we didn't elect you to adjudicate cases based on opinions of an editor you bring to the case before it opens. You are compelled to dispassionately review the evidence presented, and make findings based on that evidence. You aren't doing that. This case severely lacks any evidentiary basis from anything over the last six months to support findings against Δ, and the result of this case is to ban Δ from the project.

ArbCom, what are you going to do in a year when Δ appeals to be unbanned, and you fail to provide any evidence of behaviors he is supposed to correct that have not been corrected in the last six months? Hmm? What then? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

New controversial BAG case

See [71]. So, the concerns that BAG isn't going to address issues with non-consensual edits by a bot after approval, but that they would punt them back to the community, seem valid. I floated an idea to SlikTork a while back about a "BotCom", but I guess we're far away from a consensus for an institution that is able to deal with bot-related disputes. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)