Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3/Workshop

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)

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties

Motion to add parties

1) I find it strange that I'm somehow the main party here besides Δ, when my involvement in this has been limited. The list of parties to my request for clarification was apparently copied to the full case one. I propose that at least the following be added as parties to main case:

• User:CBM (because a lot of evidence and proposals are directed against him; also one of the drafters of the original restrictions)
• User:Hammersoft (played central role in the October 23 events; extensive involvement on Δ's talk page on sanction-related matters prior to that)
• User:Tristessa de St Ange (blocking admin on Oct 23; was engaged in discussion on the matter with Δ for at least one month prior)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Certainly the absence of Hammersoft and CBM as parties seems odd, doubly so considering the latter's vocality on this page; Tristessa is more of an either way thing but adding them wouldn't be perverse. Thryduulf (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that vocality in this arbitration case is on its own is an issue for arbitration; parties to arbitration cases can expect others to scrutinize their edits. But I have no objection at all to being added as a party. If I am added, I would appreciate any feedback from arbitrators about what actions of mine are under review, so I can present appropriate evidence. I have already presented evidence about some of my edits due to remedies that Δ himself has suggested on the workshop page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Motion to remove remedy

2) In the spirit of recent comments, a strong significant consensus is emerging that favors allowing Betacommand to remain editing Wikipedia under some rehabilitative sanction. To solidify this intent, I motion that ArbCom remove the ultimate sanction (a site ban) from consideration. My76Strat (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed - My76Strat (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Not seeing a "strong consensus" for this, although Beta does have his defenders. --John Nagle (talk) 07:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that "strong" is too strong here. I've stricken this to be more reflective of my actual observations. My76Strat (talk) 08:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Motion to add self as a party

3) In reviewing evidence, I have become aware that I am rightfully a party to this action. I believe I hold at least two mitigating factors that are relevant to this case. And wish to present them in proper evidence form.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed with the further extenuation that ArbCom grant a 5 day recess in their own deliberations to allow this evidence. I have only recently returned to active editing, after a recent illness and subsequent respite for recovery. The coincidence in timing is compelling to me and I would personally carry regret if facts I hold were not considered. My76Strat (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Currently, your evidence section has 4 diffs and some discussions not directly related to Betacommand's actual conduct. Moreover, three of the four diffs are your own edits, and the fourth one is from Hammersoft, whom I believe you have reconciled with. Now, perhaps you haven't yet had an opportunity to add this evidence. If that's the case then I think you should either add the evidence soon or put this proposal on hold for now. As it stands, I simply cannot picture ArbCom granting a recess for what's there now. Besides, the motion to close currently stands at 1-4, and frankly I'm amazed that it's been raised at all. There is no way this is closing in the next 48 hours at least, since it has literally no passing remedies, and realistically, I doubt it will close in the next week at a minimum. --NYKevin @313, i.e. 06:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand, and respect that you are more than likely correct in everything just stated. Coincidentally I posted to the talk page in close proximity to your post here asking for a reply of candor. I don't want to disrupt an already difficult process and if I am practically too late, I'll respect that reality and relegate myself to observing. Thank you for your considerate reply in any regard. My76Strat (talk) 06:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

A week after the request for a 5-day delay, all that's been posted as evidence is this.[1]. Is that the exculpatory evidence we were to wait for? Or is there more? --John Nagle (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing interest in this regard. I did attempt to post evidence using a sub-page to overcome the 500 word limitation. This was subsequently removed in deference to guidelines and a clerk's admonition. Frankly, I am severely handicapped by the 500 word threshold and literally am helpless to overcome that in the near term. The prose I did arrange was merely a summary, and I feel certain it alone exceeded the limit by over 2 fold. And finally, I have become a bit disenchanted with the process overall, feeling impotent and ill prepared for believing the truth was a factor. You are welcome to consider the initial summary if you are curious. By the way, I never intended to suggest my evidence was exculpatory, but rather, considerably mitigating. If you have additional questions of me, please ask, and thanks for this one. Sincerely - My76Strat (talk) 07:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The way I see it, your evidence should contain mostly evidence (diffs and such; hard facts, not judgements and opinions). If you want to "connect the dots", propose a few FoFs (which don't have limits) to go along with it. But that's just my view of things. I think that CBM has the right idea; his evidence is almost completely diffs, with a few words describing what we're supposed to see in each series of facts. --NYKevin @263, i.e. 05:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand. I realize I am out of my league here. Fortunately I have confidence the Arbs will achieve the right and fair outcome. In spite of my shortcomings. My76Strat (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

General questions [Kirill]

The evidence presented to date seems to touch on a variety of issues without really focusing on any as particularly key. To bring some more focus to this case, I've posed a number of general questions below, and would ask that everyone submitting evidence consider them and address those they believe are relevant in their presentation.

1. What community concerns led to the imposition of the current community sanctions on Betacommand? Note that I am not asking for an explanation of Betacommand's editing history in general, but only for an explanation of the specific concern(s)/incident(s) that led to the current sanctions being written. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

2. Has Betacommand voluntarily complied with the community sanctions to which he is currently subject? If it is asserted that he has not complied, specific examples of non-compliance are needed. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

3. If the community sanctions have not been voluntarily complied with, have they been enforced? Note that I am interested both in actual enforcement (where an enforcement action was taken and "stuck") as well as attempted enforcement (where an enforcement action was proposed but not implemented, or was taken but later reversed). Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

4. Which editors, if any, have played a substantive role in causing sanctions to be enforced? In other words, which editors have requested sanctions (successfully or otherwise) or implemented them (again, successfully or otherwise)? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

5. Which editors, if any, have played a substantive role in causing sanctions not to be enforced? In other words, which editors have argued against sanctions (successfully or otherwise) or reversed those imposed (again, successfully or otherwise)? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

6. Have the current community sanctions resolved the concerns described in question #1? Note that this is distinct from the issue raised in question #2; the sanctions may not have resolved the issue even if they were followed, or vice versa. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Response from Hammersoft

Interesting approach Kirill, but I think it needs to be more abstract than most of these questions point towards. A better question I think is "Have the community restrictions created an environment in which Δ can reasonably be expected to achieve success? If not, why not?" I think the clear answer to that is no, and virtually all of the bruhaha is descendant from that pivotal point. When a sanction is properly written, Δ has abided by it; witness the June ArbCom NFCC patrolling prohibition which Δ hasn't violated. I think the ArbCom needs to vacate the community sanctions and replace them with sanctions that produce an environment where Δ can reasonably be expected to succeed. This includes a very clear understanding of the community's negative role in this situation and some means of minimizing the astonishing hostility leveled by the community at Δ so a reasonable and productive environment can be created. As is, Δ has been set up to fail. Whether this was intentional or not is irrelevant. That's the effect. It's as if Δ was told "You may only plant your crops in this nice quiet valley" while miles upstream the community breached a massive dam sending an onslaught of water down upon him and his efforts. The resulting mess is deemed a 'failure' and Δ is blamed for not abiding by his sanctions, with in effect people saying "You didn't produce any crops. You fail!" The ArbCom sanctions were clear, made sense, and were easy to follow without the community being able to make wild interpretations of what it meant. They've succeeded. No surprise there. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Response from Fram

I'm not really interested anymore in how the current restrictions came into being. For question 5, the two main (but not always the only) editors arguing against either the restrictions or against whether some edits were an infraction or not, were Hammersoft and Dirk Beetstra. Note that they have argued against blocks and so on, they, as far as I know, have not taken any action (unblocks and the like). While I believe that their arguments in defense were often wrong, I don't think that they did anything wrong in essence. Looking at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand 2011, it looks like Black Kite was one of the more virulent defenders of Betacommand as well. On the other side, perhaps CBM and crossmr are the most vocal, but considering the number of admins that have blocked Betacommand, I don't really see a concise list of such editors.

My main concerns are that Betacommand only follows his restrictions after they have been enforced a few times (e.g. the 40 edits in 10 minutes restriction, or the 25-edits pattern restriction), and even then tests it to the limit. He has, in my opinion, clearly not followed his restriction Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2#Community-imposed restrictions: "Betacommand must manually, carefully, individually review the changed content of each edit before it is made. Such review requires checking the actual content that will be saved, and verifying that the changes have not created any problems that a careful editor would be expected to detect." My evidence, and the talk page discussion linked therein, is evidence for this. So as far as I am concerned, the reply to question 6 is that the restrictions have not resolved the concerns, mainly because of Betacommand not (voluntarily) following the restrictions. Fram (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

As a follow-up to my response, please take a look at User talk:Δ/20111101#Copyright violations, where Hammersoft and Dirk Beetstra took it upon themselves to defend Delta by all means, including attacking the messenger (without backing up the attacks even once) or closing the discussion (when user A starts a discussion at user talk B, it is not up to user C to close that discussion, and certainly not to close it again after user A has protested). They finally decided to clean up the mess Delta created, after which Delta hatted the thread without making any comments in it, but with the closing summary "Not really that much of a copyright issue", which is incorrect and ignores the other problems with these edits. The whole episode is a fine example of both the carelessness of Delta's edits (23 edits in a row, 23 times the same errors), and the somewhat bullying manner of defense by Hammersoft and Dirk Beetstra.

As for his other restrictions like the civility restriction, let me offer a rather old but telling example: my first encounter with Delta after his rename, at User talk:Δ/20100901#webnode.com. I started my third post in that section with "Betacommand, I have asked you[...]". His reply: "Since you cannot show me the basic respect to use the right username I think this conversation is over with." What? Somehow, using his old, wellknown username instead of the not-so-easily available new one was enough as a show of disrespect to immediately stop a discussion? Fram (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Response from Masem

On 1: My take on the community actions were to prevent Δ from using semi-automated tools directly to edit WP, and instead to "edit like a human", checking each change as we would expect an editor using the normal text box with no additional automated help would do. Hence the VPR request for doing mass edits on a series of 25+ articles, and the 40 articles/10 minutes edit rate. Civility and better communication is part of this, but I don't believe in the current specifics, this is an issue.

On 2: Δ has complied voluntarily with the actions. He has attempted to stay within the editing rate, even though has gone over on, I believe, 3 occasions that resulted in blocks, but he did not that he mis-timed his actions and went over the rate (One case was like 43 edits/10 minutes). He has posted to VPR for 25+ article tasks in the past. The only reason we're here now after the actions in October is that Δ undertook actions that he likely did not feel met the 25+ article VPR part, but others did, leading to a block and the large VPR thread initiated by Hammersoft. Δ may have, in good faith, consider the edits he was doing as falling outside the "pattern of edits" that the first community sanction called for, and thus felt he was voluntarily complying with them. In otherwords, I wouldn't call any of his actions not voluntarily compliance with the community restrictions.

On 3: Again, I don't believe that Δ has not attempted to comply with the sanctions, and certainly has not taking actions to subvert them purposes. Mistakes happen (going over an edit rate), misunderstandings of vague terms happen (the latest mess from October), but that's not willing avoiding the sanctions.

On 6: I believe the community sanctions have helped, but they are at least still needed particularly if the community wants to take the term of "pattern of edits" in the way it has. As pointed out in Fram's evidence, there are some actions that Δ has put into this "cleanup" action of his that are likely not really necessary or have a minor harmful but repairable effect on a page (removing invisicomments, trying to manage reference names) that, with the current editing rate restriction are easy to catch but were Δ able to edit at a "full rate" that any normal non-bot editor could do, may be harmful. It makes sense that the VPR process and the editing rate restriction stay in place as long as Δ wants to engage in wikignoming to avoid him silently introducing large-scale changes that may be questionable. Again, Δ has engaged in discussions to correct problems with his wikignoming when they have been pointed out, which is a significant step from per-santcions. The one additional point to consider on this is that Δ's edits since the restriction placement have not been disruptive themselves, only the resulting discussions of his actions by editors on both sides of Δ's defense, creating megathreads discussing the sanctions that really don't need to be as long as what they are if the sanctions were clearly defined. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Response from CBM

Hammersoft asked, ""Have the community restrictions created an environment in which Δ can reasonably be expected to achieve success? If not, why not?".

My original answer was "Yes". When I helped write the sanctions, we set up an environment where Δ could reasonably be expected to achieve success. If he had simply stopped trying to perform large-scale maintenance work, got away from image work entirely, and focused on individual articles, he would never have violated his sanction. Instead, for years he disregarded the sanction and continued to exhibit the same problematic editing that led to the sanction. He continued to do so despite numerous blocks and warnings.

In light of that history, my new answer is "No", because I no longer find it reasonable to assume Δ will be successful voluntarily. The experience we now have after years of sanction shows that the good faith we assumed in Δ was misplaced. AGF is not a suicide pact: if someone makes it clear they will abuse the assumption, we can withdraw it. It now appears to me that the only way to avoid a ban on Δ is to impose extremely tight edit restrictions that forcibly remove him from the areas where he causes drama. I will write more on this later. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Response from Nagle

Re #1: Most of the issues revolve around Betacommand's continued attempt to be involved in the removal of non-free images. Over the years, he has used 'bots, high-speed semi-automated editing, manual editing, and toolserver programs to remain involved in that area. He is currently topic-banned from that area due to a long, long, history of overly aggressive action and high error rate.

Re #6: The sanctions have not resolved the problem, since Betacommand is back in arbitration again.

Since it seems that Betacommand is unable to stay completely out of the NFCC area, despite sanctions, an unambiguous sanction is necessary. The only sanction likely to be unambiguous enough is a permanent block and ban from Wikipedia. In volunteer organizations, sometimes you have to fire a volunteer. --John Nagle (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Response from Beetstra

1. I agree there with Maxem.

2. I do not believe that Δ has ever argued that he would, knowingly, violate the community restrictions on purpose, which reads to me that he complies with the restrictions.

3. Again, I do not believe that Δ has ever argued that he would, knowingly, violate the community restrictions on purpose. So there is nothing to enforce there specifically.

4. I think the answer is: see block log and the many threads on AN, AN/I, Δ's talkpage, &c. - Δ has violated the community restrictions, Δ has sometimes been warned that he did, Δ has sometimes been brought to AN andAN/I, and on other occasions where those restrictions were (repeatedly) violated they were enforced.

5. No. I do not believe that anyone has ever caused that the restriction were not enforced. Sometimes the restrictions were violated but no enforcement was applied. Fram is right that I and Hammersoft sometimes have argued against the use of enforcement, and even against the actual restrictions - but I steer clear from the assertion that I have ever tried to make sure that the restrictions were not enforced (see also below).

6. I think that is the pivotal question. IMHO, the restrictions were in place to protect Wikipedia, to make sure that Δ checks what he does, and thinks about edits before saving. I agree that there are cases where the result is still sub-optimal, and I agree that there are edits which are plainly wrong, and I think there will also be examples where an edit has broken a page. Although the restrictions are in place to make sure that also that does not happen, I do honestly believe that most of these mistakes are in good faith, they are mistakes. I think that the majority of his edits is indeed thoughtful, but maybe to the letter, no, the restrictions have not resulted fully in that everything is perfect before saving. The other point is that the edit restrictions were violated (to the letter of the restriction). Whether the edit restrictions were (on a specific set of edits) violating the restrictions or not, that did not result in a higher rate of mistakes in the edits at that point: Whether editing at <40 edits per 10 minutes or at (occasionally) significantly >40 edits per 10 minutes did not have an effect on the error rate - it might even be that in those cases where Δ did violate e.g. the speed restriction, that there were actually no mistakes in those edits - they were purely and solely violations of the restrictions - the same goes for the removal of the references to deleted files (redlinked files where the target file was deleted) - I believe (did not check) that Δ did >25 removals of references to deleted images, and thereby violated the pattern restriction - but all those >25 removals were correct (other parts of the edits may have been faulty, or sub-optimal - but that specific pattern of removal of references to files did not have mistakes (though maybe other solutions may have been more appropriate in some cases)). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Addendum to 6. I think that it should be carefully evaluated for each disputed edit by Δ whether the edits are actually wrong (did Δ actually do something which breaks a previous consensus or just breaks something), whether they were improving an old situation but could have been even better (what I generally describe as a 'suboptimal edit'), or whether the perception of the thing that is wrong is more-or-less in the eye of the beholder (like e.g. some changes in whitespace can do - it does not actually do anything, and people sometimes complain that it hence should not be performed, though others argue that it in some cases really improves the editing environment on a page, even if it does not actually have any effect on the page). Note that I do agree that of all these there are examples in Δ's edits, but that they are generally all swept together and used as examples of mistakes. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Response to Fram

Re "For question 5, the two main (but not always the only) editors arguing against either the restrictions or against whether some edits were an infraction or not, were Hammersoft and Dirk Beetstra. Note that they have argued against blocks and so on, they, as far as I know, have not taken any action (unblocks and the like). While I believe that their arguments in defense were often wrong, I don't think that they did anything wrong in essence." - Fram, I am going to stress here, that I am indeed arguing against sanctions and blocks and defending actions that Δ does when I feel the need to do so, and I will ask for clarification when things are unclear - I would never consider to use my admin powers to overturn them or even to obstruct the application of sanctions. I also note, that I will strictly stay at the point of arguing, mainly remarking, occasionally !voting, but I will not even get close to obstruction of the application of sanctions by any other admin - the closest may be that my argument may have the effect that no sanctions were applied.

Regarding my defense in the 'copyright violations situation' - I still do not agree that these creations were clear copyright violations without any form of attribution per sé - it is not as black and white - it would put an enormous strain on sandbox-edits if that guideline would be applied so black-and-white. And I did state "Of course, it would be better to make it more clear, which revid exactly etc. ...". However, Kirill, you may want to consider how Δ is commonly addressed by people who think that he did something wrong/suboptimally. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Response from ASCIIn2Bme

The answers to (4) and (5) cannot be given in absolute terms, because the answers depend on whether one considers particular incidents related to the sanctions as having been correct or incorrect applications of the sanctions. Let me give you a couple of examples, which is a reply to (3) as well.

Incident of November 9, allegedly NFCC-related

Supporting sanctions:

• User:Franamax, blocking admin

Opposing sanctions:

• User:The Bushranger, unblocking admin
• User:TenOfAllTrades
• User:Masem
• User:Alpha Quadrant
• User:Sven Manguard
• User:NonvocalScream (signing as Jon)

Not sure:

• User:SarekOfVulcan

I note that the entire discussion took place on Δ's talk page, [2] although WP:AE appears to have been the appropriate venue. There is now an ANI thread about that as well Wikipedia:ANI#Block of Δ by Franamax; the above summary refers to the discussion on Δ's talk page prior to the unblock. As the ANI thread is fast moving, I won't try to summarize it here, but the consensus there seems to mirror what happened on the talk page.

Incident of October 23, allegedly a violation of community restrictions

Supporting sanctions:

• User:Tristessa de St Ange, blocking admin, had been communicating with Δ on his talk page on related matters since September [3], although most of the replies to her on Δ's talk page were from User:Hammersoft. Towards the end of the ANI thread, Tristessa notes: "I'm not sure whether anyone has noticed this or not (or whether it's mentioned elsewhere - perhaps even by Δ himself in some long-forgotten page, I don't know if he'd ever asked for bot approval), but <LINK REMOVED> appears to be the actual script (appears to be Python) hosted on the toolserver that Δ is running to perform his recent "Cleanup" edits. For the sake of demonstration, I made a pair of group of Δ-style "Cleanup" edits with it [4] [5]. Unless Δ takes this down you can try it out for yourself; if you append a page to the end of the URL for the page= parameter while logged in, you can open your very own edit box with a Δ style "Cleanup" edit in it for the page, with the edit summary already filled out."
• User:Arthur Rubin wrote on ANI "There's no credible argument presented that it was a bad block. He violated his restrictions."
• User:Jtrainor wrote on ANI "Once again Betacommand violates his sanctions and once again people argue he shouldn't be punished for it. Another day at WP:ANI."
• User:CBM wrote on ANI "The edit restrictions here are for long-term (multi-year) problems. There is no way to expect anyone to monitor Beta's edits closely enough to be able to place a block for a violation within the hour when it is made. 16 hours seems completely reasonable to me. I can say I have also considered blocking for the apparently unapproved series of "cleanup" edits, which has been going on for some time. It's pretty clearly a violation IMO, but I decided to wait to see whether other people also noticed it." CBM later added "For the record, Beta made 1597 edits in September with the exact summary "Cleanup" and another 408 this month with that summary."
• User:KillerChihuahua wrote on ANI "Good block, it is unfortunate that he has a history of doing this, refusing to discuss, and only discussing and or modifying after a block."
• User:Purplebackpack89 even asked for a two week block on ANI.
• User:Fram wrote on ANI "I'm a bit amazed to see people debating whether these edits are a "pattern" and whether they are done by script or not. They are clearly done by a script and form a pattern: they are removing deleted images from articles, and in the meantime the script does most things AWB does, plus some more like adding the title of a link to a bare link, adding (after asterisks) or removing (at the end of lines) spaces, indicating dead links, ..."
• User:Thumperward wrote on ANI "The block wasn't mishandled. This is a repeat violation of editing restrictions (a form of community ban) by an editor with a long history of the same."
• User:Crossmr wrote on ANI "And as far as I can its a clear violation of his restrictions, as such 48 hours isn't even remotely enough."

Opposing sanctions:

• User:Masem wrote on ANI "The question is whether this is a pattern of edits - his rate of editing is within the restriction, but its the 25 of a "pattern" of edits that's being claimed here. And real, I can't agree with that, particularly since he has seem quick to correct any problems and/or drop changes that were proving problematic (eg wiping invis comments) when he is told about them." adding that "The bulk of the edits (spotchecking the 130 contributions) seem to be avoiding template redirection, removing long-deleted image links, adding white space, adding titles to bare URL references, and the like, all within style guidelines."
• User:Off2riorob wrote on ANI "It does seem a bit severe to block him for this", then about the blocking admin "Don't attack me with your wiki lawyering crap - you're the dick for the bad block." Later adds "Just to clarify - the user has made just over thirty edits a day with his "Cleanup" automated/semi-automated operation over a four day period , most of which have been declared beneficial." Then he attacked User:Nagle for not having made enough edits in the last 6 months in order to have a right to complain about others' edits.
• User:Black Kite wrote on ANI "One could actually argue that those edits don't actually contravene his "pattern" restriction, because they're not all doing the same thing, even if they're all tagged with the same edit summary. This together with the lack of any pre-block warning whatsoever I think makes this a bad block." Added later that "Especially given that the block was placed 16 hours after the edits, it would clearly have been better to have this discussion first."
• User:Piotrus wrote on ANI "IAR, unblock, and let's take this to Arbcom so this stupid sanction can be buried." Piotrus appears to have been one of the users of Δ's scripts [6].
• User:Beetstra wrote on ANI "If you (pl) say that that is a pattern, how is it different from this/this/or this pattern of adding and removing text? Is adding and removing text a pattern, is fixing typo's a pattern, is fixing references (which all contain a different text) a pattern, is using the same edit summary over and over a pattern, is bringing a large number of articles to FA-status a pattern, is removing links to deleted images a pattern? If you guys have to dig out 25 edits from a large set of edits to find 25 which do all something which is the same, and then call that a pattern, or have to sweep them all together and say 'they all do cleanup, that is obviously a pattern' .. then you are just looking for a reason to block, aren't you?"
• User:Hammersoft wrote on ANI: "I think User:Tristessa de St Ange's block without recent discussion with the editor was improper. There was discussion a month ago (see this thread), but that thread completed with Tistessa asserting "A series of different types of changes in a single edit qualify as a pattern", leaving me cross-eyed. ¶ But the bigger issue is this restriction is very vague. It's being interpreted to cover a broad swath of edits. At this point, the restriction is so vague that effectively before every time Δ makes changes to 25 articles, he needs to seek approval. The result is a restriction that is unfair to Δ."
• User:Alpha Quadrant wrote on ANI: "I agree with Hammersoft, there is no clear definition of what a pattern is. Until there is a definition, Δ should not be blocked again for "violating" editing restriction #1."

Not sure:

• User:Ultraexactzz wrote on ANI "So, per the above, it appears to be a valid block. But I don't think it's really a good one. The blocking admin should have warned Δ prior to the block, or at least discussed the issue with them."
• User:Xeno wrote on ANI "Arguing about the definition of soup isn't helping anyone."

placeholder for older incidents

Response from Sven Manguard

Q1
The community concerns, as I see them, were initially threefold:

1. Delta was overzealous in NFCC enforcement.

2. Delta edits rapidly using automated or semi-automated tools, with a higher than ideal error rate.

3. Delta has a tendency to under-communicate, and can be curt or outright abrasive when dealing with editors whom he disagrees with.

The solution was to place restrictions on Delta. That was, as best as I can tell not being around for the initial rounds of this conflict, a sensible decision.

Q2 and Q3 (too entwined to separate)
Where we get into shades of gray is with the question of "Has he complied with the sanctions", and at this point I'm lumping all of the current sanctions into one answer, because it's the same answer. My prospective is that Delta has pushed the boundaries but rarely outright broke them. This leads to two issues. The first issue is that everyone sees the boundaries as being a little different, especially on the civility restriction, and as we see today, the NFCC restriction. The second issue is that people ignore the spirit of the restrictions and nail him on the letter of them. Delta has a 40 edit per 10 minute throttle. The spirit of this restriction is that he should be taking the time to review his edits and shouldn't be running rapid automated or semi-automated tasks that he can't check. The letter of the restriction is '40 edits per 10 minutes'. I remember (or at least I think I remember, I very well could be lumping multiple incidents into one) a discussion in which people were calling for Delta's head because he 'broke the restriction'. Did he do 400 edits in 10 minutes? No, he did something just over 40, and they were good edits. In this case, the polarization reaches its peak. The people who believe that Delta is bad for the site say 'he broke the restriction, indef him'. The people who believe that he's been horribly abused say 'this is part of a campaign of abuse, let him off, the go desysop yourself'. The middle ground, when it is proposed, is quickly lost in a sea of conflicting extremism (of which I fully admit that I was a part of during the first half of one outbreak, before realizing that the whole thing was nuts and bailing from the discussion). Enforcement is, because admins have joined in the side picking with everyone else, inconsistent.

Q4 and Q5
Most of the people at the front lines of both sides of the discussion have left comments somewhere in this case already. I got the hell out of Delta drama a while back, so there might be people I missed, and there might be people that got out of the Delta drama before I created this account, but I'd have to say that the big names that come to mind immediately have either placed comments here, or at the case talk page.

Q6
The answer here is a resounding no. If anything, the sanctions have made things worse, because everyone, including Delta, his supporters, and his detractors, have misinterpreted, creatively reinterpreted, or otherwise distorted, both accidentally and deliberately, the sanctions, in order to advance their positions. That much I think everyone should be able to agree on.

The solution isn't to ban Delta. The solution is to stop the unfolding drama at the source, which by now is the restrictions themselves. Things need to be worded so simply that a kindergartner can understand what is being said, because that will suck the life out of the debate. Instead of wiggle room wording like 'broadly construed', we need something like "Delta is forbidden from removing non-free images from any Wikipedia page. He is allowed to recommend files for removal, and is allowed to code tools that assist other editors in removing files, but those other editors, and not Delta, are fully responsible for their edits." It's simple, it allows Delta to code his tools, and makes it clear that the people using those tools responsible for the results of the edits they make using the tools. This solves all three of the concerns I listed in Q1. He isn't directly enforcing the NFCC or communicating with editors who have had their files removed. It's really hard to argue something like that. Compare it to what Delta is currently under and what you have is a restriction aiming for the same thing but worded in a way that fuels debate.

I'd be happy to take the current restrictions and kindergarden-ize them. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Questions to Hammersoft [Kirill]

Please feel free to respond to these inline. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

1. In your response to the general questions, you suggest that we "produce an environment where Δ can reasonably be expected to succeed". In your opinion, do Wikipedians have a "right to succeed"? Is this right explicitly stated in a project- or WMF-level policy, or is it implicit? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• It's stated on the front page of this project that "anyone can edit". Presuming Δ isn't under a sanction that prohibits him from doing so, he has the privilege (not right; I never said right) to edit. In that respect, he is like any other editor here. Per the intent of Foundation:Resolution:Openness, we have a responsibility to all editors to provide an environment in which we can all succeed. If Δ, in making edits not covered by sanctions, is not entitled to that as any other editor, then he is de facto banned from the project. If we don't have an obligation to provide (within reason) an environment in which he can succeed, then the implicit permission here is that the community has no obligation in its community sanctions to provide a reasonable set of sanctions; they can be entirely unreasonable, and provide a scenario in which the editor coming under sanctions will very likely fail. This is beneficial to the community?

2. If editors do have a "right to succeed", to what degree is this right subject to the whims of the community? Does the community have the authority to impose particular restrictions on an editor's activity regardless of whether such restrictions are reasonable? For example, suppose that the community imposed a restriction on Δ stating that he could only edit on Tuesdays, between 12:00 AM and 12:01 AM, while blindfolded and hopping on one foot. Clearly, this would be an unreasonable restriction; but does the community have the authority to institute it anyway? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Inverse. The project has an obligation to provide an environment in which editors can be successful. I don't believe the community has the authority to impose unreasonable restrictions. What is "reasonable" is subjective of course. There are cases that are very obviously unreasonable, such as your example. There are quite a few others that are more grey. A more global concern I have here is that I believe the community has given itself the authority to enact restrictions that are every bit as restrictive as that which ArbCom can do. Yet, there are no elections to this "community sanctions", no oversight, no appeal really, and anyone can show up to vote in favor of a restriction. One case result of this is a set of sanctions in this case which are so vague as to deny implementation. The community doesn't have a dedicated staff of people who are capable at writing reasonable sanctions. It's whoever shows up. I think community sanctions should be limited to a stock set of alternatives, written by ArbCom, such as "Topic Ban on <topic>". --Hammersoft (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Questions to Hammersoft [SirFozzie]

Wanted a separate section for my question, and feel free to reply right underneath:

Q: What was your thinking opening the Village Pump Proposals? Why did you open so many vague proposals when they werein some cases not pursuant to any current tasks that Δ was either doing or planning on doing? SirFozzie (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

A: Some people had made specific requests for Δ to provide links to WP:VPR threads where he had requested permission to perform the edits he was making. Δ didn't feel they were a pattern. Some people did, some people didn't. Regardless, by making the requests I felt it would clear the air on this issue and allow editing to move forward. I made a request of Δ to make the requests on his behalf. I did not get all the way through the list (see discussion) of proposed tasks, after it became apparent that no proposals would pass without objection. Some editors used blanket opposes to stop any and all proposals for Δ to edit. It became apparent it was an exercise in futility. All of the requests were pursuant to tasks Δ had been doing and planned on doing. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Question to Betacommand [My76Strat]

Betacommand is English your primary language? My76Strat (talk) 08:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Questions for all [Roger Davies]

Answers to the following two questions would greatly assist in helping to resolve this case:

1. There is much in evidence about historic misconduct but the historic allegations have not been specified nor whether they continue. Would someone list the historic problems and see whether similar problems continue?
2. In accepting this case, I said "As NFCC features heavily, and is the most controversial aspect, what would be helpful would be an analysis of some of this editor's edits. Some numbers would be more useful than allegation/counter-allegation, so say the 250+ link removals on 30 June 2011. Such an analysis could be broken down into percentage of files that were false positives (ie there was already a rationale); percentage of files that were deleted as actual vios; percentage of files that were only deleted because they'd been orphaned but had a rationale; percentage of edits reverted etc. Roger Davies talk 01:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)". Is anyone prepared to undertake such an analysis?

Thanks in advance,  Roger Davies ^talk 18:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• I would gladly assist by compiling the analysis you requested. I agree it would serve helpful having such information. Unfortunately I am helpless without the tools to see the deleted files. I just want to state this fact and that the question is a bit out of context by addressing it to all. My76Strat (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Questions for the admins who blocked Betacommand during the past 12 months [SilkTork]

It would be helpful if you would be able to answer as many of these questions as possible. Please respond under each individual question.

1. 1 is Lankiveil
2. 2 is Magog the Ogre
3. 3 is CBM
4. 4 is Rd232
5. 8 is Franamax (last block of 8 different admins)

1. What was the incident that led to the block?

Admin 1

This edit was posted to ANI. I interpreted instructing another editor to "SHUT THE FUCK UP" as a violation of BC's then-current civility restrictions.

Admin 2

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive162#User:Δ reported by User:FleetCommand (Result: Both editors blocked for 24 hours). At the time, I was patrolling the edit warring noticeboard, and this was simply another thread I had to close - albeit a more difficult decision to make than many. Although I'd interacted with him before (User talk:Δ/20101101#Pattern of edits), I didn't think my judgment was clouded by that interaction; I try very hard to act impartially in such cases. The reasons I gave him for the block are at User talk:Δ/20110701#AN3 resolution; to summarize: while he was abiding by the letter of WP:3RR, he was breaking the spirit by making ~7-8 reverts in a day (and IIRC refusing to discuss the issue much).

Admin 3

I blocked Δ on May 18 for violating his editing restriction, as described in this comment on his user page [7]. He was running a large-scale job that did not have approval from the village pump, and exceeding the speed limit from his editing restriction.

Admin 4

The discussion which led to Lankiveil's civility block is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive701#Block_of_.CE.94_for_violation_of_community_inposed_sanctions.3F; my reduction of it is explained in that thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive701#Block_reduced_to_24_hours. My block is briefly explained in my initial post at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive224#User:.CE.94_editing_restrictions_on_NFCC; basically for simple violation of the community restriction on editing speed. Delta's response ("will quietly take my lumps for that, because I was not paying close enough attention to the clock") is here.

Admin 5

Admin 8

I noticed this edit shortly after it occurred at 01:24 9 Nov 2011. After research and due consideration, I enacted an AE block at 03:16, notified the editor in the same minute, and logged the block at 03:29.

2. If appropriate, did you discuss the matter with Betacommand before proceeding to a block? If so, how did Betacommand respond?

Admin 1

No.

Admin 2

No. The issue had been brought up to him by others before, and clearly wasn't making a difference. You'll notice two other reports on the same archive page, and several others in the recent history [8].

Admin 3

I warned him about violations of his editing restriction on May 13 [9]. In his response on his talk page May 13, he acknowledged that he had violated the restrictions at that time [10]. However that was just a warning, I was not going to block if he began to follow the restrictions. At the same time, on May 13, I posted a thread to ANI about his unapproved edits [11] where I noted the warning from his talk page.

Admin 4

no, though there was some discussion on the user talk page afterwards, and much discussion with others about the edit restrictions and NFCC at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive224#User:.CE.94_editing_restrictions_on_NFCC.

Admin 5

Admin 8

No warning, as I found it a clear violation. I felt there was no need for a warning or discussion as Beta was clearly aware of the sanctions. Additionally, my observation at the time was that for the several months prior, attempts to communicate directly with Beta were in fact dominated by editors other than Beta.

3. What part did Betacommand's past behaviour play in your decision to block?

Admin 1

A lot, in that without BC's past behaviour he would not have been under civility sanctions at the time which permitted the block.

Admin 2

With regards to recent past (~1-2 months): A lot; as I showed above, it had been filled with edit warring. I would not have blocked if recent past behavior had been better. Regarding more distant past: a small part was also due to the fact that for years people had been asking him to be more collegial; however, there is a good chance I would have blocked independent of distant past behavior.

Admin 3

The block was due to his editing restriction, so it was quite objective. At the same time, I am quite familiar with Δ's history, which makes the recidivism more obvious.

Admin 4

the block 2 weeks earlier for violating the speed restriction affected the length of the block, certainly, and also the ease with which the decision to block was reached. (Since the restriction was only breached by a little over 10%, without a recent block a warning/reminder might possibly have sufficed. Hard to say now how likely that outcome would have been.)

Admin 5

Admin 8

Beta was subject to an Arb enforcement remedy.

4. What part did the sanctions play in your decision to block?

Admin 1

I would not have blocked (I would have warned) had the sanctions not been in place.

Admin 2

None of it.

Admin 3

The block I placed was solely due to the editing restriction. See #5

Admin 4

The block I placed was solely due to the editing restriction (speed restriction).

Admin 5

Admin 8

Umm, the leading role.

5. If there were no sanctions in place and/or Betacommand had a clean record, how would that have impacted on your decision to block?

Admin 1

Probably a level-4 (last chance) civility warning. I don't know how anyone could spin the edit in question as acceptable.

Admin 2

I would have blocked anyway.

Admin 3

If there had been no sanction in place, the block would not have happened. At the same time, the reason that the sanction was in place is a long history of similar problems, so if there were no sanctions this incident would have contributed towards some.

Admin 4

If... then... no block.

Admin 5

Admin 8

If sanctions were not in place, I would not have blocked. I would add comments I thought might be helpful to improve operation of the tool if no sanctions were in place, however the sanctions were only placed because of problems in this specific area.

6. Any additional comments you feel may be useful?

Admin 1

It's usually roundly acknowledged that BC does some good work, but here we are at the third ArbCom case, after probably hundreds or thousands of volunteer-hours have been wasted trying to deal with this problem. One has to ask if the work that BC does is worth such a massive amount of time and resources being consumed. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC).

Admin 2

I do not have anything against Beta/Delta whatsoever; in fact, I noticed that the block I imposed seemed to stop the edit warring, so it's entirely probable that he's reformed in this area completely (I simply don't know; the AN-based discussions are too time-consuming and drama filled to make it worth my time). Good faith, intelligent administrators have disagreed on the appropriateness of my block; that is fine: it was a judgment call and someone had to make it, and I admit there was no perfect outcome to this scenario. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Admin 3

The original discussion of the community sanctions [12] has many comments parallel to the ones Lankiveil made here. It is not clear to me that it is worthwhile for the community to bend over backwards to keep Δ around, when he neither expresses any remorse for his violations nor any evidence that he will bring his edits in line with community norms. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Admin 4

I felt at the time that much of the problem, at least as I was confronted with it, was actually due to the failure of the community to get to grips with NFCC policy and policy enforcement in a really workable way. The room for disagreement was large because of that, with something resembling two opposing camps on the NFCC issue. Delta's role as a lightning rod for the disagreement overshadowed at times the fact that he wasn't to blame for the underlying policy problem. Unfortunately, my attempts to clear up that policy problem (there was an RFC a bit later) didn't really get that far, AFAIR. Rd232 ^talk 23:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Admin 5

Admin 8

Partially echoing what CBM is saying, in that substantive communication with Beta can be difficult at times (though quite easy when it's just technical stuff), also I didn't(/don't) think that the frequency and voluminous nature of contributions from editors supporting Beta has actually helped arrive at a solution, rather the opposite. Since the AC motion on NFCC, I haven't really seen much communication from Beta himself, more often interlocutors. This poses an extra burden for those wishing to actually resolve issues, beyond just the communication issues, defiant-type attitudes from Beta with occasional outbursts, and repeated problems with the outcomes from Beta's scripting efforts. Franamax (talk) 04:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed final decision

Proposals by uninvolved User:NYKevin

Preliminary comment: I am not proposing any particular finding of fact, nor any remedy. These are solely principles which I feel ought to be used in deciding this case. I do not feel qualified to determine whether Betacommand/Δ has violated any sanctions, nor do I feel qualified to suggest remedies in the event that he did. I am mostly uninvolved, except for some proposals and discussion at WP:VPR and I think WP:ANI as well. I am not an administrator, and therefore have never blocked/unblocked/etc Betacommand/Δ. --NYKevin @787, i.e. 17:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed principles

Betacommand is responsible

1) It is the responsibility of a sanctioned user to avoid questionable behavior, even if it is permissible by a strict reading of the sanction in question. It is not the responsibility of Arbcom, the community, or anyone else to word sanctions without loopholes. A sanctioned user should always ask for clarification prior to any potentially questionable behavior, or avoid such behavior entirely. --NYKevin @787, i.e. 17:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• I have to agree here. Some of this should have been discretion taken by Δ prior to doing anything that would bring his edits to the attention of those editors that are opposed to his actions. Of course, the fact that there is a vitriol-like environment that would require Δ to be under this scrutiny is part of the problem. I would also say that refined restrictions that are more explicit or outline better remedies for Δ to pre-check his edits for others would remove this issue. --MASEM (t) 23:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• I think that the proposal is loaded. It implies that the sanctioned party should magically and infallibly know what is in the mind of both the framers of the sanction, and the general community, and in particular (in this case) those who are seeking any excuse to get blocks and sanctions imposed on the user. At the same time it imposes zero responsibility on those framing the sanction to get it right. With some of the obstreperous types we see around, I would have thought accurate and precise wording is the sine qua non of any sanction. Rich Farmbrough, 21:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC).
  

• Rich, it is clearly inappropriate for a sanctioned user to exploit a loophole. I feel that a sanctioned user ought to be acting with an abundance of caution in any circumstances. This does not require them to "magically know... what is in the mind of the general community", it requires them to ask before they do anything which might not be allowed. I don't think that's an unreasonable requirement. As for the responsibility of the framers, under normal circumstances, they don't need to phrase things in a thoroughly bureaucratic and legalistic way just to keep users from avoiding sanctions; users are supposed to follow the spirit of the sanctions regardless. I won't address whether Δ is having difficulty with this issue, but I should think that regardless of his ability to do so, it is, in fact, his responsibility to follow the spirit of his own restrictions. --NYKevin @758, i.e. 17:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• Because nearly every editing activity Δ has ever participated in has at some point, by some editor, been questioned, the clause to avoid questionable behavior is effectively tantamount to a site wide ban. Δ can not be said to WP:GAME unless there is some clear element of "bad faith" in his motive. Wanting to edit and improve Wikipedia comes no where close to substantiating "bad faith". There is more "bad faith" shown in framing such a tight restriction, by dereliction or intent, than the perhaps loophole editing that Δ has been left to endure. My76Strat (talk) 06:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• It is my opinion that in principle the sanctioned user is responsible for avoiding questionable behavior, for the reasons I've already explained. That is quite separate from "Someone (who?) is wrongly questioning (diffs?) good behavior (such as?)!", which goes in a finding of fact and/or the Evidence subpage. --NYKevin @115, i.e. 01:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

On precedent

2) Sanctions do not cease to exist merely due to lack of enforcement. --NYKevin @787, i.e. 17:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

There has been some discussion about edits being "allowed" one month and prohibited the next. I don't pretend to understand precisely what that means in terms of actual discussion, so this principle might not apply at all. --NYKevin @288, i.e. 05:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it does apply. The issue though, about "edits being "allowed" one month and prohibited the next" is answered, at least I think, by the "Q2 and Q3" section of my reply above. The TLDR is that everyone reads the restrictions differently, and so the lines keep shifting based on which admin is seeing which situation. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

This is unavoidable. If you drive 35mph in a 30mph zone, and you drive by one police officer without getting stopped, the next one may still stop you. In the case at hand, there was never any sort of official declaration that the edits were OK; Δ simply interpreted the decision not to block at that time as permission to continue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

If cases are approved by the community, then the sanctions are varied. I understand that the specific type of edit Δ was recently blocked for had been discussed by the community and agreed to. Rich Farmbrough, 19:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC).

Since you gave no links, it is impossible to tell exactly which task you mean (Δ has been blocked many times). In my evidence I gave a long list of violations of the pre-approval restriction. Δ is specifically required to get approval for large-scale tasks at WP:VPR. He has not presented any evidence showing that he did so for the tasks I point out in my evidence. The sanctions also do not have any exception to the speed limit; even approved tasks have to follow that. Evidence has been presented that Δ violated the speed restriction on numerous occasions. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

We are talking general principles. As someone who has had little time to look at this case I am aware that it is claimed that User:Tristessa de St Ange blocked Δ for edits that had been subject to community discussion and received consensus. I am surprised you are not aware of it. Regardless of whether this is the case or not, such a scenario would be an example of where a rules-maven would dig out a "principle" such as this to attack another user, therefore I see it as of limited usefulness, especially as in the context it appears to have been proposed for just such a purpose. Rich Farmbrough, 21:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC).

I do not believe Δ ever proposed those edits on [{WP:VPR]], I did not find it when I looked for edits by Δ to that page, and nobody else has presented evidence that they found such a proposal. On the other hand I presented evidence that both Tristessa and I warned Δ that those edits were in violation of his restriction. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Drama is bad

3) Users who regularly dance on the edge of consensus tend to create drama, which is harmful to the project, consumes energy, and saps good will. Such users may, in principle, be sanctioned, blocked, or banned even if acting in good faith, provided they have been given adequate warning and opportunity to correct the problem. However, such enforcement should be seen as a last resort unless the user is clearly acting in bad faith. --NYKevin @133, i.e. 02:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Although this probably best applies to Δ, I think it could potentially apply to others as well. I have not reviewed the evidence Δ has submitted regarding wikistalking (nor do I plan to; I see this whole case as a clusterfuck and have no desire to immerse myself further into it), but given the controversy, others may also be guilty of creating drama here. Indeed I find it difficult to believe that a single editor could possibly create the scale of drama presently surrounding this case and the broader controversies. On the other hand, we've certainly had more drama about smaller issues in the past; perhaps the Wikipedia community (or the internet in general) is predisposed towards excessive drama. --NYKevin @133, i.e. 02:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

When I saw the edit summary, I was hoping that this would be referring to the content of this page and its talk page. Oh well. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

So, the Arbs who actually moved this to a full case just wanted to create more drama, huh? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I was referring specifically to this Workshop page, and its talk page, in which a number of editors have acted in ways that I would consider disruptive or at least unjustifiably uncivil. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I could easily support the spirit of this principle. In general it is guidance that every editor should be aware. The seasoned editors participating here are likely all, already aware of this principle. I could never support a principle framed on slang metaphors because it is not reasonable to presume any two strangers would interpret it the same way. Frankly I can only surmise what it means to "dance on the edge of consensus". My76Strat (talk) 06:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It means walking right up to the edge of what's allowed, then complaining when someone else says "you're a mile past the edge of what's allowed"; "the edge of what's allowed" is a subjective barrier, and it's best to stay far away from it in the first place. --NYKevin @117, i.e. 01:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by User:CBM

Proposed principles

User conduct

1) Perfection is not expected from editors, it being understood that everyone will occasionally make mistakes or misjudgments. However, an overall record of compliance with site policies and norms is expected, especially from regular contributors. Editors are expected to adhere to policy regardless of the behavior of those they are in disputes with. Inappropriate behavior by other editors does not legitimize one's own misconduct, though it may be considered as a mitigating factor in some circumstances. Moreover, users who have been justifiably criticized or formally sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating that conduct.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Standard principle. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a good principle as I perceive its intent. "An overall record of compliance" is significantly ambiguous however, and would require modified prose for clarity, before I could support. My76Strat (talk) 07:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Fait accompli

2) Editors who collectively or individually make large numbers of similar edits, and who are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is one of the things that jumped out at me when I was reading this case, as well as the principle below. The high volume with one standard edit summary, so you couldn't tell what the task was without scrutinizing each and every edit. SirFozzie (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Extremely frustrating if one is on a slow computer, has a slow connection, or wikipedia is having a slow moment...Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Standard principle. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This principle is problematic because it predicates on the assumption that a second party will know, or be able to prove the motives of the first party. My76Strat (talk) 08:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

@SirFozzie and Casliber - Would it satisfy your concerns if Δ separated the elements of his edit into specific tasks each with an appropriately specific edit summary? My76Strat (talk) 08:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

@Casliber - I have also been frustrated by attempts to edit during these phantom slow periods. It would be wrong to extrapolate the heightened aggravation of the editing environment to mean the edit itself was overly complex. Have you ever had to specifically review or repair an edit by Δ during one of these "slow periods"? My76Strat (talk) 08:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries

3) Editors are generally expected to provide appropriate edit summaries for their edits; failing to provide edit summaries for potentially contentious edits, or providing misleading edit summaries, is considered incivil and bad wikiquette. When reverting, users are expected to give their reasons in the edit summaries.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is the other thing that jumped out at me. Using the same edit summary, regardless of work done for thousands of edits is not productive. SirFozzie (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. as per preceding. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Standard principle. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I have never seen an edit summary associated with incivility unless the summary itself was clearly a factor for containing some uncivil form of prose like a personal attack, insult, racial slur, and/or some such. Please provide a diff that shows a blank or confusing summary can also rise to incivility. My76Strat (talk) 10:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Point of order:

SirFozzie and Casliber - Please clarify. I understand what you mean regarding this case, and edits by Δ. Please tell me if any of these other scenarios are problematic according to the intent of your comment:

• The use at all of shorthand summaries? examples: (ce for copy edit, rv for revert vandalism, +1 for !vote added, ? for a question asked, re, re X2, and others)
• The consistent use of identical summaries for identical types of edits? examples: (every time editor adds 1 reference the same summary is used which says "add reference") (every time the editor adds 2 or more references the summary always reads "add references")
• The use of non-descriptive one word summaries? examples: (edit, save, or working) in main space? What if they are used in a user space as you construct a draft.

(These bullets assume the edit action matches the summary) My76Strat (talk) 10:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

"Add ref" is not nearly as useful a summary as "add requested citation about role of penguins in peacekeeping force", also identifying the section being edited. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Recidivism

4) Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'm wondering if we should have a principle that states something like "While one of Wikipedia's policies is to Assume Good Faith with other editors actions, it is not unusual to pay extra attention to edits in an area that previously fell short of Wikipedia's norms and policies." But that's just a thought, it probably needs some massaging and rewording, but it's the situation.. if a user had a previous problem in Area X (to the point that it required sanctions in some cases), it's not unusual for further edits involving Area X to be A) Controversial and B) have extra scrutiny applied to them. Something to think about, at least. SirFozzie (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Standard principle. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

So this is being proposed not as a "standard principle" but as an insinuation that Δ is a recidivist? Rich Farmbrough, 21:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC).

This is indeed a standard principle, it has been passed on several past cases. Of course the obvious point of proposing the principle is that I have separately presented evidence that Δ is a recidivist, but that conclusion would go in a finding, not in the principle. I have not proposed any finding of that sort, I will allow the committee to write it if they choose. If they don't plan to use this principle they will just skip it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Gracious of you to "allow the committee to write it in". Nonetheless this is a type of behaviour that I find dubious in these environs, fitting a pattern John Gray might call "Here's the whip". Specifically trying to assemble an architecture by which the extent of the confrontation is escalated, rather than with which it can be reduced and resolved seems, and has always seemed, to me, destructive. Rich Farmbrough, 21:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC).

Monitoring editors under edit restrictions

5) Editors who are under editing restrictions can expect others to monitor their edits to verify that the restrictions are being followed. When monitoring of a sanctioned editor's contributions is pursued for this purpose, it does not qualify as stalking or harassment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is an interesting proposal, and one that editors under sanction should consider seriously. Risker (talk) 06:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It reiterates a policy elsewhere, which I can't find at present - hinted at in Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding but expanded upon elsewhere. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. This would clarify that editors who voluntarily enforce edit restrictions are not guilt of "stalking", as is sometimes claimed. The only way to tell if an editor is heeding an edit restriction is to review the editor's contributions. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree here with the stalking part, but not with the harassment part. Editors under a restriction can expect to be 'followed'/stalked, that their edits are regularly checked. However, the way the situation is handled can be perceived as harassment, or can be plain harassment (if someone is under an edit restriction not to edit in a certain area, and editors check every edit and for every typo a post is made to tell the editor that he should check his text better is a form of harassment - and that is even true if the editor is under a restriction that he has to manually check every edit). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The trouble is getting people to volunteer to check other people's edits. There's not a giant backlog of editors lined up who want to do the double checking. It would be too convenient if editors who have been sanctioned could chase off the people who check their edits, by claiming stalking, leaving nobody to enforce the sanction. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I did say that it should not be defined as stalking, and that argument can not be used to chase of editors. Harassment (in the eye of the sanctioned editor) is a separate issue. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the wording could be improved, but I don't have a precise improvement to offer yet. My motivation includes things like the second paragraph of Relationship with Fram ("stalking") and the first paragraph of Evidence presented by Δ ("stalking, harassment, assuming bad faith, and personal attacks") — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I know exactly why you propose this, Carl, but that is not the point I am trying to make here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

In short, the improvement you are looking for is 'Editors who are under editing restrictions can expect others to monitor their edits to verify that the restrictions are being followed. When monitoring of a sanctioned editor's contributions is pursued for this purpose, it does not qualify as stalking.' --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It may indeed qualify as stalking and harassment. It depends on how it is done, like so many other things, amusingly a distinction vital to this case, and yet lost on so many. Rich Farmbrough, 21:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC).

Agree with Carl that monitoring cannot and should not be construed as stalking. It should be plainly obvious that if an editor's contributions require monitoring, other editors will conduct that monitoring. Given that the nature of these editing restrictions is over multiple edits across multiple articles, it is perfectly reasonable that a monitoring user will similarly review the restricted editor's contributions over the full span of their influence. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The suggestion is kind of creepy when written out like that. Yes, people are going to watch the edits, but there's also a long tradition that we're not supposed to play gotcha about restrictions. 66.127.55.52 (talk) 09:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You put that so much better than I did. Rich Farmbrough, 21:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC).

On the face of it, this sounds reasonable, but from what I have seen some of the "monitoring" has treated Δ as if he is wearing an ArbCom-endorsed scarlet tattoo on his forehead. Giving those editors who want to monitor someone right off the encyclopedia a carte blanche protection from sanction for stalking and harassment is a really bad idea. ArbCom must recognise that its past actions have painted some sanctioned editors with a permanent target and mark of shame, and thus passing a principle like this without caveat is inviting vigilante "monitoring". Sure, a sanction editor can expect additional scrutiny in areas where s/he has previously run into trouble, but that doesn't justify the wiki-equivalent of a daily rectal probe with weekly keel-hauling at ANI for the amusement of the assembled multitude. EdChem (talk) 08:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Nature of editing restrictions

6) Editing restrictions, such as those listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions and those placed by the arbitration committee, have the effect of amending the blocking policy with respect to a particular kind of edits by a particular editor or group of editors. A block may be appropriate under an editing restriction even if the block would not normally be permitted by the blocking policy for an editor who is not under the restriction.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Probably needs some rewording, but the intention is entirely correct here. Community- or Arbcom-imposed editing restrictions on editors effectively alter the threshold at which sanctions such as blocks can be applied. Risker (talk) 06:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Reiterates what happens with editor-related sanctions anyway. Some variation of which is generally included in a ruling. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

An argument keeps coming up that even though a certain type of edit is objectively forbidden by an edit restriction, nevertheless a block would be inappropriate because the usual blocking policy would not allow it. That interpretation undercuts the entire purpose of editing restrictions, which is to warn the editor and to allow blocks for particular kinds of edits that would not normally be blockable. If the blocking policy already worked in a particular case there would be no need for an editing restriction. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this principle is necessary, but I feel it's unfortunate. It is my opinion that some mention of editing restrictions ought to be in the blocking policy in the first place. The closest it comes is when listing the allowable reasons, it says "enforcing bans", which is not exactly the same thing. On the other hand, I don't want to support a "block first, warn never" attitude. That's less applicable to this case, since Δ has been here for a while, but we are setting precedent and additionally, it does apply at least a little, especially with constantly changing sanctions. If someone is violating their edit restrictions, you do need to warn them first, and block only if they ignore you or have a history of this sort of thing... OTOH it could be argued that Δ does have a history of this. --NYKevin @161, i.e. 02:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

That is to completely misunderstand what editing restrictions are for. Any "warning and allowing blocks" is incidental. The purpose of an editing restriction is to avoid the problems that caused it. In your mind "a therefore has become a wherefore". Rich Farmbrough, 00:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC).

Rich, I think you may have misunderstood the purpose of this principle. It basically states that editing restrictions carry with them additional power to block the restricted user if they fail to comply with their restrictions. It clarifies that "if you break your restrictions you may be blocked", rather than what some people have argued, which is "if you break your restrictions you won't be blocked unless you broke some other rule that any normal editor would also be blocked for". Restrictions require power to have effect. I agree with this principle. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

What I am proposing is wrong with this principle as stated is that it doesn't allow for "Well obviously we didn't mean to include that in what is forbidden" or "Well clearly that is a good thing to do though we hadn't foreseen it". In other words it is being suggested we interpret it in ways that do not correspond to WP:IAR (or indeed WP:DICK). Rich Farmbrough, 21:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC).

I'd say that when it gets to the point of editing restrictions, the user in question has lost the trust of the community that their judgement about what is and is not an improvement to the encyclopaedia - remember IAR is not free reign to do anything, but a limited exception allowing for the ignoring of a rule that prevents you improving the encyclopaedia. The unstated corollary is that the consensus of editors must agree that the edit did (or will) improve the encyclopaedia. If an editor under sanction has questions about whether X was meant to be included they should seek clarification before doing X. If a reasonable person could see X as being included within the editing restriction, then clarification should be sought before doing X. If a sanctioned editor has an idea that they think would be a good one, but which they are prohibited from doing because of their editing restriction, they should discuss it before doing it - if there is consensus that it is a good idea, either someone else will do it or the editing restrictions will be clarified/modified to allow the sanctioned editor to do it. Occasional genuine misunderstandings are acceptable, but the more often they happen the less tolerant the community will become. The principle is not saying that an editor will be blocked for breaching an editing restriction, but that they can be. The more blatant the breach, and the more exhausted with an editor the community is the more likely a block. Thryduulf (talk) 13:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I am cautiously concerned with this principle. Foremost it is too broad. The scope of the modification should be defined. Additionally I am no fan of provisions that contradict the spirit of the sanction for the sake of the sanction. For example it implies I want you to follow policy and will circumvent policy to make you. It also implies existing policy is impotent and needs modification to work. My76Strat (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Edit restriction

1) Δ is currently subject to a community-imposed edit restriction. There is ongoing support for the restriction; proposals to lift it have not found consensus, including a proposal as recent as June 2011.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'm not sure about the WHOLE thing, I can certainly agree to the first sentence (its simply factual), I'm not sure the Committee would be prudent to agree or disagree with the second part. Strays too close to endorsing/not endorsing it. It may just be simpler to say that "Δ is currently subject to a community-imposed edit restriction". SirFozzie (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

You can leave out clause two above and leave the failed proposal to lift it in. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Documented on evidence page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I read it as 'there is not consensus to lift the restriction' is not the same as 'there is consensus for the restriction'. The community is deadlocked right now, with enough people dedicated to one side or the other that it won't move either way without ArbCom. That dosen't mean that there's consensus for the resrictions, it only means that there isn't consensus; inertia is keeping the restrictions exactly in place. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Violation of edit restriction

2) Despite warnings, Δ has violated his community-imposed edit restrictions on several occasions, both by performing large-scale tasks without seeking approval and by violating his edit speed restriction. These violations have led to blocks by multiple administrators.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Documented on evidence page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Some of those examples (at least) are challenged I believe. And the "led to" is what those of us who edit Wikipedia call WP:SYNTH. Rich Farmbrough, 20:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC).

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Proposals by User:Masem

Proposed findings of fact

Δ prefers to Wikignome

1) Δ has expressed a strong interest in the actions of Wikignoming, that is, performing routine maintenance and wikicode changes to improve the article pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

* Support as proposer. Relevent to the mass VPR thread started by Hammersoft. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

* It is true that he prefers it, but he has proved over time that he shouldn't be doing it. We need to tighten the restrictions, not loosen them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

This comment is combative rather than analytic or constructive. It is assuming a conclusion for the ArbCom case, and providing an unsupported reason this is totally damning to the user, in a section that is supposed to be simply laying down a finding of fact. Rich Farmbrough, 20:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC).

* Pretty much support this, if by "expressing an interest" you mean he has done shedloads of it. Rich Farmbrough, 20:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC).

Using an off-line semi-automated tool

2) The community is aware that Δ has used an off-line semi-automated tool of his own design to help with the Wikignoming tasks above. Δ has stated that this tool requires him to manually accept or reject each change, and requires him to perform the action of taking that new text into en.wikipedia and submitting it himself (pursuant to the second community restriction). The community has acceptedtolerated, but not affirmed or rejected, that the method and use of this tool does not violate his community restrictions, in part due to the difficulty to distinguish between completely manual and semi-automated edits.

Note that while there has been no single affirmation discussion allowing for this, past discussions (the original community restriction discussion, Delta's use of Twinkle) have affirmed that as long as he is required to review each change, such tools are within the community restrictions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Ugh. I don't think that we should be going into this.. considering we're going to be replacing the community based restriction.. I don't think we should get into a theoretical, How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? argument over whether Beta's edits are fully or semi automated (not the least of which that we cannot determine without looking over Beta's shoulder exactly how they get done. When you get down to it, how they get done may not be as important as what the edits do or do not do. Have to think on this, however. SirFozzie (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

It's impossible for me to agree to this because Δ's scripts are ever-changing without prior notice let alone community approval. What I can agree with is that in the past few months Δ has been somewhat receptive to criticism, and that he has eventually altered his script(s) after multiple editors who encountered Δ's semi-automated edits on various articles have complained to Δ about specific aspects of his cleanup work. I do agree that Δ has a number of fans who sometimes say his scripts can do no wrong say that (at least conceptually) Δ's scripts have their unmitigated support [13] [clarified], but even they have reported some bugs. [14] ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

* Support as proposer. Including this so that it understood that behind the scenes, Δ is using some automation to help identify problems, but that he still must (and expected to) verify each change. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

* I do not think the community has accepted the tool. In the village pump discussion they rejected many of the tasks that the automated tool performs. We need to move to tighter restrictions in any event. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

* Many, but not all. There are some outright rejecting any of the tasks, but because either "It's Δ" or "A bot should be doing these." But that doesn't mean the tool is improper if some of the tasks are acceptable. But way before this discussion (and I would have to find it) there was a large discussion about this "tool" somewhere and he explained everything about it to the satisfaction of the people involved. --MASEM (t) 17:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

* Even if he discussed it in the past, the more recent discussion shows that many tasks of the tool would need to be disabled, assuming he is permitted to run the tool again. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

* That's fine. I'm putting this as an FOF only to be made clear that 1) Delta has fully acknowledged that this is how he has done editing under the restrictions using said tool and 2) the use of a tool of this nature has fallen within the community allowance under the restrictions under the good faith assumptions that it works (in the manual review part) as Delta says it does. Now I will agree that having this tool do anything and everything without prior reporting of what the task is to VPR, is the point of concern, and thus does not have consensus. (This is also to ASCIIn2Bme too, as again, this is only a FOF that Delta can use this type of tool as long as the actions he's taking meet the community standards, not to necessary "bless" any action the tool does). --MASEM (t) 22:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• As far as I understand, Δ is allowed by the community to use off-wiki scripts in editing. I do agree that certain parts of the script result in the formation of patterns, and hence those specific parts would need separate approval, but that is not what I read in this statement - I believe that that should be a separate finding-of-fact. Hence, support this one. Masem, you may want to link to the community consensus where Δ is allowed to use off-wiki scripts. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • ASCIIn2Bme, could you link to diffs where fans are stating that the script can do 'no wrong'? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks or the clarification of that part, ASCIIn2Bme. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I'll look for those over the next few days. I am 99% confident they exist somewhere, but I just cannot remember where. --22:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
    • When the original sanctions were written, we intentionally did not mention the use of scripts because it cannot be objectively determined. Instead we focused on the edits themselves, which can be seen in diffs. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Which is important, in that the community restrictions (on rereading the discussion) seemed to make sure that Δ could still use some semi-automated tools (outside of the Arbcom clarification) as long as he was reviewing each individual edit, aka "edit like a human". I've made a small change to note that we don't have an discussion that I can immediately find that says "Delta, you're ok with that" or "Delta, you can't use that", just the concern on if the result is what we'd expect a human to produce. --MASEM (t) 22:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
        • But the idea was not that we wanted to make sure he could use them. The idea was that we were confident that even if they were prohibited he could still use them, and we couldn't do anything about that because there is no objective evidence. There is no benefit in prohibiting something that cannot be detected, and as a bot programmer I know exactly how easy it would be to hide semi-auto editing or even full-auto editing (without all the "cleanup" add-ons). So the sanction is intended to mitigate the harm that he could cause by using these tools. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
        • So, in other words, as long as Δ is manually reviewing every edit, he is allowed to use scripts (as stated here) - of course, the edits done with such a script should still follow all other editing restrictions (but that is outside the scope of this FoF as it is written now). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
          • Again, it comes down to why Δ was even brought to ArbCom and later the community restrictions, because he would abuse the privilege of running a large-scale, automated bot to make changes that were not all within line of the bot's approved functions or with community standards. The restrictions were not written to allow him to use an automated tool (I agree with that) but neither were written to prevent that; instead, they were there to make him "edit like a human", responding civilly to issues raised by his edits and correct them and taking responsibility for any other edits he made; the 25+ edit VPR thing and the 40 edits/10 minutes are in place to assure that we would be able to catch him should his edits become disruptive, whether semi-automated or not.
            When I read through everything again, I start to see that even what the community restrictions were going for was plagued by an unsure question that people were trying to find the answer for, further entrenched by the stance several people had with Beta (at that time) due to his behavior during the NFCC compliance stuff in 2006-2007 and attitude since. I'm not saying Δ is clear of any wrongdoing to need the community sanctions, but it felt like trying to solve a specific problem without knowing the whole bounds of the problem. Hence the various degrees to which the community restrictions are read and why we're just right here at ArbCom again. We need to define what the ultimate goal we want out of Δ (short of full on ban of en.wiki) before we can set out the remedies. --MASEM (t) 23:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
            • I agree with the last sentence. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
          • Me too. And as an answer: "We want Δ to edit as a human". --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
            • The problem is not so much what we want, it is what we can realistically expect Δ to achieve. It would be ideal if he were to focus on content for a while and avoid maintenance work entirely; a sanction to that effect would be a fast way to cut through the drama. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
          • Oh, but I also agree with the answer "We expect Δ to edit as a human", Carl. What you seem to want is "We expect Δ to focus on content". Human WikiGnoming is IMHO also a good thing - and to be honest, I do believe that he was actually doing a good job the last months, even with the (unapproved pattern)ed edits and an occasional slip of the speed limit - I think that the main problem was that they were violating the restrictions to the letter, not that the edits were causing disruption by themselves (in fact, no-one has ever come close to blocking Δ for making too many mistakes or breaking things, it was all for breaking the restrictions). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 00:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
            • In the evidence, Fram gives examples of actual errors in the last few months. But violating the restrictions so frequently is already a sign of contempt for the community. There is nothing wrong with wikignoming, it's just that Δ has proven over time he is not very good at it. We need to move to sanctions that will end the problem rather than prolong it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
          • I have seen that evidence - and I have already somewhere else asked to separate those into real errors, sub-optimal edits and other - not all of those are real mistakes. That Δ is not good in WikiGnoming is your conclusion, I actually think that he is doing quite a good job. And no, I do not think that it is a contempt for the community - that is an assumption that Δ is violating the restrictions on purpose and in bad faith. I do not believe that. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 00:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
            • The objective evidence that he is not so good at it is that he is under both an editing restriction and an arbcom motion to limit his ability to do it. How many productive wikignomes can say that? As to the violations being intentional, that is the explanation that assumes the most good faith. All the other explanations I can think of are much less flattering. But the reason is not important, the important thing is that he has not been able to stop them, and we expect better. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
          • The ArbCom motion is not about WikiGnoming, and the editing restrictions are still in place, while I do think that his ability to WikiGnome has improved. And no, the explanation that assumes the most good faith is that Δ, in his enthousiasm to improve Wikipedia, sometimes violates the edit restrictions - not that he violates them intentionally. E.g. on all the cases that he violated the speed restriction are because he does not keep an eye on how many edits he did (something I believe is an honest mistake), not because he decides to edit too fast. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 00:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
            • I don't see the assertion in the last sentence as an assumption of good faith. Perhaps that is the main reason for the difference in our perspectives. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
          • I think it is a main part of the issue, and that is where the community keeps having trouble with finding consensus. I look at the edits, and really do not see thát many mistakes in the edits, I see hardly any incivility, and I see clear attempts to discuss with editors who have questions or remarks (and I see that in that enthousiasm to do the good work that he does that he violates the rules to the letter), you (and Fram and some others) see that he is violating the rules to the letter - and hence a contempt for the community / bad faith editing by Δ. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• I don't agree that the community has accepted Delta's use of semi-automated tools, in line with Carl's comments above. The community has accepted that it has no way of detecting Delta's use of tools, it hasn't accepted that he is necessarily allowed to make use of them. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • In light of this and Carl's comments above, I've noted that the community "tolerates" (not accepts) and due to the reasoning Carl stated, that it can be difficult to make a good faith judgement on the difference between a fully manual edit and a semi-automated one at the rate Δ has been limited to. --MASEM (t) 18:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
    • That sounds reasonable. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support statement of fact seems to correspond with reality. Rich Farmbrough, 20:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC).
  

Community's expectation of Δ's editing behavior

3) The community, in its acceptance of the community restrictions on Δ and subsequent discussions, does not tolerate Δ performing large-scale, mechanical-like actions (wikignoming), unless the following steps accompany these changes:

1. the community is notified such actions will occur
2. the actions have wide consensus to proceed
3. the actions have been demonstrated by Δ to be performed correctly on a small subset of articles before the larger-scale task is undertaken
4. the changes made in each action have been reviewed by Δ prior to committing to en.wiki to avoid obvious errors
5. the edits for the actions are accompanied by a clear edit summary to explain what was changed
6. the actions are performed at a rate where, should errors still persist, they may be caught by other editors and notified to Δ before they propagate too far
7. Δ responds promptly and in a civil manner when such changes are found to be in error, with Δ taking responsibility to correct the mistakes himself or seek further consensus on how to correct the issue.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think it would be worthwhile to say something along these lines. PhilKnight (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I definitely think, should we not ban him from large scale actions completely, that something along these lines need to be in the decision. SirFozzie (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. We set up what follows from this case to the level of detail that there is a framework that gives the best chance of all editing peacefully. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I think this is reasonable, and it's basically what the previous community restrictions implied, sans specific numbers. I'm not sure what this is going to achieve though, beyond reiteration. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is my take on the various discussions here, on the last VPR thread, the discussion back on the community standards, and several other threads. While this may read like the community restrictions, this is more the groundwork for what I think those (outside of the group that calls for "just ban him already") want to see Δ improve at. Nearly all of these are things that we would expect, but not necessarily punish, other editors to do, but the fact that Δ's failure to do this had led to many heated debates leads me that any further ArbCom motions should be molded around these points, if they don't otherwise start from the community restriction wording already. Note to those like CBM that believe that Δ shouldn't even be in Wikignoming, this does not contradict that viewpoint, at I believe this is still what we'd ideally like Δ but to people like CBM, Δ has failed to show any responsibility that he should be specifically blocked from doing such tasks until he does so. That's why I've written this as a "does not tolerate", as that doesn't imply that if Δ did all these steps, he's in the open to do them freely. --MASEM (t) 16:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

My initial thoughts on this are that we need some bright lines in the sand - i.e. numbers and rates - that are objective and do not rely on interpretation, otherwise the "Δ should be banned now!" and "Δ is being persecuted, how dare you even think of blocking him!" camps will just be back at each others throats and we'll end up with a fourth arbitration in a few months. To that end I suggest the following

1. the community is notified such actions will occur at least 24 hours in advance
2. the actions have wide consensus to proceed as judged by an uninvolved user
3. the actions have been demonstrated by Δ to be performed correctly on a small subset maximum of 10 articles before the larger-scale task is undertaken. Additional tests may be undertaken if explicitly requested and authorised by the consensus discussion, such authorisation will be for an explicitly sated maximum number of edits.
4. the changes made in each action have been reviewed individually by Δ prior to committing to en.wiki to avoid obvious errors
5. the edits for the actions are accompanied by a clear edit summary to explain what was changed, Δ is encouraged to include the proposed edit summary when making the initial notification per point 1'
6. the actions are performed at a rate where, should errors still persist, they may be caught by other editors and notified to Δ before they propagate too far. This rate is never to exceed 20 edits in any 20 minute period, but may be slower.
7. Δ responds promptly and in a civil manner when such changes are found to be in error, with Δ taking responsibility to correct the mistakes himself or seek further consensus on how to correct the issue. Δ may not make any edits that are, or which give the appearance of being, automated or semi-automated until these mistakes are corrected, with the sole exception that an automated or semi-automated process may be used to make these corrections iff authorised by consensus to do so.

• An "uninvolved editor" is someone who meets all of the criteria below:

1. Has been active for at least 100 days and has at least 100 edits to the Wikipedia and/or Wikipedia talk namespaces
2. Has not commented in the specific discussion
3. Was not a party to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3
4. Is not under any editing or other restrictions related to Δ or the pages or topics to which the proposal relates
5. Is not a user named on the "list of users regarded as 'involved' for the purposes of bulk edit requests by Δ"

With point 5 I'm saying that someone who is topic banned from, e.g. Eastern Europe should not be judging consensus on a request that relates to Eastern Europe, but would be fine doing the same on a request relating to e.g. new world dinosaurs.

With point 6, this would be a list people that at least three or four editors in good standing do not have complete confidence to be unbiased regarding Δ. I expect my name will be on that list along with people like Masem, Hammersoft and cbm. One or two independent editors would be appointed as maintainers of the list, and only they would edit it, with others able to propose the addition or removal of names on the talk page. The purpose being to go out of the way to avoid all appearances of bias.

These are my ideas and so a probably too long winded and possibly could be simplified without loosing the intent. The numbers proposed are there for illustrative purposes only and should be changed to match what people think is appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

You are misreading this. This is how the community ultimately wants Δ to edit, not any attempt to define what types of restrictions or motions need to be in place to make that happen. They may set the basis for such motions, but this was not to try to say, for example, set a specific frame of time for Δ to make sure his edits have consensus, only that it is expected that he seek that before starting such. --MASEM (t) 23:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Having looked again, yes I am. Sorry about that. Thryduulf (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think this is a reasonable finding of fact. It is to wide ranging to attribute to the community as a whole. It may well be a reasonable basis to proceed to a solution though. Rich Farmbrough, 21:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC).
  

• I'm appalled by the description "large-scale, mechanical-like actions (wikignoming)" since I see wikignome as meaning something completely different, normally done slowly and carefully (expanded in "general discussion" section). 66.127.55.52 (talk) 08:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Modification of existing ArbCom NFCC restriction

1) The current ArbCom restriction on Δ, as given here:

Motion: Pursuant to the provisions of Remedy 5.1, and mindful of the recent and current disputes surrounding this user in many fora, the committee by motion indefinitely topic-bans Δ (formerly known as Betacommand) from making any edit enforcing the non-free content criteria, broadly construed. User:Δ is also formally reminded of the civility restriction and other terms to which they are still subject as a condition of the provisional suspension of their community ban.

shall be changed to the following (change in bold):

Motion: Pursuant to the provisions of Remedy 5.1, and mindful of the recent and current disputes surrounding this user in many fora, the committee by motion indefinitely topic-bans Δ (formerly known as Betacommand) from making any edit enforcing the non-free content criteria, broadly construed. This ban specifically includes actions of: removing files from pages with NFCC as the justification; tagging or nominating files for deletion with NFCC as the justification; tagging articles or files with {{Non-free}} or other NFCC-related cleanup tags; and using warnings to users regarding non-free content criteria. Within this ban, Δ is allowed to discuss non-free content policy in general; add, correct, or improve non-free rationale or license information on media pages; warn other users via talk pages to media to potential issues of non-free content; use external tools to catalog and identify non-free content; disseminate and discuss the results of such tools with other users, and participating in Files for Deletion discussions. User:Δ is also formally reminded of the civility restriction and other terms to which they are still subject as a condition of the provisional suspension of their community ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The Committee removed Beta from the NFCC area for a reason, and I see no reason to reopen that door (which was shut for good reason) SirFozzie (talk) 04:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This proposal fails to address why the current arbitration case was opened, namely to review the community restrictions. Basically, it's chaff. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Given that clarity is part of what is being sought in this case, this is to provide specific clarity on the NFCC actions that were enacted by ArbCom in July 2011, and the fact that, per the most recent block, have been taken in an overly broad manner. The disallowed tasks and some of the allowed ones are based on Xeno's interpretation of the motion from [15], and the others are based on considering the community decision of the most recent block that affirmed that Δ using offsite tools to identify NFCC problems - as long as he isn't taking the action himself - as not a violation of the "broadly construed" part of the original motion. --MASEM (t) 16:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

We can't really do anything about off-site tools. But we should tighten, rather than loosen, this restriction. He will interpret permission to "add, correct, or improve" images in a much broader way than we could intend - for example, if he removes a license he feels is bad, would that count as "correcting" it, even if the resulting page has no license at all? The reason for this arbcom case is that Δ has not been willing to abide by the spirit of restrictions like this, and so we need to move to tighter and more concrete ones. It would be better to simply topic ban him from the area of images altogether, with limited exceptions allowing him to add images to articles and maintain images he himself has uploaded. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You have no reason why he should be prevented from doing anything with NFCC. The motion from ArbCom clearly points out that enforcement of NFCC is where Δ needs to avoid, and the discussion of the last block, which was overturned as a bad block by the community, shows that there's no problem with Δ participating in an off-handed manner to help others enforce NFCC such as generating said lists; this is also the intent of the ArbCom motion. If in the extreme case that Δ considers the removal of a license as "improving" the image (which is a huge huge stretch), that would easily fall under the acts he can't do "broadly construed". Remember, the motion that brought down the NFCC ban was because his actions in direct enforcement were disruptive and contested, but that doesn't mean his knowledge of the area isn't a problem. --MASEM (t) 17:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The reason to get him away from NFCC is to try to resolve the problem once and for all. We have plenty of experience, documented in the evidence, that half-way measures are not going to work. I wrote more about this at [16]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I must admit, I'm a little confused as to how something "broadly construed" can be taken in an overly broad manner. That's essentially the purpose of the phrasing "broadly construed" to begin with, and should firmly discourage editors so sanctioned from setting foot anywhere near the problematic area. You seem to be challenging the standard ArbCom term itself rather than the sanction. That term has been in use for quite some time across numerous ArbCom sanctions and its efficacy seems to be proven. Why is Delta a special case that requires an exact listing to be spelled out instead of the usual "broadly construed" term? Beyond that I agree that 'correct' and 'improve' are words that can be used to justify almost any edit at all, which would be far too loose a restriction. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Because someone did block him (which was reverted by community consensus) because that user took "broadly construed" far beyond what the intent of ArbCom wanted, based on Xeno's clarification noted above. The ban is on enforcement of NFCC, not NFCC. Clarity of what enforcement is needs to be made to prevent that happening. --MASEM (t) 03:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I pointed out in my evidence that Xeno said his clarification was not universally shared by other arbcom members, who did not say what they meant by "broadly construed". — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Then I will leave it up to ArbCom to decide if they meant to completely keep him away from anything dealing with NFCC (enforcement or not) in which case this suggestion remedy can be safely ignored, or if they meant him to keep his hands off of enforcing NFCC directly, in which case this should be built onto. --MASEM (t) 00:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Seems to me that this remedy has twin disadvantages. 1. Deprives NFCC of effort 2. Moves any disputes to a new area. Rich Farmbrough, 21:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC).
  

Modification of existing Community Restriction #3

2) The current Community Restriction on Δ, which currently reads:

Betacommand must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time.

should be changed to

Betacommand may make unlimited edits on no more than 25 main-space articles in any one day cycle (measured from 12:00 AM UTC to 11:59 PM UTC). This limit may be raised after a period of 3 months of review at this current limit, but only through Betacommand seeking community consensus for this on Village Pump (proposals) requesting a new motion through ArbCom.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is based on discussion at [17] in which, considering the 4 edits/minute rate, that this would be a better allowance while still limiting potential disruption Δ might cause. Please note: "25" and "3" (qualified above) are suggested values, and I am open to change on those. I would also think we would want to incorporate additional qualifications that other edits, such as reverting vandalism or his own edits, would likely not fall under this, eg: focus on the overall activity and not the specifics; however, it makes no sense to outline those without establishing if this general restriction has consensus or not. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this idea. The limit needs to cover all pages in all namespaces, not just articles. Otherwise Δ will simply start doing large-scale runs on some other namespace. The goal should be to replace the current speed restriction which covers all namespaces with a different restriction that also covers all namespaces. Separately, we should not hope to have the community change the sanction, Δ should appeal back to arbcom, who can be more thoughtful and less dramatic. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Seeking approval for change through an arbcom motion is fine, and in fact I will change that right now, that's a better option if this falls out of this case. As for namespaces, the edit restriction should not apply to name spaces and locations where discussions take place (We want Δ to communicate freely in a civil manner); however that has to be spelled out to be clear. --MASEM (t) 18:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If he has carte blanche to edit talk namespaces, the worry is that Δ will just start doing large-scale tasks in those namespaces instead (e.g. rearranging headers, image removals, "cleanup", etc.). If Δ restricts himself to working on just a few articles and their talkpages each day, that will occupy only (say) 8-10 pages per day, leaving plenty of others for him to use to communicate with others. If there is an exception for talk pages it needs to be very tightly worded against anything other than discussion, but I think just a hard page count is less subject to gaming. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Given that talk page refactoring is already typically a no-no, and that (best of my recollection) Δ doesn't abuse talk pages, I'm not seeing this as a problem. Wording can be said, though, that there is no restrictions on him discussing matters related to editing on any appropriate talk page or discussion venue; then we can say "any namespace" to the concept above. --MASEM (t) 19:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

"This restriction does not apply to talk page discussions in which Δ only adds new comments or edits his own comments, nor to edits to Δ's user page, user talk page, or user talk page archives."? — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Something like that, yes (That language works for me). I didn't want to get too much in the addendum given that this might be flatly rejected, as long as its clear what the addendum are meant to do (here, let him continue to participate in discussions normally.) --MASEM (t) 19:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Again a silly number. 25is a number of pages that could be exceeded on a Wikibreak day. If it were 100 and specific tasks were excluded from the count, then it might be reasonable. Rich Farmbrough, 21:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC).

Modification of existing Community Restriction #1

3) The current Community Restriction #1, which currently reads:

Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Betacommand must wait for a consensus supporting the request before he may begin.

should be modified to include the following (in bold):

Before undertaking any task that would be broadly taken as "Wikignoming" (adding, changing, or removing Wiki-code, rather than adding, changing, or delete article content) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Betacommand must wait for a consensus supporting the request before he may begin. Betacommand must document the tasks that have been approved by the community on a user subpage with links to the appropriate discussions. When performing edits that use these tasks, Betacommand is expected to use the edit summary to describe the task, or may link to this userpage and use clear terminology to identify which tasks were performed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Based on the large VPR thread that led to this case being opened, it seemed that if Δ had such a page and used edit summarys with that page, editors would be less concerned about his actions. Additionally, by focusing on the broad idea of Wikignoming, this makes it clear that the edits of concern are those that may not be immediately visible unless one looks at source code. This would allow Δ to, for example, add article text and a source that would apply equally across 26 articles without making that look like a "pattern of edits"; its the wikignoming that is of greatest concern. Note , this still works with the above sugggestion for changing CR#3 as well. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be better to simply say that Δ is not permitted to do this sort of edit at all. Particularly if he is only allowed to edit 25 articles per day (a separate proposal), it would be better to let other people handle any task that he would need to split up over multiple days. Given the disregard Δ seems to have had for requesting approval before (shown in my evidence, I can only find one time he asked for approval without being prompted to do so), why would we expect him to change now? — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This is meant to be used in conjunction with the above. We all know Δ wants to work in this fashion, and as long as he's been given approval to do such tasks by the community and we have an assurance the task is being performed correctly, there's no disruption. Add in the above initial 25 article/day limit, and we're pretty much assured that there won't be a problem. What was clear from Hammersoft's task list discussion on VBR is that tasks have to be approved, have to have clear edit summaries, and perhaps even a demonstration of what Δ considers as proper execution of a task through a trial set of articles. If you add in the 25 article/day limit, this means that he should be able to review what he does on that trial (plenty of time to do so), fix errors, revert things that shouldn't have been changed, etc. In other words, he doesn't have one edit to get it right, he'll have a whole day's of time to be able to make sure he's not introducing unexpected problems. Adding the subpage and edit summary parts makes this traceable and forced Δ to be accountable, something that the original case problems back in 2008 was an issue. But I will note: as I suggested, this all should be handled under a one-strike approach, as long as we're absolutely clear what is expected of him. --MASEM (t) 18:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I can accept (below) that 3 pages/week is too few, but IMO at 25/day we will be back here again before long. I also can't agree with characterizing that style of editing as "gnoming" (see also "general discussion"). 67.117.144.140 (talk) 03:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a nice idea, and having it endorsed by ArbCom might help. However as MASEM says this is exactly what was happening when this case blew up, so there would need to be a very firm hand taken with disruptors of the task proposals. Rich Farmbrough, 21:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC).

Proposals by User:Δ

Proposed principles

AGF

1) All users are required to assume good faith with regards to other users. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 22:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

That's not what the guideline says. Risker (talk) 06:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Agreed, with the caveat that good faith is not an eternal wellspring, nor is it a free pass to misbehave and then point back to WP:AGF. It is possible, and not unreasonable, that the repeated actions of an individual may exhaust the good faith of any reasonable editor. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• No, this is worded too strongly. AGF establishes a presumption of good faith, which, as TechnoSymbiosis just pointed out, is not eternal. If User:Example behaves badly enough often enough, AGF ceases to apply. What's more, AGF is a guideline, not a policy, and is therefore open to exceptions and whatnot. --NYKevin @891, i.e. 20:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• AGF is not a suicide pact. --Guerillero | My Talk 21:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
• While part of the problem is AGF, the other side of the coin, WP:COMPETENCE, also is - and I think that this is a major part of the problem here. I definitely do support a principle which includes both, but not with only 1. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Od Mishehu, although I agree that there are numerous sub-optimal edits, and also some plainly wrong edits, within the huge number of edits that Δ has made in the last 2 years or so - do you think that the edits (please, look at the edits, not whether they were inside or outside the restrictions) by Δ compare to a 'bull in a china shop'? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • For many people, the question whether the edits were inside or outside the restriction is also important, of course. The whole point of an edit restriction is that an editor cannot bypass them simply by making edits the editors feels are productive. But "bull in a china shop" does describe one pattern in Δ's editing, which is running large-scale jobs without discussing them first, when discussion would have showed the tasks don't have consensus. For example, mass-tagging free images for deletion in April 2008 and tagging sourced articles as unsourced in October 2010. Yesterday he made a sequence of four edits to Manuel Marulanda which seem inexplicable, particularly when done during an arbitration case. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I was nowhere suggesting that the question whether the edits were inside or outside the restriction is or is not important, CBM.
    • And regarding '.. four edits to Manuel Marulanda which seem inexplicable .. ' - you cut right to the point, CBM. I am sure that you and Fram, since the edit summary uses the word 'robot', directly assume that these edits must have been robotic, as evidenced by your 'inexplicable' and by the evidence presented by Fram. These are just plain examples of assuming bad faith, not even wanting to ask whether there are other explanations possible, neither considering it - jumping straight to conclusions. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to provide a different explanation of how he made the same error on 20-plus pages (in different language versions) at the same time (made at 00:55, reverted at 01:02), with edit summaries in the specific languages. Right, he used an automated script. "He is prohibited from running automated programs to make edits (or edits that appear to be automated), on either a bot account, or his main account." He ran the pywiki bot ([18]). Please explain how that is not a violation of "making edits that appear to be automated" on his main account? Fram (talk) 12:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

its called simi-automatic. please review WP:ABF which you are making a text book example of. Yes I reviewed the edit and made a mistake that I quickly fixed. Straightening out interwiki clusterfucks is not easy. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you miss "or appear to be automated" in your restriction? Identical edits made simultaneously on over twenty pages with a "robot" summary, and twenty identical reverts a few minutes later, certainly appear to be automated. No ABF is involved in such a conclusion. Fram (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I am unable to modify interwiki.py's edit summary, and it only affected one page in the restrictions jurisdiction. So assuming that it was a bot which you did without even bothering to as is clearly bad faith. Anything can appear to be automated. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

To run interwiki.py the user has to have the source code on their computer, so they do have the technical ability to edit the summary and anything else they wish before running the script. Moreover, there is a command line option '-summary', according to the documentation. The more pertinent question for Δ is why he would run an interwiki bot script in the first place, under the present circumstances. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Again with the bad faith, I dont run an interwiki bot. What I do do, is address the occasional situation that comes up where there are issues with interwiki links (often cases where users are fighting with interwiki bots due to an error on another wiki, or where the links between to different subjects (articles on different languages) get intertwined in this case FARC and the individual, and need straightened out.) If I wanted I could run a global interwiki bot, however the number of cases where I run interwiki.py on a manual basis to correct these situations is rare. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 14:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You are explicitly forbidden "from running automated programs to make edits" [19]. Given that, why would you run interwiki.py, which seems to literally be an automated program to make edits? — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

.. it is only automated with the -auto. Until then it is a manual script. Do you have any proof this was an 'automated program'. I can only give you that this could 'appear to be automated' (but hey, maybe I am writing this in nano on a Linux system, and run a script to post it exactly here). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

"why he would run an interwiki bot script in the first place" - why do you think this was because he wanted to run an interwiki bot script, CBM. No other possible explanations why Δ made this edit? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No, there is no other plausible explanation. The bot script is a command-line program that has to be run by intentionally invoking it, which could be canceled early if run accidentally, and which has no other purpose except to be an interwiki bot script. It is implausible that he did not manually run the script. The question is why he would choose now to run it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, you mean it that way? Why would he want to run that interwiki script for that one edit? What about 'because someone perceived a problem and he was helping to fix it?' - did you ask why he was running that script? No, you assume that 'there is no other plausible explanation'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Like I said on my talk page[20], I don't see what problem he was actually trying to fix. The mixing of two groups of interwiki links doesn't seem to have existed at the three central pages in this case (English, Spanish and Catalan). This makes it even harder to understand why he thought doing this would be a good thing considering this case and his existing restrictions. Fram (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Fram. So because you don't 'see what problem he was actually trying to fix', it must be that he is doing it in bad faith to violate the restrictions. Did you ask why he was running this edit? I wonder, if Δ has to revert his own edit, that there was indeed something going wrong - maybe he was trying to figure out what, and how it could be fixed? Or would that be implausible? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Dirk Beetstra, you are becoming very tiring here. Please read what I write, not what you think I write. I have never said or implied "that he is doing it in bad faith to violate the restrictions." Please stop putting words in my mouth. "Did you ask why he was running this edit?" Well, yes, in the edit which I linked in the post you just replied to. Did you actually read it before you replied? Or did you just jump to the usual "bad faith! bad faith!" conclusion? Fram (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Fram, you did not ask before you used it as evidence. And you clearly say that you do not know why he did it. You only use it as proof that he violated his restriction. Please, enlighten me what I am missing here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why he did it (I can't find a reason, at first glance the reason Delta supplied is incorrect, and he hasn't replied to further inquiries), and I in the end don't care why he did it. I assume he did it to correct something, but I can't find the error he claims he was trying to correct. You asked whether anyone asked why he was running that script, and I indicated that I did. The question is not really important (no one is arguing that he did it to vandalize or anything similar), the problem is that, even if it hadn't gone wrong, it would have been a violation of his restrictions, and since it did go wrong, it is further, albeit anecdotical, evidence of the need for these restrictions. Fram (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, you did not know at the point that you used it as evidence against him. The edit could have been non-automated (likely is, so no violation there), it was certainly within the en.wikipedia speed limit (no violation there), the edit could have been overviewed (albeit improperly, but it could even be intentionally broken to see what was going wrong - you don't know, you did not ask until later, so no violation there), you simply, at the time of the presenting the evidence, had not a shred of proof that it was unquestionably violating the retrictions, yet that is what you say. Yet, that is the option you chose, you dismissed all other options as implausible or impossible, and you now admit that you do not know (what, you don't even care).

'at first glance the reason Delta supplied is incorrect' - do you imply here that Δ may have been lying about the reason? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Dirk Beetstra, you are mixing two things here rather badly, the fact that I don't care why he made that reason, and the appearance of how he made that reason. Please don't continue this error. As for the second part of your post, there you go again, reading things in other people's posts which aren't there, and reading them of course in the worst possible light. All I have said is that at first glance his explanation is incorrect. He may be mistaken, my first glance may have been incomplete, we may have misunderstood each other: these are all AGF answers. For some reason, you immediately assume the ABF answer from me. Could you please try to step back a bit, and approach me and my posts here with an open mind, without looking for the worst motives behind every word I post? Fram (talk) 15:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, Fram, thanks for understanding that you may have misunderstood Δ. Still, you present the interwiki edits here as evidence that Δ is violating his restrictions. Can you then please describe exactly what restriction was broken and give full proof of that. I still believe that the edit could be overviewed (and bot-like - you have no proof), it could be intentionally made to be wrong (after all it was immediately self-reverted), it could be semi-automated (or fully automated, you have no proof), it was within the speed restriction, it is not uncivil. So the only thing you have is that it 'seems to be fully automated', and Δ is not allowed to make edits which 'seem to be fully automated'. And that on a small burst of such edits (and not for hours and hours). Could it be that Δ here did a fully manually supervised edit to check what went wrong because there was something going wrong somewhere, and that that was very well within his edit restrictions? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no proof that the edits which had an edit summary starting with "robot" and which were made by running a bot script, were bot-like, right... You may disagree with my evidence as much as you like, Dirk, but I don't think it makes sense to continue this discussion with these kind of arguments. 15:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• • • • (e/c) I didn't say the edits were robotic, although they span numerous wikis [21], [22], [23], and Δ has said he used the Pywikipedia bot framework (interwiki.py) to make them [24] (which was pretty apparent from the edit summaries). The reason the edits are inexplicable is that they are wrong both here and on many other wikis, and Δ had to go back and undo them, as he did in this spanned diff [25]. If they had been manual edits, surely Δ should have been able to just do it right the first time - particularly when he knows his edits are under scrutiny. Bull in a china shop, indeed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Fram, just as you say elsewhere that it is not your task to clean up after his edits or mistakes, it is not my task to explain it for Δ. It is simply that you and CBM do not first consider that there are other explanations. I am not arguing that you are wrong, I am not saying that this is not violation of his edit restriction. What I am saying is, that you, and CBM, fail to assume good faith, simply by immediately dismissing any other possibility, or not even considering them (and please do not misinterpret the answer by Δ given in the diff you provide here). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

So, basically I should consider other explanations, even though you can't or won't give any other reasonable explanations to consider and basically admit that my explanation is probably correct. He uses a bot script to make interwiki edits, and makes a mess of them. But I am to assume that he manually edited twenty different Wikipedia versions, all at once, with translated edit summaries, all exactly different enough to exclude the interwiki link from a specific language on a specific page... As has been said in this case, AGF is not a suicide pact, it is not a reason to close your eyes from reality. By the way, you are violating AGF by stating that I don't even consider any other possibility: how are you to know that I haven't done that before posting my evidence? Perhaps I did consider other possibilities, and couldn't find one that was realistic? Please, if you want to lecture people on AGF, start by giving a better example in your own edits. Fram (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Fram, that is basically what I ask. And that is what WP:AGF, IMHO, is about. You don't have to think of other options yourself, you can ask (we have user talkpage for that purpose) - all I say is, that you consider that there are other explanations possible, and that you then eliminate them as impossible, not as implausible.

You're right, I assumed that you did not consider, my apologies there. But I do think that there are other explanations which do need consideration. It is unfortunately not impossible to open 20 different pages with the same script, looking at all 20, and then clicking save on all 20 .. that would make the same mistake 20 times in very short succession. You are right, it may not be very plausible, it is pretty possible, and I am sorry, but you do not have any proof otherwise. You may have considered it, but you did dismiss the possibility. I do think that that is not showing good faith here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

CBM, and there you simply assume that Δ did not review the edits .. dismissing or not considering that maybe he did not review them carefully enough. So where are we - Δ did not review his edits carefully enough. Thanks for making the point. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

At this point in Δ's tenure, there is no significant difference between "failed to review them" and "failed to review them carefully enough". I mean - he's in the middle of an arbitration case as we speak, why would he not go the extra mile to demonstrate perfection? It seems as if you are claiming that this is the best that Δ can do. If that's the case, what argument is there not to simply ban him from editing? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly where we are heading for a long, long time. Ever since the first time that Δ did not 'demonstrate perfection' while under restriction, way before this case, it was heading this way. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

And now we are dragging in evidence from other wikis in order to crucify Δ? So not only does he have to be perfect here, he has to be perfect everywhere? This ArbCom has no jurisdiction over any other wiki. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

He made those edits here as well, the other wiki version are just given as indicative of the edits nature. Fram (talk) 14:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed. Although I agree that WP:AGF can wear thin in the end (but one should never cease to apply WP:AGF), I do think that editors, when commenting on someone or somebody, should always keep all options open, however implausible, or even impossible, some options may seem. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Generally I agree with you. But, from some of your above commentary, you seem to think that AGF applies in nearly all circumstances. The reality is, WP:AGF is a guideline. While it is desirable for users to generally assume good faith, it does not apply to every situation, especially if a user is seriously misbehaving or a repeat offender. I'm not going to assume good faith if a user replaces metasyntactic variable with the word "penis" -- and the same reasoning applies to users who are unwilling or unable to follow consensus. --NYKevin @261, i.e. 05:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Conduct of CBM

1) CBM has repeatedly miss-characterized Δ's in order to place Δ in a negative perspective. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 22:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I would respond but I do not see this documented by the evidence provided. Are you referring to my edits on this arbitration case? — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Conduct of CBM II

2) CBM has repeatedly assumed bad faith with regards to Δ. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 22:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Please see evidence. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Carl's evidence to the contrary is compelling, I don't agree with this finding. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Conduct of Franamax

2) Franamax has repeatedly assumed bad faith with regards to Δ. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 22:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Conduct of Fram

3) Fram has repeatedly assumed bad faith with regards to Δ. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 22:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Any evidence for this? There were some accusations of this during the last discussion on your talk page[26], but User:Toshio Yamaguchi afterwards has apologized for this on my talk page[27], which I appreciate. I don't think you are normally supposed to propose a finding of fact without presenting any evidence for this in the evidence section. Fram (talk) 07:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

CBM topic banned

1) CBM is placed under a topic and interaction ban from Δ ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 22:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'm not seeing the evidence that this is warranted, but I'm willing to be persuaded. SirFozzie (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I support this, i.f.f. it, in its final writing, this is explicitly a two way interaction ban. Without commenting on who is right or wrong in each discussion, CBM has been in almost every Delta incident, and because he inevitably aggressively takes the hard line towards Delta, and Delta's supporters inevitably respond just as aggressively, CBM's presence signals an escalation of whatever incident is occurring, and makes it very difficult to resolve said incident. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll point to the evidence [28] where I am far from taking a "hard line". The problem is that Δ has not improved despite numerous warnings,and this why we have not reached resolution. I contribute on AN/ANI threads because, as an administrator who has been helping with Δ for three years, I have some knowledge of the history and scope of the problem that people just joining the discussion may not have. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Franamax topic banned

1) Franamax is placed under a topic and interaction ban from Δ ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 22:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Same as above, not shown as warranted. SirFozzie (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I disagree with this one. Yes, Franamax made a bad block. No, there is no indication of a pattern of hostility that would necessitate an interaction ban. There clearly are users that I'd support interaction bans for, because there are users that have appeared in almost every single Delta discussion to add fuel to the fire, but Franamax isn't one of them. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Fram topic banned

1) Fram is placed under a topic and interaction ban from Δ ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 22:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

I agree with Sven's comment below that these seem to be retaliatory, "these people are getting in my way" requests. SirFozzie (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Any reason for this? Fram (talk) 07:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with this one. I support a topic ban between Delta and CBM, and I'd support a topic ban between Delta and crossmr, if one were proposed, but this seems to just be Delta lashing out at whoever said things in this ArbCom case that he didn't like. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You should add a motion to add Crosmr and probably yourself as parties if you want that. Or ask Δ to do it. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Not happening. I'm of the personal belief that only Arbs should be able to propose findings of fact and remedies and so forth, because I've never, ever, seen an ArbCom case where it didn't just turn into a platform for involved parties to go after each other. I'm not making any formal proposals on this page. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Tristessa de St Ange

Section heading added by user:EdChem to remove this section, proposed by user:Tristessa de St Ange, from being included in the section proposed by user:Δ. EdChem (talk) 09:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Motion of remedies: Δ's automated editing

copied from [29] Proposed by Tristessa de St Ange (talk · contribs) on 17:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Editing restrictions superseded

Δ's existing community editing restrictions, as listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community, are superseded by this motion.

Definition of restricted editing operations

For the purpose of remedies in this motion, a "script-assisted editing operation" is defined as any editing which has the appearance of being automated, either partially or fully, and is to be broadly construed.

Script-assisted editing operations must be approved

Δ is prohibited from applying any script-assisted editing operation across more than 25 articles within a single 7-day period unless:

1) A clear statement of the editing actions performed by a script-assisted task is provided by Δ in advance of running the task beyond the above limit on a task list designated for the purpose at User:Δ/Script-assisted tasks;

2) A Wikipedia administrator nominated by the Committee to supervise Δ's script-assisted edits has reviewed the task for which approval has been requested and:

i.) is satisfied that the task has been accurately described,

ii.) is satisfied that the technical implementation and operation of the script (in the case of scripts) or the process to be followed (in case of manual repetitive editing) is satisfactory,

iii.) is satisfied that the editing task, were it performed in the course of ordinary Wikipedia editing, is not contrary to community consensus; and

iv.) has indicated these findings against the task listing on User:Δ/Script-assisted tasks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The main difficulty is that there is no objective way to tell if an edit is script assisted. Was this edit script assisted? — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It's really not difficult at all to determine if Betacommand has performed a script assisted edit. The manner I use, and find effective is to simply ask him. He is not a liar by any evidence. Why must the one who supervises or reviews Betacommand's edits be an administrator? It is problematic to by default assume administrators are any more able to do these things that many experienced editors who are not admins. My76Strat (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Explicit edit summaries required

Δ must use edit summaries when executing script-assisted task(s) permitted under these conditions that:

i.) link to User:Δ/Script-assisted tasks;

ii.) clearly and unambiguously specify which of the reviewed script(s) are in use during that edit.

Edits must be reviewed

(Carried over from prior community sanctions) Δ must manually, carefully, individually review the changed content of each edit before it is made. Such review requires checking the actual content that will be saved, and verifying that the changes have not created any problems that a careful editor would be expected to detect.

Community oversight

Δ must cease operating a particular script-assisted task if requested to do so by any Wikipedia administrator or by consensus of the Wikipedia community (as decided by an administrator closing applicable discussion(s) that may take place), and must suspend its use during active community discussion.

Limited edit rate

(Carried over from prior community sanctions) Δ must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time under any circumstances.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Δ has managed to make 2,000 unapproved edits in the last 2 months despite the existing restriction. It needs to be significantly tightened. I would propose something more like: no more than 30 edits in any 24 hour period. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

That is a misinterpretation, Carl. Δ did not need approval to do 2,000 edits. He needed approval for patterned edits - but this restriction is about the editing speed, something that is not excessively exceeded, has only been exceeded on a couple of occasions, and for AFAIK for the last time months ago. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I was one of three who wrote the original restrictions, so I am confident that I am able to interpret their purpose. In any case we need to be moving to stronger sanctions, not keeping ones that did not work in hopes they will work next time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, the purpose was not that all edits need to be approved. If I recall correctly, the restrictions were in place for another reason. What part of this restriction did not work? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I actually think, that points 1 and 6 in the questions from Kirill above address this point. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The current restrictions have not resolved the community concern about Δ making large numbers of unapproved (patterned) edits, as he has still been able to do so. One reason the original sanctions were ineffective is that we assumed Δ would self-modulate his editing and so we set the limits generously high. After two years, we can see in hindsight this was a mistake. Why would we expect the same sanctions to work just by passing them a second time? — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No, Δ was able to make a large number of (unapproved pattern)ed edits (and not 'unapproved (patterned) edits'). You are now suggesting, that this editing restriction is the reason that Δ could edit where there was an unapproved pattern in his edits? I still believe, that the problem is that the community did not sufficiently grasp that there were patterns in Δ's edits, and that that went on too long. If you think that if Δ does 30 edits a day, and does that for 66 days, that there are no patterns possible - on one side it will give the community more time to recognise patterns, on the other hand, patterns get more obscured because the editor who checked Δ's edits still has to browse back several days to see whether over all the edits there are patterns. IMHO, it calls for a better definition of patterned edits - something I have been asking for since the beginning. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

With 30 edits a day, if he does 2 edits a day according to a pattern, over 14 days that still violates a pattern - and editors still have to dig up everything, whether those same 420 edits are done in 2 hours, or in 15 days - what you are worried about, is that neither Δ, nor the community considers something a pattern for 14 days (and thousands of edits) - and it misses the worry for making mistakes, it is focussing on the letter of the restriction, not on what it is supposed to prevent. According to the wording of the current restrictions in place, Δ is allowed to make 2,000 mistakes in a row, as long as he not making a pattern of the same type of mistakes, not making more than 40 edits in a 10 minute period, does respond when someone points out a mistake to him, it does not make any uncivil remarks, and it steers clear of NFCC. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't care about the number of edits; I've probably made more than 30 edits a day to a single article when actively working on improving it. Rather than limiting the number of edits I think it's better to limit the number of articles (see my alternative proposal below). 69.111.194.36 (talk) 01:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Civility parole affirmed

(Carried over from prior community sanctions) Δ is placed under community enforced civility parole. If any edits are judged to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked by an uninvolved administrator. If not a blatant violation, discussion should take place on the appropriate noticeboard prior to blocking.

Administrative enforcement

In the event of violating the terms of these restrictions, Δ may be blocked by any administrator who deems that the terms of this motion have been violated. He may appeal these blocks in the usual manner provided in WP:BP.

Tristessa de St Ange nominated

User:Tristessa de St Ange is nominated as Δ's supervising administrator. She may be removed from this role at any time by the Arbitration Committee or by community consensus. Nomination of a replacement supervising administrator shall be at the Committee's discretion in this event.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I have presented evidence where this has been tried before, and has not worked. Why would this time be different? — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Re "Administrative enforcement": Does that mean any Admin, or only the half dozen uninvolved admins? [Clerk note: Do we need comment sections on each subpart of this set of proposed remedies?] — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Any editor, let alone an administrator, who can propose that:

For the purpose of remedies in this motion, a "script-assisted editing operation" is defined as any editing which has the appearance of being automated, either partially or fully, and is to be broadly construed.

and not recognise that it has a hole in it large enough to drive a moderate size moon through has no place in a supervisory role. This definition is a gotcha waiting to happen, it would allow almost every edit Δ makes to be argued to be "appearing" automated and open him to sanctions on this basis. The idea here is for Δ to be able to continue editing without there being on-going disruption, which may involve sanctioning him as well as hosing down some of the over-the-top "monitoring" to which he has been subjected. The idea is not to try to hound him into quiting or set up no-win scenarios to communicate that his contributions are viewed by some with disdain. EdChem (talk) 09:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Right of review

Δ may request a review of this motion after 6 months. The Committee may at that time to decide to suspend or revoke the restrictions specified in this motion, in whole or in part, if Δ has demonstrated compliance and community consensus for his editing during the period following their enaction.

Proposals by User:Nagle

Proposed principles

Recidivism

1) Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

No previous sanction has worked

1) Sanctions tried so far:

• Editing rate restrictions
• Bans on automated tools
• Topic bans
• Short term blocks
• Long term blocks

Yet we're back here again. Even the long term block was evaded through sockpuppetry.[30].

The first block of this user was five years ago this month, on 28 November 2006, "08:17, 28 November 2006 Dragons flight (talk | contribs) blocked Betacommand (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Using an unauthorized deletion bot)" The block was undone within hours, with the comment by Geni (talk · contribs) "I don't think he is going to do that again".[31]. (Bad guess.)

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think it's worth noting that previous restrictions have proved unsatisfactory. PhilKnight (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Block and ban

1) Indefinite, permanent block and ban. Nothing else is likely to work. This provides a way to end this long-running drama.

Comment by Arbitrators:

While I consider that ever more complicated restrictions are unlikely to work, I'm not convinced this is the correct approach. PhilKnight (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

This is just.. slightly over the top I think. SirFozzie (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Blocks

1) Block all accounts associated with this user.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by 69.111.194.36

Proposed principles

High-speed editing

1) Human editors are expected to pay attention to the edits they make, and ensure that they don't sacrifice quality in the pursuit of speed or quantity. For the purpose of dispute resolution, it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that involve errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance. No matter the method, the disruptive editing must stop or the user may end up blocked.

Note that merely editing quickly, particularly for a short time, is not by itself disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wikipedia:Bot_policy#Bot-like_editing. The second paragraph doesn't apply since we're here at arbcom because of disruption, but I felt I had to include it for completenesss. 66.127.55.52 (talk) 04:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Try to fix problems

2) As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained and the writing cleaned up on the spot, or tagged if necessary. If you think a page needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do it, but preserve any content you think might have some value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change. Do not remove good information solely because it is poorly presented; instead, improve the presentation by rewriting the passage.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

From Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Try_to_fix_problems. This is incompatible with prolonged removal of content at 4 edits per minute. 66.127.55.52 (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Gaming the system

3) If an editor finds a loophole or trick that allows them to evade community standards, it should not be treated the same as a good faith mistake.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

WP:GAME. 66.127.55.52 (talk) 04:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Obsessive editing

4) In certain cases a Wikipedia editor will tendentiously focus their attention in an obsessive way. Such users may be banned from editing in the affected area if it becomes disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK#Obsessive_point_of_view. We are basically dealing with a disruptive SPA but I couldn't find good wording from SPA-related findings. 66.127.55.52 (talk) 09:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Responsibilities of bot operators

5) Like administrators and other editors in positions of trust, bot operators have a heightened responsibility to the community. Bot operators are expected to respond reasonably to questions or concerns about the operation of their bot. An editor who (even in good faith) misuses automated editing tools such as bots and scripts, or fails to respond appropriately to concerns from the community about their use over a period of time, may lose the privilege of using such tools or may have such privilege restricted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

From WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand_2#Responsibilities_of_bot_operators. This should be obvious. Running bots should require even more trust than adminship does: the notion "adminship is no big deal" was based on the premised that admin "button" actions were easy to revert technically (a deletion can be undone by an undeletion, etc). By contrast, bot operations gone wrong can often only be undone through extensive special purpose programming, basically writing another bot to clean up after the first bot. 67.122.210.96 (talk) 06:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Template

5) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Δ restricted

1) Δ is prohibited from editing more than 3 separate articles and their accompanying talk pages in any 7 day period.

Comment by Arbitrators:

While the previous restriction was possibly too loose and/or had giant holes in it, this is possibly replacing the giant holes with way too fine a mesh. Too restrictive. I can understand possibly banning him from large scale actions, but this is a step too far. SirFozzie (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

SirFozzie, I don't see a way to ban someone from large-scale actions without doing something like this, perhaps with higher limits as suggested by CBM and others. Of course it's not my call, but no other remedies on this page (except John Nagle's) seem remotely workable to me. We should not have to keep debugging intricate remedies as if we were programming a bot. Editors are supposed to exercise good judgment and sane interpretations as best they can, and not try to game the system. If they can't or won't do that, they shouldn't be editing. This remedy should shut off the type of editing where most of the problems have been. 66.127.55.52 (talk) (69.111.194.36) 01:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I like this approach. I do think it is too restrictive, and would like more clarity. #Article_edit_rate_restriction is my proposal. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

John, I'm glad you like the approach. Are there particular issues with it that you want clarification about? 64.62.206.2 (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This proposal does "kindergartenize" the restriction as Sven Manguard phrased it somewhere else on this page. Given the failure of the community to agree that a script generated sequence of edits is a pattern, this much simpler restriction is probably the only way to go unless restrictions intended to prevent Δ from wikignoming are lifted altogether. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Neutral as proposer. This is intended to suggest technical wording for "edit like a human" without worrying about "patterns of edits", whether something is done by a script, etc., if that is what is desired. It should stop all mass edits, "maintenance" edits, "wikignoming", etc. while still making it possible for Δ to settle into some interesting articles and make substantial contributions to them, which I wish he would do. The parameters (3 articles/7 days) can of course be adjusted. 69.111.194.36 (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

This is so incredibly restrictive that it's only purpose could be to drive Delta off of the project. I also am going to wonder, aloud, who exactly you are, since IPs don't just materialize to edit AN/I and ArbCom pages. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I have been thinking of similar proposals myself (someone on arbcom is welcome to checkuser me to see I am nowhere near Oakland CA). Since the edit rate limit has been so ineffective, it seems like strictly limiting the number of articles per unit of time might be a possible solution short of a full ban. Of course 3 per week is too tight, but (say) 5 per day would allow Δ to edit articles while curtailing any impulse to engage in gnoming or maintenance work. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

So you're remedy is to entirely remove him from gnoming work? That's essentially the same thing as banning him, as he pretty much only does gnoming work. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we need to get him away from gnoming work entirely. No, that is not the same as banning him. He would still be free to edit in any other way he pleases. If he is only willing to edit in the one way in which he causes chronic disruption, there is no reason we need to accommodate that preference. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think it removes him from gnoming work at all, nor do I see the gnoming work as a problem. More abstractly; 3 per week is to restrictive, 1000 per week too much. The idea of the restriction is interesting, but a middle ground needs to be found. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. This seems like a good restriction as long as the numbers are tweaked. 5 to 10 articles per day seems like a workable limit, and would be a very clear bright line that nobody should have any difficulty interpreting. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 09:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

If this moves forward, we need to make sure that "articles" is replaced by "pages". The goal would not be to limit only the main namespace, but also particularly File:, and Template: and their accompanying talk pages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This might actually work. --John Nagle (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Carl, perhaps something to the effect of "Δ is prohibited from editing more than X separate pages in any Y day period. For the purposes of this restriction, a non-talk page and its associated talk page are considered to be one page"? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Just plain nuts. Rich Farmbrough, 19:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC).

Echo that. Plus where does this IP user come from? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there intention to carve out a reasonable "discussion" exception? If Δ gets complained at by a series of users for different things at different locations (WQA, ANI, AN, AN3, DRN, individual user talk pages) and they are expected to respond within a reasonable time, how are they supposed to respond to the community, and at the same time stay below the distinct page edit limit. This remedy seems more like an attempt to trap Δ than to protect the wiki. I implore the Arbitrators to reject this proposed remedy. I have not contributed much to this case, but have watched it and the continuing soap opera of Δ. Hasteur (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there should be such an exception. (see below) Originally I started to write out a bunch of exceptions and exemptions but then decided we should not micromanage like that, so I chopped it out. In retrospect I agree that the 3 page/week suggestion (without all those exemptions) is unreasonable but a higher number is probably ok. I may try writing another version of this proposal, taking the comments into account. 66.127.55.52 (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

As written, this proposal would only restrict article (mainspace) editing, so project space discussions would not have been affected. CBM pointed out the need to restrict all namespaces, so in that case there could be some reasonable exemption for normal posting in discussion venues. 66.127.55.52 (talk) 11:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Δ restricted (version 2)

Δ is prohibited from editing more than 25 separate Wikipedia pages in one day, where a talk page and its associated non-talk page count as a single page for this remedy. Pages in Δ's personal userspace are exempt from the remedy, and up to 3 mainspace pages per month can receive additional exemption at Δ's request if he has shown an interest in editing their content over a period of time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is hardly a substantive restriction. Few editors touch that many articles in a day. He'll be able to "cleanup" 750 articles per month (with unapproved tasks) instead of 2000? One per day would be more appropriate. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Attempts to incorporate criticisms of the first version. 25/day is a higher number than I think is needed, but it's well below bot-rampage territory, which is the important thing. 67.122.210.96 (talk) 06:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Δ restricted (version 3)

3) Δ is prohibited from editing more than 25 separate Wikipedia pages in one day, where a talk page and its associated non-talk page count as a single page for this remedy. Pages in Δ's personal userspace are exempt from the remedy, and up to 3 mainspace pages per month can receive exemption at Δ's request if he has shown an interest in editing their content over a period of time. Δ may also engage in scripted editing, if the task and script has been preapproved at WP:BRFA.

{text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This proposes to relax the restriction from 25 per (unapproved) task to 25 per day so he may run many more unapproved tasks. Thus, the proposal seems very foolhardy. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3/Proposed decision#Betacommand limited to BAG approved tasks appears more in-tune with what Δ likes to do anyway. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

IMHO the proposal is far better than the existing sanction, which (by not restricting how many "tasks" can be performed) has led to eye-rolling arguments about what constitutes a "pattern". 25 pages/day is low enough to allow inspection of all the edits by other editors, and pushback before a lot of articles are affected, in case of problems. &Delta's existing mentors (I think the mentorships sort of dissipated but I don't remember them being formally terminated--I might be wrong) could decide cases of pushback that Δ disagreed with. 64.62.206.2 (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Attempts to supply wording allowing preapproved scripts, for those who favor that. I prefer complete prohibition of scripted editing (#2 above), but am offering this version as a refinement of various other people's proposals that are getting support, even though I don't favor those proposals myself. 67.122.210.96 (talk) 06:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

BAG-approved scripts

4) Any scripts Δ runs that edit outside of the 25 page/day limit in #3 above must be 1) approved by BAG; 2) run from toolserver with source code in a public repository on toolserver, licensed compatibly with the WMF's licensing for the MediaWiki code, and 3) once approved for deployment, can only be run with zero modifications from the approved version, unless the modification is approved by a BAG member who has reviewed the code change.

BAG members are expected to refer proposed changes for public discussion if they think the change might cause controversy, but can give immediate approval if in their judgment the change should be uncontroversial (e.g. straightforward bug fix).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed to stop another avenue of potential gaming. Let me know if what I've described is inconsistent with current good toolserver practice; I'm not that familiar with toolserver. I agree with John Nagle about source code releases. Even potentially sensitive bots like Cluebot have published source,[32] so I see no reason for us to accept "vendor lock-in" for the stuff Δ is doing. However, a weaker version of point 2 might just say that the approving BAG member must have access to the code. 64.62.206.2 (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Partly withdrawn per discussion on proposed decision talk page. I don't think the code release is likely to be that useful, and to some extent it fobs responsibility for problems to other people. I'd encourage release regardless, but it's not that big a deal. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Hammersoft

Proposed findings of fact

Community sanction on 'pattern' impossible to follow

1) As witnessed by the heated debate as to what constitutes a "pattern", the community restrictions regarding patternistic edits have been impossible to follow. This is most clearly demonstrated in this diff, where admin Tristessa de St Ange states a pattern is "series of different types of changes in a single edit, qualfiy as a pattern".

1a) (addendum) Proof of this is available by reading Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_79#Altering_the_editing_restriction_.231_imposed_on_.CE.94_.28Betacommand.29. The community couldn't figure out how to write a restriction that included the word "pattern" and come to consensus on a restriction that made sense.

Comment by Arbitrators:

That's because it's very hard to define A) What any one person defines as a "pattern" and B) getting others to agree that any particular set of edits have a pattern. We need to make it clearer in this case, and not use nebulous terms. SirFozzie (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Hammersoft, perhaps it would have been better if you had provided the whole sentence, which makes a lot more sense than the part you lifted out of it: "Any series of repeated edits that occur as part of a general pattern, and in this case it is a series of different types of changes in a single edit, qualfiy as a pattern." What Tristessa, in my opinion, tries to say is not that a single edit can be a pattern (which is what your selective quoting incorrectly suggests), but that to qualify as a pattern, edits don't have to be restricted to one single type of edit, but that multiple patterns can be used, so that one single edit can be part of e.g. a whitespace pattern, a deadlink pattern, and a image to file rename pattern, while the next edit may only fit two of those patterns, and the one after that perhaps two other out of those three patterns (mainly because nothing fitting the third pattern was present in that article). While perhaps an exact definition of what a pattern is, is lacking, there was very little doubt for most people that these thousands of "cleanup" edits were patterned edits. Please don't try to make your point by using very selective and incomplete quotes (even though you did provide the link to the full one). Fram (talk) 15:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• The quote demonstrates very well the impossibility of following the sanctions. Many different people have come up with their own definitions of what constitutes a "pattern", as noted by the intense debate at WP:AN/I, of which this quote (though not in that discussion) is emblematic. Please drop the accusations against me. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The "quote" is not a definition though, but a part of it, which is completely different in meaning than the whole. Such selective, meaning-distorting quoting is a poor debating technique. It may very well demonstrate your point, but it does not represent the point of whoever posted it. Perhaps you can find full quotes demonstrating your point, if the discussion was indeed impossible to follow. I didn't have a real problem following it, despite the distraction of a few people trying reduction ad aburdum and the like (e.g. arguing that removing 25 different redlinked images from 25 different pages is not a pattern, or that under that definition, asking if "adding characters to one article is to me pretty similar to adding characters to another article, is that also a pattern"). As far as I am concerned, most of the "confusion" in that debate is caused by what another editor in that same discussion called "delta enablers" trying to muddy the waters, not by much genuine confusion. Considering that by the end of that discussion, you were perfectly able to make requests on his behalf, "I've asked Δ's permission to operate on his behalf to make requests based on his past pattern of activity." Dirk Beetstra as well, by the end of the discussion, admitted that "I know that certain edits mentioned here are pretty clearly a pattern". It appears that in the end, everyone agreed that even though there may be grey areas in the definition of "pattern", Delta's edits clearly were series of patterns. Fram (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• And he we are with yet another debate about what defines "pattern". I think your posts serve very well to demonstrate. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Um no, we don't have a debate about what constitutes a pattern, we have a debate about what are acceptable debating techniques, and what aren't. Hint: bith reductio ad absurdum and selective (deceptive) quoting are not. Fram (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Actually yes, you're attempting to force your own definition of pattern. That dovetails nicely into a demonstration of my point here. If you wish to raise issue with me, please feel free to do so at appropriate forums. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I have an issue with your edits here, and so I raise it here. No need to put it away out of sight. You started this with your deceptive quoting, which you used to support a "finding of fact". Finding a fact while starting from false premisses is not the best way to proceed. Whether I am forcing anything (no idea how I am forcing it, but apparently I do) does not change the incorrect means you use to reach your aim. Fram (talk) 16:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• I am not going to debate you further. Insulting me is not a means to an end. Thank you, good bye. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't support this finding of fact. The community restrictions have not been impossible to follow, but Delta's lack of respect for those restrictions has certainly been a contributing factor. Delta seems to want to edit in a very particular way that the community has consistently objected to over years. The deceptive quoting in the finding of fact (as pointed out by Fram) and then subsequent morphing of the subject of the above thread from poor argument method into the definition of patterns appears to be a continuation of extensive efforts by select editors in the recent ANI and VPR threads to use fallacies, strawmen and distractions to reach a conclusion regarding the viability of the community restrictions that is at odds with the natural conclusion of the discussion. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'll grant agreement if you can grant agreement that quite a number of people have argued extensively as to their own interpretation of "pattern". --Hammersoft (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think interpretation of the restrictions has been something like a Venn diagram. There is a core of things everyone agrees Delta shouldn't be doing. There are overlapping areas that most people agree Delta shouldn't be doing, and there are fringe areas where fewer people agree Delta shouldn't be doing it. So I can certainly agree that there has been some discussion about the specific definition of a pattern and in particular whether those peripheral situations are included, however I think the edits that triggered the most recent bout on ANI fell into the 'most people agree' area, if only because your own objection disqualifies it from the 'all people agree' area :)

I think there were a not-insignificant number of people in the ANI and VPR threads that agreed that while Delta's most recent edit batch was a violation of his sanctions, the meaning of 'pattern' still needed to be clarified. It's my view that Delta was able to comply with his restrictions if he avoided the 'all' and 'most' areas in the hypothetical Venn diagram. This wasn't impossible, but it did require that Delta accept that he may not be able to edit in precisely the way he wanted for a time.

And while I do think Delta's most recent 'pattern' of editing was a violation of his sanctions, I think a simpler sanction like the 'X articles per Y units of time' remedy proposed by the IP elsewhere on this page is a good way of resolving issues of personal interpretation. I'd certainly support replacing his pattern restriction with an article count restriction. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• I was far from the only one who objected to it, and the edits in question had a month earlier been reviewed and no consensus formed it was a pattern. Your visualization of a venn diagram is interesting, and worth consideration. The application of it though I am not sure we (the community) can ever agree, as the rewording of the sanctions at VPR that never gained consensus show. I agree with your last paragraph, as I don't think we can ever clarify this pattern issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. Any AI researcher would tell you that "pattern" was a bad choice of schema. Rich Farmbrough, 21:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC).

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Community restriction at WP:RESTRICT, first bullet, is suspended.

1) Given the contentious disputes that have arisen due to failure of the community to properly identify what a "pattern" is and provide Δ with a reasonable boundary within which he can operate, the first bullet of the community restrictions at WP:RESTRICT is suspended pending re-wording or replacement.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Only suitable if it is replaced. If we return to the pre-2008 system, where Δ repeatedly undertook ill-considered maintenance tasks, we will be back at ANI soon enough. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not advocating wholesale removal. But, if we don't remove this sanction and replace it with something more easily applied and understood you are quite correct; we will be back at ANI whether Δ did anything or not. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Reasonable, however a replacement should be developed preferably through this ArbCom process, and implemented simultaneously to the lifting of this existing restriction. I don't believe creating a window of unrestricted editing in the interim period would be appropriate. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Count Iblis

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Δ's editing restricted via mentoring agreement

1) Prior to undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than a few pages, Δ must propose the task to the appointed mentor for approval. All other editing restrictions of Δ are lifted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I feel this is not doable. We had someone "speak for Beta" already, and it bordered on a Theatre of the Absurd, that pretty much led to this case being filed. If this was the first case, maybe I'd be more willing to see if it would work.. the fact that we're on case 3 makes me think that this would only raise the chances there would be a Case 4. SirFozzie (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This sounds very good, it would be the best of both worlds for all involved. As it would reduce the stalking/harassment and enable me to get back to what I do, improve the encyclopedia. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 22:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The mentor could perhaps be Hammersoft, Masem, or Beetsra. Basically someone who is not a priori negative about Δ performing maintainance tasks, but also someone who has an editing record demonstrating that he/she is able to discuss problems constructively. Basically, what needs to be done is to, on the one hand, remove the de-facto automatic veto on Δ doing anything in this area at all (this obviously affects the way Δ reacts to criticism in a negative way), while on the other hand, make sure that any negative feedback on editing using automated tools is taken into account in a constructive way. Count Iblis (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I presented evidence that this approach has failed two times before. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Way, way too vague. There is ample evidence presented that the phrase "pattern of edits" was immensely divisive last time it was used and nobody would be able to agree on how many "a few" pages were. Also, any mentor would have to have community confidence in their neutrality regarding Δ, and I certainly doubt that any of the three users you name would have that confidence. Thryduulf (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

CBM, can you point to those previous mentoring setups (I didn't see it in the evidence)? .

Thryduulf, the problem now seems to be that you have a polarized situation, where editors who are not on speaking terms with Δ, ask for enforcement for violations of restriction and then you get a big discussion about those restrictions. If you instead have a mentoring set-up along the lines I suggest, you won't get these sorts of discussions anymore. Δ will simply do all his maintainance work via the mentor. What then matters is not if the mentor is seen to be on the right side in the present dispute (where strict adherence to the restrictions is also a relevant issue) but rather if in this new set-up, the mentor will not enable Δ to cause disruption.

If someone complains about edits by Δ now, you can still defend Δ by arguing against a block if you think that what Δ did wrong isn't a big deal. But if you are the mentor, then exactly that same issue would prompt you to stop Δ (if the edits are causing a problem, because in this set-up there are no restrictions on Δ). The mentor, after all, is responsible for Δ's edits that he approves of. In case of misconduct by Δ tolerated by the mentor, the mentor may get blocked too. The mentor is to treat edits by Δ as if they are his own edits.

Any discussions about Δ not sticking to some restriction will be exclusively between Δ and the mentor. So, we then don't have to bother about the exact definition of "few", the mentor can at any time withdraw permission to let Δ carry out some maintainance task, the definition of "few" is whatever the mentor thinks is appropriate. The community sticks to giving feedback about Δ's editing to Δ or the mentor. The mentor will always take this feedback as if it were feedback on his own edits. Count Iblis (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm just not convinced that Δ will adhere to that. I know this doesn't sound AGF but Δ's had so many last chances to prove that we (the community at large) can have faith in his ability not to break things and cause a mess, and every time he's shown that we can't trust him. This is why we're at Arbitration for the third time. Thryduulf (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Its ABF just like you think, Ive attempted to follow the restrictions. Take a look at my overall edits with regards to my cleanup. (if you want I can provide diffs for every edit) There are almost zero issues except for the short time where I was experimenting with Google books. I in fact have several barnstars for doing cleanup. The issues are not about the contents of the edits, but rather the fact that I am editing. Back in September I was take to AN/ANI for what was thought to be a "pattern" and it was deemed not a pattern, So I continued with the same general cleanup. Less than 30 days later out of the blue I saw that I was blocked, (no attempt at discussion, or notice) for the exact same edits that where deemed acceptable 30 days before. I do not know how one can stay within the restrictions if they are continuously changing. Yeah I have gone over the edit throttle a few times, but for the vast majority of the time I have abided by it. Yes I have fucked up in the past, but that is the past (almost four years ago now), and take a look at my content space edits, the area which I try to focus on, is very productive. Its those users who spend less than 40% of their time in mainspace and instead love to follow the drama boards that cause most of the issues, If you take a look at those who's focus is on the encyclopedia, and not the drama boards you will see a rather distinct difference of opinions. If you ever get a free minute and want to talk Im almost always on IRC (irc.freenode.net) and will gladly have a discussion with anyone, if you have issues you would like to discuss with me. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 23:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I've given examples of issues which had nothing to do with your Google Books experiments as well. And my focus is on the encyclopedia as well, the drama boards are a sometimes unavoidable side issue. But while your focus may be on the content space, it is rarely on actual content: should I dismiss your opinions as well for such a reason? Fram (talk) 08:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I added a section header to my evidence, so I can give you this link [33]. They were Roux, MBisanz, and Hersfold. I cannot imagine someone would block the mentor in response to Δ; that would be too far from the normal blocking system. In the end Δ has to be responsible for his own edits. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem with a good mentoring effort, but not by someone involved (from either side), so not Hammersoft or Beetstra (I see less of a problem with regards to Masem, he has been more of a neutral observer so far). A mentor should, in as far as possible, bring a fresh, unbiased look, something which the suggested names (but also myself or CBM or some others) are perhaps also capable of, but who would, due to the history, give a biased impression anyway. Fram (talk) 08:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that I would not be a good choice as the mentor. Not because I don't think I could do it (I think I could) but because as noted it creates a biased impression. Someone as mentor who is closely involved, whether supportive of Δ or not, will result in a situation that is likely to be a lightning rod for debate, despite their best efforts. I think the proposal above made by Tristessa with Tristessa as the mentor would work very well. Tristessa is mostly uninvolved. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• (ec)I agree that I would probably deemed to be too biased, not suitable here. Someone who is largely (or totally) uninvolved ánd 'neutral' may be a suitable candidate. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps Tristessa would be more suitable. But my proposal differs from her's in that under my proposal, she would be solely in charge of policing Δ, imposing restrictions as she sees fit etc.. Looking at the links given by CBM, I think the previous mentorship agreements were not like this, the mentor still had the assignment of imposing certain community restrictions. The role of the community would under my proposal simply be to give feedback on the actual edits, not to police Δ to see if he violates certain rules imposed on him. That's the exclusive task of the mentor. If the mentor finds that Δ doesn't listen to her, then the mentor is required to report Δ to AN/I or AE (which would in practice be the end of the mentoring agreement).

When I was talking about the possibility of the mentor being blocked above, I was thinking about a scenario where Δ is causing disruption, and the mentor when contacted isn't receptive to this feedback. They would then both discussed on AN/I. In practice, you would not expect this to happen, but that then addresses one of the concerns expressed above that somehow Δ could cause problems without that being addressed. Count Iblis (talk) 16:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

This will lead to yet more arguments over definitions of "pattern of edits", and "more than a few pages". We're here because "pattern of edits" was ambiguous. --John Nagle (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Those qualifiers define the mentor's authority over Δ. It's vaguely formulated, but then discussions about Δ's restrictions should always be conducted between the mentor and Δ. Any other editor should treat Δ as if he isn't subject to any restrictions. If Δ is running a bot and there are problems with that, then he'll get community feedback about those problems just like I would get that feedback were I to cause the same problems. It is then up to the mentor to fine tune the restriction he/she imposes on Δ to deal with those problems. The community should't get involved in the fine details about how the mentor deals with Δ. Only if the mentor decides that he/she can't deal with Δ, does the communuty get involved with Δ again (putting aside unrealistic scenarios where the mentor would condone bad behavior by Δ). Count Iblis (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Mentoring seems to be notoriously ineffective when dealing with experienced editors. Given Carl's indication of failed mentoring in the past, I, at least, have a hard time believing any mentoring arrangement would produce beneficial results this time. I think that we need to take out the "creative interpretation" factor and create simple, robust restrictions that cannot be deliberately misinterpreted. A mentoring arrangement, by necessity, involves a large degree of personal interpretation. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't be any type of formal mentor but if Δ is willing to give content editing a try, I'd be happy to assist informally in any way I can (e.g. discussing article ideas, sourcing, etc). I've edited in a lot of subjects and have access to some good library databases and so forth. I'd hope that any formal mentorship (by whoever) would also concentrate on article editing. 67.117.144.140 (talk) 05:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Toshio Yamaguchi

Proposed findings of fact

• The current editing restriction is impossible to reasonably be followed due to unclear wording (cf. pattern of edits).
• Δ was blocked for an alleged violation of his restrictions (see notification on his talk page). After signs Δ scratched the edges of the restriction [34] he was unblocked after it was determined it was not a violation [35]. This shows how unclear the current restriction is.

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Δ is placed under a dynamic set of staged restrictions

1) The current restrictions are replaced with a set of restrictions that are loosened or tightened depending on Δs behavior. If he shows he is capable of sticking to the restrictions for a specified period of time, the restrictions are loosened in a pre-defined way. If he violates the restrictions, they are tightened. In this way, he takes full responsibility for the amount of freedom he has.

These restrictions should contain a definition of what benefit for the project is to be achieved. In that sense, the restrictions should contain a number of tasks Δ may perform (perhaps in a subsection of the restrictions) and Δ can request that new tasks be added. The number of these tasks is fixed and may be increased as a result of compliance with the above part of the restriction or decreased as a result of non-compliance. Each of these tasks contains a statement outlining what information must be readable out of the edit summary.

Tasks that only affect few pages and result only in a single change to the rendered page should not be required to be listed on the restriction subpage.

Furthermore the restrictions should clearly define the type of behavior the community expects from Δ in a way that he can reasonably be expected to follow.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I agree with ASCIIn2Bme - I'm not convinced that ever more complicated sanctions are the correct approach. PhilKnight (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, we should be making any sanctions CLEARER and easier to understand, not harder and murkier. SirFozzie (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

It's amusing to see people complaining that the current restrictions are unclear propose even more complex ones. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 06:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You seem to confuse complexity and clarity. Only because a restriction is more complex than another one does not mean it is less clear. And I believe this proposal, yes is more complex, but would also be clearer in its final form than the previous restrictions. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Your proposal is more complex but not anymore clear. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Complex and difficult to enforce. Requires too much administrative attention. --John Nagle (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Nagle. I think the way forward is to simplify and reinforce the editing restrictions so that there is no room for deliberate misinterpretation. Wording should be precise, concise and completely unambiguous. On the first finding of fact, I don't agree that the existing restrictions are impossible to comply with, per my rationale in the similar proposed finding elsewhere on this page. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

"Complex and difficult to enforce" I disagree with this statement. Perhaps the formulation is a bit unclear. The basic idea is that Δ may only perform edits that have been approved as a task he can perform. That is he may not do anything that has not specifically been approved. I also disagree that it requires too much administrative attention. It requires only to check whether the edits he makes are inline with the approved task. Note also that this prevents him from making pattern like edits, since it is unlikely they can be defined or would be approved as a task.

"I think the way forward is to simplify and reinforce the editing restrictions so that there is no room for deliberate misinterpretation. Wording should be precise, concise and completely unambiguous." Previous attempts have shown that this seems to be impossible, so I think we should turn things around. Δ may only perform edits which can be clearly defined and have been approved. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 10:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Additional comment What I have in mind would be that Δ has to go through a process similar to a BRFA. That is for each task he has to file a seperate request for approval. Once it has been approved, he can do as many edits for this task as he wants (or as is outlined in the request for approval). All of these requests could be subpages of a central task request page for Δ. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Additional comment One such task for example could be something like

Δ may add file links to articles (e.g. the markup [[File:Example.jpg]]). The edit summary must read "Added X images to the article"

This might be accompanied by an upper limit in a specified period of time (e.g. a maximum of 10 file links added to a maximum of 10 different pages per 24 hours). I think this would not require "too much administrative attention" and would be easy to check. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Detailed example

The following is an example layout of the page with three approved tasks:

Δ approved tasks

Task 1: Δ may add file links to articles (e.g. the markup [[File:Example.jpg]]).

Required edit summary: "Added X images to the article"

Limit: 10 file links added to a maximum of 10 different pages per 24 hours

Task 2: Δ may remove external links to http://www.example.com/

Required edit summary: "Removed external link to http://www.example.com/ per WP:EL"

Limit: 1 link per page removed from a maximum of 25 pages per 24 hours

Task 3: Δ may revert clear vandalism

Required edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Example (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Example2."

Limit: 20 reversions across a maximum of 20 different pages per 24 hours

So again my question: How is that unclear, complex or difficult to enforce? I believe it would be fairly easy to check whether Δ has stayed within those limits in a given period of time. Furthermore this would completely eliminate the need to define what is and what is not a pattern. Can someone explain to me how that is "too complex and difficult to enforce or requires too much administrative attention?" Yes, Δs edits need to be checked for compliance with this restrictions, but that is the case with the current restriction as well. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 10:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

In case of non-compliance (such as performing an unapproved task or making more edits under a specific task than defined in the limit), the maximum number of tasks may be reduced and approval for a task be revoked.

Comment by parties:

And he's gonna give a damn' because? He was practically under an identical restriction insofar, where has was supposed to ask on VPR for permission for tasks covering more than 25 articles. That only happened by proxy and after a huge drama involving a WP:BLOCK. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The 'drama' I believe was in part caused by the fact that it is unclear what is and what is not a pattern. At least that would be resolved by this restriction. And I still believe the huge amounts of drama are not entirely his fault alone, although he has a habit of editing at the borders of his restriction (which is not explicitly forbidden by the restriction). I believe this proposal will at least more clearly define those borders. Whether that will help or not, I don't know. And the restriction perhaps should define what the consequences are regarding repeated non-compliance. Also note that some of the blocks were determined to be bad blocks and later overturned. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Rich Farmbrough

Proposed principles

• WP:CIVIL
• WP:FAIR USE
• The community should be able to function with a wide variety of personal types and styles without becoming dysfunctional.

Proposed findings of fact

• Non-free content control is important.
• Δ is one of the few that are prepared to deal with it in a timely manner.
• Issues have been raised concerning Δ's response to discussions about particular instances concerning non-free content control on his talk page.

Comment by arbitrators:

• Agree that we should clearly state that non-free content control is an important task. However, I'd also suggest this task requires other attributes beyond dealing with infractions in a timely manner, such as diplomacy, tact, and a willingness to assist others. Δ is certainly timely, however, part of the problem is that, to some extent, he lacks the other attributes. PhilKnight (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
• While non-free content control is important, I don't think this has much at all to do with the case, except for Betacommand/Delta's inability to stay away from working effectively in this area. Risker (talk) 06:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

"particular" what? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Just... particular.... (I fixed the sentence,thanks.) Rich Farmbrough, 20:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC).

Proposed remedies

• Δ is indefinitely (but not perpetually) injuncted to disengage from discussions about specific instances of NFC enforcement. To this end:
  1. He is to add a link to WP:NFCR (Non-free content review) to each enforcement edit he makes, directing queries to be made there.
  2. In the event that one (or more) of his enforcement edits are undone, he will avoid re-making that edit.
  3. In the event that one (or more) of his enforcement edits are undone, he may post a factual statement of that fact on WP:NFC.
  4. In the event that a discussion is brought to his talk page, he may redirect it to WP:NFCR referring to this injuction, without other comment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

No. We're not going to step back into the Delta/NFC minefield again. There was very good reason that he was restricted from NFC enforcement, etcetera. We're not going back to that. SirFozzie (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. It allows Delta to continue with the good work.
2. It avoids Delta being involved in edit wars over NFC.
3. It avoids Delta being involved in heated disputes (indeed in any disputes) over NFC.
4. It allows editors who dispute or support Delta's actions a forum to discuss them.
5. It does not make value judgements on a complex and protracted discussion, and the events leading up to it.

Rich Farmbrough, 21:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC).

Comment by parties:

This proposal fails to address why the current arbitration case was opened, namely to review the community restrictions. Basically, it's chaff. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Chaff? On the contrary it goes to the underlying problem rather than dealing with a symptom of a failed treatment. Rich Farmbrough, 18:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC).

So what you're basically saying is: if only ArbCom would let Δ go back to his favorite activity of NFC enforcement, all the other gnoming issues would go away? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that the causus belli would be resolved. The sniping over whether something constitutes "NFC enforcement broadly construed" or 'a pattern' etc. could be thrown away, and substantive problems focussed on as they occur. Rich Farmbrough, 19:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC).

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement shouldn't be needed, just mutual agreement.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The fact that there's a # 3 in this arbcom case is proof that mutual agreement is not a frequent thing here. SirFozzie (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

And I have bridge to sell. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

A less cumbersome approach to NFCC is needed. It's outside of the arb case's scope, but I've suggested elsewhere that image uploading become an advanced permission like rollback, so new editors aren't allowed to upload until they've been checked out on NFCC policy. That would eliminate a huge amount of newbie biting as well as reducing NFCC problems. 67.117.144.140 (talk) 05:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Well less cumbersome would be good, have you been though the extensive upload wizard? One wrong click and you are told "no thanks, not suitable" ... but while it's pragmatically good it is yet another step away from free editing. Rich Farmbrough, 20:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC).

As an IP editor I don't use the wizard. I've used WP:FFU to request image uploads just like I use WP:AFC if I want to submit an article. In both cases some human looks over my contribution and checks that it's appropriate before adding it to the site (or discusses with me if there is a problem). I think that's preferable to using wizards and then plastering the contributor's talk page with obnoxious warning templates after the fact (since people tend to just fight their way through wizards any way they can). I realize that programmers like to code just as fish like to swim, but most areas needing human judgment should not be done by programs. 66.127.55.52 (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Thryduulf

Proposed remedies

1) Δ is restricted to a maximum of sixty edits in any 24 hour period, allocated in the following way:

1. A maximum of twenty edits in total across all non-talk namespaces (i.e. not twenty edits per namespace)
2. A maximum of twenty edits in total across all talk namespaces, but excluding user talk:Δ (i.e. not twenty edits per namespace)
3. A maximum of twenty edits to user talk:Δ

• i.e. Δ may not make more than sixty edits in any 24 hour period under any circumstances.
• Reversion of vandalism, obvious or otherwise, is explicitly included in the edit allowance for the relevant namespace.
• This editing allowance may not be transferred between groups
• Unused editing allowance does not roll over, accumulate or carry forward under any circumstances.

2) Δ is required to use an edit summary for every edit he makes that details the contents of that edit.

3) Δ is required to courteously respond to enquiries about his actions he is aware of (or made aware of via his talk page). Such responses explicitly count towards the relevant edit allowance.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This builds on SirFozzie's proposal below. It is intended to be firm and clear.

I would prefer "in a day in a specified timezone" to "any 24 hour period". I'd even be willing to let Δ select the time zone, so that he would be unlikely to be editing at 0000 in that time zone. In any 24 hour period is easy to fail accidentally. This way, he could rationally plan. I would exclude deletions from his talk page (with a proper edit summary) from the count, as well, and would suggest the arbs consider a sequence of edits to the same page as one. Still, it's important to have the rules laid out in black and white, so that anyone can see whether or not they are violated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see what this would resolve. It seems like it would hinder positive contributions from Delta just as much as concerning ones. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

1) If Δ exceeds his editing allowance by one or more edits in one or more of the three groups he may be blocked by any administrator without warning for the following duration:

• 1st occasion: 1 week
• 2nd occasion: 1 month
• 3rd occasion: 1 year
• 4th occasion: indefinite.

• A block must be for these periods - these are not discretionary maximums
• Blocks will run consecutively with any other blocks.
• For the avoidance of doubt, 21 edits to any one of the three groups in 24 hours 00 minutes is a blockable offence.

2) For every edit not accompanied by an edit summary per remedy 2, A may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator for 24 hours, to run consecutively to any other blocks.

• Parties to this arbitration case are not uninvolved for the purposes of this sanction.

3) Any editor who attempts to game the system to artificially reduce the number of edits available to Δ may be blocked by an uninvolved administrator for up to 24 hours, rising to a maximum of 1 year after for a fourth or subsequent offence.

• Parties to this arbitration case are not uninvolved for the purposes of this sanction.

4) Any administrator undoing any block placed under these sanctions without explicit consensus of uninvolved users at WP:AE or explicit on-wiki permission of the arbitration committee may themselves be blocked by any uninvolved administrator for up 1 week, rising to a maximum of 1 year after for a third or subsequent offence.

• Parties to this arbitration case are not uninvolved for the purposes of this sanction.

5a) Δ may appeal to the arbitration committee for a removal or relaxation of these restrictions 1 year after enactment or six months after the expiry of any block placed under these restrictions, whichever is the later. 5b) Δ may appeal to the ban appeals sub committee any block of indefinite length 1 year after its enactment.

6a) Any user may appeal a block of 1 month or shorter to WP:AE. 6b) Any user may appeal a block of greater than 1 month to the arbitration committee at the committee's discretion.

7) The arbitration committee may declare, by amendment or motion, any other user to be "involved" for the purposes of enforcing these sanctions. A list of any such users will be maintained with this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

These build on the comments in response to SirFozzie's proposal. They are intended to be hard but clear and to present the minimum chance for drama. Hopefully they are fair to the circumstances by allowing Δ to prove that he can contribute to the project in a way that does not get in the way of others' productivity. There are deliberately no restrictions on what type of edits he may make, only on their number. Hopefully the hash penalties for gaming the system will stop this being attempted (per WP:BEANS I wont say how it could be). Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposals by User:SirFozzie

Proposed principles

Returning to problematic areas

1)While one of Wikipedia's policies is to Assume Good Faith with other editors' actions, it is not unusual for other editors to pay extra attention to edits in an area that previously fell short of Wikipedia's norms and policies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

While I don't think that the accusations of harassing/enabling Delta is going to be a major part of the Proposed Decision, I decided to workshop this.. see if it fits in for PD. SirFozzie (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that a lot of the leeway that you have as a new editor in an area is gone when you have a history of issues in an area. Making a few bad edits in tons of good ones isn't so bad as a new user, but when you have a habit of making a few bad edits constantly along with good ones, as well as a habit of incivility when those bad edits are brought up, the well of AGF has a habit of running dry. And having that well run dry and saying so does not mean that you are harassing or attacking that editor SirFozzie (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That's one of the reasons I workshopped this. It's no where near "tight" enough for a proposed decision principle.. and honestly it's a subject on which we should at least touch. SirFozzie (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

(I added an apostrophe above) yes. Softer than the other I just looked at but needed. Some rewording might be needed. I'll think on it. How about deleting the second clause and stating "it is within policy to monitor the edits of an editor for policy violation, especially if that editor has had a problem identified in the past." Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Good faith is extended initially, but editors are expected to take appropriate feedback and make it part of their future conduct. Jclemens (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Extra attention to edits does not have to exclude that good faith is still assumed on those same edits (if there is one (possibly honest) mistake on thousand good edits, then because the editor 'has a past' I do not have to assume good faith?) - I find this principle conflicting. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• I'm not clear what this is trying to say. Surely there is no faith (good or bad) assumed from just looking at someone's edits? If you choose to discuss any edit a user has made, then the words spoken can indicate a good, bad or neutral faith assumption, but that's true regardless of whether the editor has a history of good or bad contributions in a given area? Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• @SirFozzie: I understand and agree with that. I still think wording of the principle could be improved though. Thryduulf (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• I think there is far more to the action of surveyors than inspecting the edits. Motivation can be good-faith or bad-faith, and generally which it is shines through like a candle through graphene. Competence in knowing what actually is an issue, which issues are significant, social skills in handling issues - all these seem sometimes to be in short supply. And when they are present having other users flapping around like vultures, demanding blocks and bans, completely undermines any progress being made. Therefore while the finding is not unreasonable, the implication drawn that it is not problemfull is false, and this needs to be borne in mind when considering solutions. Rich Farmbrough, 21:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC).
  
• This needs tightening to convey that some extra attention is one thing, pretending that the sanctioned editor is a wiki-leper with a scarlet tattoo, open to any sort of hounding under the cover of "monitoring", is unacceptable and invites serious sanctions, blocks, etc. Some of the treatment meted out to Δ at ANI has been disgraceful, and I for one hope the Committee explicitly recognises the atmosphere into which Δ has been dragged. A reasonable interpretation and application of a principle like this is appropriate for many ArbCom cases, but post-case treatment for sanctioned editors has often gone way beyond what is reasonable in terms of compliance monitoring and this deserves explicit recognition in any principle included in the PD. EdChem (talk) 09:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Betacommand/Δ

1) Betacommand/Δ has made thousands of of uncontroversial edits, using his account and a variety of bot accounts. However, they also have a history of controversial edits, for which they have been sanctioned for the committee: The first case, in 2007, they were found to have inappropriately removed links and pictures from articles, and not appropriately responded to concerns, and as a result their adminstrator status was revoked. In 2008,, Betacommand was again found to have violated Wikipedia's norms and policies and instructed to only use his bot for approved tasks, and to remain civil when dealing with other users. After numerous further issues, and violations of his community-imposed restrictions, the community indefinitely blocked Betacommand in December, 2008. This indefinite block was converted into a ban, but was provisionally suspended in July 2009 by an Arbitration Committee Provisional motion which unblocked Betacommand under strict rules, including his prior community restrictions on large scale editing. On July 11, 2010, Betacommand retired that account, and used the new account Δ. However, there was continued issues, and in July, 2011, the Arbitration Committee topic banned Δ from making edit enforcing the Non-free content criteria.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Sorry for the wall o'text, but it's necessary. SirFozzie (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

If he has identified as a "he", I'd much prefer using that pronoun for clarity. The succinct summary is a good timeline and needed for clarity. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Necessary background. Jclemens (talk) 02:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

It's a good wall of text, of apparent necessity, perhaps, it elides some important features. Notably that uninvolved editors had proposed solutions when the ArbCom motion of July attempted (unsuccessfully) to cauterize the situation. Also it is unfortunate that it makes implications that the post 2009 history is similar to the pre-2009 history, while actually stating nothing of the sort. Rich Farmbrough, 21:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC).

There is a strong parallel; in both the 2008 case and this one the problem is Δ's violation of the same editing restrictions. In particular this analysis by a different user in 2008 would be equally correct about the current case. [36]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Extremely pedantic nitpick: IIRC Δ has stated himself to be male, so you shouldn't use singular they ("However, they also have..."). Of course, I might be wrong, in which case you should pick a gender or gender-neutral substitute and stick with it ("...only use his bot..."). --NYKevin @095, i.e. 01:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Large scale editing prohibited except under conditions

1) The current community sanctions on Δ are superseded, and replaced with the followng:

Δ is prohibited from making large scale edits (defined as 20 or more edits to articles in a single 24 hour period), except under the following conditions:

A)The task is submitted, and receives consensus approval from the Bot Approvals Group before it starts.

B)The request must clearly delineate what edits are to be made (for example, Change all misspelings of Teh to The

C)All of Δ's edits must be given a clear and descriptive edit summary. ("Changed Teh to The")\

All other sanctions already in place, such as the civility restriction and the Committee's ability to revoke his provisional unban upon majority vote, remain unchanged by this remedy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

There are numerous concerns which led to this case's filing: People above have stated fait accompi numerous times as a porposed principle. Edit rate is an issue, but really is a sheer numbers game (he made 4.1 edits per minute and he was limited to 4, block him!). Concerns about hand-checked semi-automatic scripts versus automatic scripts (honestly, how can we tell the difference?) And the ongoing theoretical debate about what exactly defines a pattern.. So, keeping in mind the concerns of people who posted that his use of an unclear, repetitive edit summary (cleanup could be ANYTHING) made it difficult to determine what had been done to articles. While it is not in the remedy as of yet (due to the fact it's find a wording that would restrict large scale editing of talk page templates and the like that wouldn't restrict his ability to discuss changes to an article on the talk page, if Δ wants to make large scale changes to talk pages (the templates, or what have you), this also must get approval before he does it. SirFozzie (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The comments below are correct. This is to give Δ a reasonable allowance of article edits a day (I said 20, but that number could be 25 or whatever), but anything over the allowance that would qualify as "large scale editing" and require the pre-approval. I'm not replacing "pattern" with "large scale editing" as nebulous terms.. ;) SirFozzie (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

We need to make the conditions as crystal clear as possible to demarcate acceptable and not-acceptable editing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Will this really resolve the "conflicting sanctions" aspect of the case? While it might be more verbose, perhaps a single articulation, with appropriate consistency-improving edits, of all applicable sanctions (with or without these additions/replacements) might be a better option. Jclemens (talk) 02:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

If this is to work, I think it needs to be accompanied by an enforcement regime that is explict, objective and leaves no room for interpretation of the committee's intentions. For example, is 21 edits in 24 hours a blockable offence? I think the history has shown that if there is an edge case, it will occur and it will almost inevitably lead to drama at WP:AN/I, so there should be the absolute minimum of edge cases possible (ideally 0). Thryduulf (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the point is that 21 would lead to a block, if I understand the proposal. The point is to draw a hard line in the sand, so it is clear that crossing it would not be acceptable. In the end it has to be up to Δ to follow restrictions, not up to others to excuse violations of them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

My original response to this got a bit long as is now my proposal above. Thryduulf (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a more reasonable version of the proposal by the IP editor. I think this is the best option to allow Δ to continue to edit. It gets rid of the "pattern" issue and it gets rid of the need to propose tasks at VPR. BAG is generally a very conservative group, and they tend not to approve tasks unless there is consensus for them, so that is a good choice for the approval process. The main concern I have is that Δ will channel his edits to some other namespace - say files, or project pages, or user pages. So a restriction that only deals with the main namespace is still too porous. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous. BAG sometimes does not comment for weeks on a BRFA - let alone approve for trial - consensus might take months. This is a ban by another name. Rich Farmbrough, 20:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC).

In the proposal, BAG approval is only for large-scale edits. He could still edit articles on an individual basis without approval, as long as he does not do a large-scale task. The problem is that Δ apparently needs a more objective definition of "large scale" and this provides one: 21 edits a day or more. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

To be completely fair, I would rather see either a tight definition of this, or an interpretation that is left to one or more ArbCom-appointed, non-involved editors (not as mentors but simply to judge consistently). For example, should he become interested in true mainspace editing and hand-created a non-maintenance category or template for 21 pages, is tagging those 21 pages suddenly a large scale edit? The spirit of this proposal is good, but we're going to be down the same road if the wording is not specific or the interpretation not consistent. ("broadly" is, well, a very broad term). --MASEM (t) 22:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. If what the text above means by "large scale edits" is "pattern of edits", then it won't improve the situation any. I had read it as saying just that Δ could not make more than 20 edits, period, unless those edits were clearly part of an approved task. So in other words he gets an allowance of 20 edits in addition to whatever tasks are approved, and the 21st edit can result in a block. If that is not the intention of the text, and I misread it, then I agree it should be clarified. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

And that of course leads to cases where, say he is editing a mainspace article on his 20th edit for a day, hits preview, spots checks nothing wrong, and then after submitting, finding that he typo'd one reference name. Arguably as written in this proposal, he could not go and minor-edit the right ref name until the next day. Nor could he revert obvious vandalism without wasting one of the edits. Again, the spirit (limited editing outside of approved tasks) is right, but we just need tight language or consistent enforcement. --MASEM (t) 00:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be better as "20 distinct pages, ignoring edits to his own userspace", rather than "20 edits to articles". That would avoid the first issue. As for reverting vandalism, he can choose whether to do that or not, but if people are worried about any non-objectivity then even "reverting obvious vandalism" could be a problematic exception. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

(Reworded slightly) With due respect, I think this proposal is both too restrictive and ignores the underlying cause of the problem. Too restrictive because I'd be ecstatic if Δ were to get interested in some article and make 20+ edits to it in a day. And the missing issue is that we're here because (as I see it) we're basically dealing with an obsessive SPA, where the single purpose is automated editing. And for good reason, the standard remedy for problematic SPA's is to remove them completely from the affected area, which means Δ should have to stay completely out of automated editing for a while. So the restriction should be 20 pages/day (or some other number) with no possibility of running any automated tasks that affect more pages than that. (There could be exemptions from the 20/day maximum for his personal userspace, and for normal participation in discussion venues etc., as discussed further up). As for BAG being conservative, here is a perspective that suggests the opposite. It is a little bit old by now but I don't get the impression that a whole lot has changed. 66.127.55.52 (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Provisional unban revoked

1A) The Arbitration Committee revokes its provisional lifting of the community ban on Δ, and supersedes the community placed ban with a ban placed by the Arbitration Committee of at least one year in length. After one year, Δ may appeal this new ban to the Arbitration Committee, with further appeals coming no more frequent then once every six months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Alright. Time to acknowledge the elephant in the room. This remedy is because we've tried just about everything short of it (and in fact, we got here once before with the Community Ban), to correct the issues that led to the previous two cases (and the requisite enforcing of those two cases, and the motions amending them, etcetera), the many different ANI reports, and now, this third case. We've spent the better part of FOUR years working on this issue. If behavioral problems were going to be fixed, they would have by now. If the constant edge cases and the incivil responses to being questioned about them was going to stop, they would have by now. Beta/Δ has done a lot of good for the encyclopedia in his time here, noone can dispute that. But I think we need to get it "on the table" so to speak, and decide whether the ongoing benefit (under whatever terms we carve out here) is worth the ongoing issues. I'm not taking a stand on which remedy I prefer, but I think both of them need to be discussed and voted on by the Committee SirFozzie (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with SirFozzie, we need to have this on the table. Risker (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Needs to be an option. @Sven, it is pretty succinct. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Any proposed decision lacking this option for public consideration would be deficient. Jclemens (talk) 02:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Unhelpful. Attempts to resolve the issue have been sabotaged, this is not primarily an issue with Δ but with the community failing to construct an environment where saboteurs to negotiation and progress are shut out until and unless they are willing to contribute constructively. Rich Farmbrough, 20:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC).

With all due respect, if you're going to ban him, just ban him. Don't "revokes its provisional lifting of the community ban". I'm stunned that after all the talk about how overly complex weirdly worded text helped get us here, the proposed solution involves overly complex weirdly worded text. Consider instead "Δ is banned from Wikipedia indefinitely. He may appeal the ban to the Arbitration Committee one year from the date this ban goes into effect." Of the two sentences, yours and mine, they both convey the same result, but mine does it in a way that's much more understandable. I implore you to take KISS into account when writing the text of the remedies. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what the proposal says ("supersedes the community placed ban with a ban placed by the Arbitration Committee..."). He's just resolving the history w.r.t. the community ban by superseding it. --NYKevin @102, i.e. 01:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

This really would seem to be the logical endpoint of these many years of conflict. In my mind it's preferable to anything that allows Δ to continue automated editing of any sort. I proposed a page count speed limit because it's the one alternative that doesn't seem to have already been tried, but maybe it's also because I'm a softie when it comes down to it. I'm a bigger believer in careful editing judgment than in micromanagement through intricate rules and restrictions. Δ has shown persistent lack of interest in doing anything by sane independent judgment, so maybe this site isn't the right place for him. 66.127.55.52 (talk) 10:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Re "We've spent the better part of FOUR years working on this issue." Over five years, actually, since the first block. Four and a half since the first arbitration [37]. Sigh. --John Nagle (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

If you really want to go down this path, you better darn to make sure there's a replacement for User:Δbot to handle massive workload at WP:SPI. And should I mention that it took a year and nobody stepped forward to create a replacement bot before Δ came forward that to this day, that the bot is still running without complaints? If you ban/block/(insert similar words that carry the same meaning), good luck trying to find someone else to write the script for it. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This is why all bots running on Wikipedia should be open source, period, not "code available: Available upon request". Bot owners/writers can go away for a variety of reasons. It's also against the spirit of Wikipedia to have vital infrastructure depend on software that may make itself unavailable at the whims of some dude or dudette. If SPI is so important to have a bot for, ask the WMF to write one. The have money and pay programmers who are contractually held responsible; their programmers can't throw a hissy fit and disappear with the code. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparently the bot's functions were only discussed on IRC. Here's what a BRFA participant wrote at the end of the discussion:

For what it's worth, if someone can write a detailed, clear explanation of what this bot does (or is supposed to do), I'd be happy to write the code for it myself. I've watched this "we have to let so-and-so do this because nobody else can!" nonsense too many times before. Other people are certainly capable of handling this bot task. Or, alternately (and perhaps concurrently), SPI's procedures should be re-examined to figure out why there's such a heavy reliance on bots. Something seems fairly off kilter in the current setup. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

So, if you want to lay responsibility for finding a replacement in someone's lap, lay it in the lap of User:Anomie, who approved Δbot under these conditions anyway. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

If Δ were indefed today, and SPI really depends so much on a bot then it's not going to be long before either a new bot is written or the processes change so as not to require it. If neither of those happen, then maybe the bot wasn't so vital after all. We all know that Δ does make positive contributions to the encyclopaedia (if he didn't he'd have been out on his ear years ago), we also all know that he makes a lot of negative contributions of the project (directly and indirectly through the drama caused). The question is does the value of the former outweigh the latter, and the answer seems to be "no", which has resulted in the two options on the table for how to proceed - restrict his editing in such a way that he can only make the positive contributions; or ban him so he cannot make any contributions. The longer this drags on without any sign of action towards agreement on what the nature of restrictions would be, the more inclined I am to take the view that trying to formulate and agree such restrictions (by their very nature without guarantee of success) is a waste of time and that banning him now and moving on would be best for the project and its participants. I fully agree with ASCIIn2Bme's comments about the necessity of requiring all bots to be opensource. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Some of you have been going in circles and still talking in the sense of "what if someone else stepped up". We have ample of time (more than a year) to allow anyone (yes, ANYONE) to code. Is one year not enough for someone to step up? If not, please enlighten me. ASCIIn2Bme, it appears to me that you're trying to lay blame to someone (i.e.Anomie) who actually did something constructive. Anomie could have taken the easy path and rejected the proposal. But Anomie probably forsee that if it's not approved, the chances are nobody else will do it in the foreseeable future. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Sven Manguard

Proposed principles

Evidence and workshop pages behavior

1) Inter-user communication that would be considered unacceptable outside of an Arbitration case does not become acceptable just because one is filed. Users contributing to the evidence and workshop pages and their talk pages should aim to remain civil towards one another, irregardless of prior interaction. When two sides in a dispute utilize these pages to attempt to further escalate the conflict that sparked the arbitration case, it helps nobody and hurts everyone involved.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I just hope the ArbCom won't use irregardless. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This case is just one of many cases where this principle could be applied, however as I was more involved in this case as I was in prior cases, I'm making the proposal here. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with this general concept. There are many things that we would avoid in a non-arbitration setting, such as detailed analysis of the edits of the parties, which are necessary to get to the root of the problem in arbitration. This does not mean that civility goes out the door, but for example a frank assessment of an editor's opinion about the nature of the problem is completely appropriate at arbitration although it would ordinarily be inappropriate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I see detailed analysis of editors and frank discussions on their value at AN all the time, especially when we get those 'do we ban the highly productive editor with the copyright problem' threads, which happen once a quarter now. That being said, I was trying referring to interuser communication. I've amended the post above to reflect this. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Evidence and workshop area behavior inappropriate

1) Multiple users behaved unacceptably towards one another on the evidence and workshop pages and their talk pages during this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I am no naming names here, just pointing out that all the hostility made this case much more of a mess than it needed to be. Still, it could be worse, I suppose. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Workshop pages are never going to be extremely pleasant. But this one is neither particularly long (66kb, 60th percentile of talk pages underneath Wikipedia:Arbitrartion/Requests/Case) nor did it seem to generate any warnings by clerks. While there are certainly strong disagreements, and many editors stated their points directly, I thought that the tone overall was civil. If you'd like to post some diffs (by me or others) that might help explain what you thought was unacceptable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, the thread I was thinking of most was in the talk page of the evidence section, not the workshop section. Amended the post. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

That is the one I gave the size info for. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Not disagreeing with you, just wanted to add as food for thought: people should be allowed to give their opinion about other editors here in a more open way than is usual on Wikipedia, due to the nature of ArbCom cases (more open, but not needlessly uncivil or degrading into personal attacks). People should also be expected to provide diffs for all allegations and accusations they make, when requested (not necessarily initially), or else they should withdraw these allegations and accusations. If people are not willing or able to provide diffs, they shouldn't make negative comments about other editors. This doesn't mean that the "interpretation" of a diff may not be totally different: what one person sees as a serious problem may be a perfectly acceptable edit to someone else. But people should be able to judge what some accusations are or where allegations are based on, instead of just being expected to believe whatever is stated. Negative comments where no diffs are provided despite being requested should be treated as personal attacks. Fram (talk) 08:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Sanction tracking subpage

1) In cases where a single editor is placed under editing restrictions more than once, whether by the Arbitration Committee or by the community, a subpage must be created at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Active sanctions/{Name of sanctioned user}]]. All active restrictions placed on that user must be listed on that subpage, and the discussions that lead to the sanctions must be stored in the talk page of that subpage. The community is advised, when discussing the restrictions that the sanctioned user is under, to link to the subpage rather than on in addition to the original discussions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Betacommand/Δ is not the only user with multiple restrictions, and this seems to me like the best way to allow everyone to keep track of the restrictions. Confusion and miscommunication are a part of this case, this needs to be addressed for the future. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Something wrong with WP:RESTRICT? 66.127.55.52 (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's not sortable by user, so it's easy to miss one sanction when a user has several. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Restrictions rebooted

2) All sanctions and restrictions placed on Betacommand/Δ before the close of this case, either by the Arbitration Committee or the community, are hereby removed, to be superseded in full by the restrictions emerging from this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is not to say that any of the restrictions are necessarily going to change (although for the record I think they all need rewording, or as I said elsewhere "kindergardenization"). This is only intended to cut the confusion emerging from multiple conflicting rounds of restrictions. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this would help clarify things. The old sanctions are a combination of things imposed at different times, so it's hard to just give one link that clearly states the sanctions in entirety. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I too think an explicit statement is a Good Thing. Thryduulf (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Definitely necessary. Should ArbCom leave out some restriction from the rest of the discussion, no WikiLawyer can later come and claim that Δ has to follow "this one", claiming that ArbCom, in looking through the past records related to Δ, missed it by accident. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Active sanctions/Betacommand

1) Wikipedia:Arbitration/Active sanctions/Betacommand is to be created, pursuant to remedy 1.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Pursuant to my remedy 1. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposals by Kirill Lokshin

Proposed principles

Authority of the Wikipedia community

1) Wikipedia is a self-governing project; its rules are determined by the community of editors who participate in creating and maintaining Wikipedia content.

The authority of the Wikipedia community is subject to certain constraints, which arise from three different sources:

• The legal framework governing the project and its contributors, including, but not limited to, the laws of the United States of America and the State of Florida, and the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license;
• The capabilities and limitations of the MediaWiki software and the other elements of the technical platform on which the project operates; and
• The terms of service set forth by the Wikimedia Foundation in its role as the service provider for the project.

Outside of these constraints, the Wikipedia community holds ultimate authority over all matters related to the project. The community has the authority to set forth policies governing the conduct of participants and the content of articles and other pages; to establish processes and procedures for the project; to grant and remove access to tools, technical rights, and positions of authority; and to restrict or prohibit participation by individual editors or groups of editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 21:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I get where you're going here. However, you're missing some other governance such as WMF Board policies and directives. Let's not move too quickly on this one. Risker (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I would think those would fall under "terms of service" (whether the documents in question use that particular terminology or not). Having said that, I wouldn't object to changing the wording to something like "Policies and directives set forth by the Wikimedia Foundation..." if you think that would be clearer. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be useful, and it should be specific to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. Risker (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

@EdChem: Historical circumstances aside, the current authority of the Arbitration Committee is derived from the community ratification of the new arbitration policy, not from any pronouncements on Jimbo's part. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with this statement. The policy was ratified in June 2011. Risker (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

While I think I see where you are going with this, I think there's no need for all this detail. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Kirill, this proposal appears to side-step all the contentious issues of governance relating to Jimbo, not least of which relate to the composition of ArbCom. ArbCom have power to take actions the community cannot over-ride, yet ArbCom authority is not derived from the community nor from any of the constraints you identify. Further, the ability of a majority of the editing community to be stymied be a group of administrators is a significant constraint on community sovereignty - whether you look at the CDA mess or the ACPD debacle, I think you'll agree that vested interests hold a substantial and disproportionate veto power that can be wielded without restraint. Short version: this is a can of worms waiting for somewhere to happen, I advise very careful reflection before taking a proposed principle such as this forward. EdChem (talk) 11:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

@Kirill, leaving aside vested editor / admin groups, three points: firstly, it is unrealistic to claim that ArbCom authority derives solely from community consent while Jimbo appoints at his discretion with "elections" that are advisory only. Secondly, the notion that a description of en.wiki authority can be complete without dealing with the elephant in the governance room that Jimbo represents is (at best) questionable. Thirdly, ArbCom itself has overridden the community (recall the unreferenced BLPs incidents) which logically must be possible by utilising authority granted by a source other than the community - otherwise the community would have a veto over ArbCom actions. This other source of authority is not any of the three exceptions that you list; I can only presume that it relates to residual founder / god-king powers of Jimbo that place ArbCom pronouncements beyond the power of the community to alter. EdChem (talk) 12:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the point of including this foray into political theory in an arb decision. I guess it's ok as a discussion post. 66.127.55.52 (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Authority of the Wikipedia community

1.1) Wikipedia is a self-governing project; its rules are determined by the community of editors who participate in creating and maintaining Wikipedia content.

The authority of the Wikipedia community is subject to certain constraints, which arise from three different sources:

• The legal framework governing the project and its contributors, including, but not limited to, the laws of the United States of America and the State of Florida, and the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license;
• The capabilities and limitations of the MediaWiki software and the other elements of the technical platform on which the project operates; and
• The policies and directives set forth by the Wikimedia Foundation in its role as the service provider for the project.

Outside of these constraints, the Wikipedia community holds ultimate authority over all matters related to the project. The community has the authority to set forth policies governing the conduct of participants and the content of articles and other pages; to establish processes and procedures for the project; to grant and remove access to tools, technical rights, and positions of authority; and to restrict or prohibit participation by individual editors or groups of editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed, based on comments above. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 19:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see my comments both above and below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Authority of the Wikipedia community

1.2) Wikipedia is a self-governing project; its rules are determined by the community of editors who participate in creating and maintaining Wikipedia content.

The authority of the Wikipedia community is subject to certain constraints, which arise from four different sources:

• The legal framework governing the project and its contributors, including, but not limited to, the laws of the United States of America and the State of Florida, and the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license;
• The capabilities and limitations of the MediaWiki software and the other elements of the technical platform on which the project operates; and
• The policies and directives set forth by the Wikimedia Foundation in its role as the service provider for the project.
• The decisions made by Jimbo Wales in his special role in the governance of the project.

Outside of these constraints, the Wikipedia community holds ultimate authority over all matters related to the project. The community has the authority to set forth policies governing the conduct of participants and the content of articles and other pages; to establish processes and procedures for the project; to grant and remove access to tools, technical rights, and positions of authority; and to restrict or prohibit participation by individual editors or groups of editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Alternative proposal, based on comments above. I expect that it'll come down to a vote between 1.1 and 1.2 in practice. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 19:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe there is a difference between the Wikimedia Foundation as service provider, and the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation giving direction on specific issues related to content. I think there's a need to spell out exactly why you think this is a principle that is relevant and necessary to addressing the issues in this specific case. While I more or less agree with the factuality of these statements, I am unconvinced this is pertinent. Have you, by any chance, discussed this with anyone at the WMF before attempting to describe their and the Board's role in governance in an Arbcom case? Risker (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This particular principle is here primarily as background for some of the other principles. Having said that, the detail is not, strictly speaking, necessary; it would probably be sufficient to simply have a principle stating that the authority of the community to govern itself is subject to certain external constraints. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we can probably do without the detail that someone below described as "political theory." We already have a precedent principle, which I'll cite below, describing the Committee's role in reviewing community sanctions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The purpose of this principle as I see it is to establish that in almost all cases, the community consensus decision will prevail. I see no benefit in trying to enumerate all possible reasons why that might not happen. In this case, the only relevant external constraints are in the area of image licensing, so if you intend to use those constraints specifically, best to spell out those ones (for instance, to support the fact that Beta made a huge contribution in resolving the NFC issue before the Foundation deadline, messy as that was). Otherwise, drop the detail and I won't start talking about how we're actually dual-licensed, GFDL and CC-BY-SA. ;) Franamax (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Restriction of an editor's participation by the community

2) The Wikipedia community has the authority to restrict or prohibit participation by individual editors whenever it determines that doing so serves the best interests of the project.

The community has no obligation to demonstrate that the editor to be restricted violated any rules, deliberately or otherwise; or that the restrictions to be imposed are necessary to prevent a violation of any rules; or that any actions taken by the editor were undertaken maliciously or in bad faith. Further, the community has no obligation to impose a lesser restriction in place of a greater one; or to impose the minimum restriction necessary to prevent any conduct of concern; or to impose a restriction that allows the restricted editor to participate in the manner they prefer.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 21:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

@EdChem: The community has explicitly authorized the Committee to hear ban appeals; I therefore see no conflict between the community's authority to impose such bans in the first place and BASC's role in reviewing them. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

@Sven: Of course it's batshit insane; the question, in broad terms, is whether the community has the right to do it regardless.

Alternatively, to pose the question more directly: if the community reaches a consensus (and I'm deliberately avoiding, for the moment, the question of how that consensus is measured) to ban an editor who has done nothing wrong, does the Committee have the authority to override the community's wishes? And, if the argument is that we do have such authority, where does that authority originate?

My opinion, based on the points in principle 1 above, is that we do not; the community is, in principle, free to ban anyone it wants for any reasons it wants, whether or not that reason objectively "justifies" a ban. I'd be very interested in hearing arguments from anyone that believes otherwise, of course. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 19:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

At the very least, this should be two different proposals, as I would humbly suggest it's perfectly possible to support the first paragraph, while opposing the latter. PhilKnight (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

@ Sven, my advice would be to substitute the phrase 'batshit insane' with somewhat more diplomatic language, such as 'unequivocally an unwise course of action' or similar. PhilKnight (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this has been assumed by most of us (not just arbs, but admins) for quite a while, but it bears saying. Jclemens (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Like Phil, I think this is better expressed as two principles.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

There are parts of this formulation that I definitely do not agree with, but I also don't think it's necessary to address them in the decision; we don't really need to decide the deep political question of how the Arbitration Committee should react if the community were to decide that left-handed editors may not edit policy pages unless there is an R in the month, to pick a deliberately absurd example. More realistically, I find it difficult to assume that the community would do something completely "insane", and if it did, I would question whether the outcome reflected a fair cross-section of the community; it is fairly notorious that the self-appointed crowd on ANI is not exactly a random sample of editors (which is not to be critical of individual members of that crowd; I certainly used to be one of them). I am unwilling to endorse, as a principle, the idea that the community can ban a randomly chosen person for little or no reason. On the other hand, if what the principle is driving at is that a rationally motivated ban doesn't require a finding of bad faith, because even good-faith editing can be disruptive if it is inept or counterproductive, I agree; but we have simpler and more direct precedent language to say that, drawn from cases such as Stefanomencarelli.

We have previously discussed the standard by which the Committee reviews community sanctions in the Shakespeare authorship question decision here and I don't see any reason why we can't reaffirm those standards and apply them here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

So, when the community acted to impose a site-ban just before the close of the Mantanmoreland case, it was acting entirely within its authority and ArbCom insistence on a lesser sanction was acting in violation of community authority?

As a separate hypothetical, does this mean that BASC will no longer be able to overturn community bans, even if imposed without evidence, because all community-enacted bans are valid exercises of community authority?

If the community can ban without any evidence of rule-violations or necessity or even that harm is being prevented then how can any ban be reviewed except on process grounds - specifically, that the decision was not truly representative of community-will? I don't know where this principle is supposed to be going, but it screams unintended consequences to me. EdChem (talk) 11:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

@Kirill, I recognise that BASC has a grant of power to review, I am just asking what they are going to review if community bans have "no obligation to demonstrate that the editor to be restricted violated any rules, deliberately or otherwise; or that the restrictions to be imposed are necessary to prevent a violation of any rules; or that any actions taken by the editor were undertaken maliciously or in bad faith. Further, the community has no obligation to impose a lesser restriction in place of a greater one; or to impose the minimum restriction necessary to prevent any conduct of concern; or to impose a restriction that allows the restricted editor to participate in the manner they prefer." If editor X appeals to BASC and says "I was making useful edits, never got warned of any policies I was violating, and don't understand my ban as no reason was given," what is BASC going to say? "We agree your editing history appears to consist of useful contributions, we see no policy violations, and we have no clue why your ban was enacted. However, the community has the power to ban anyone if it considers that a ban serves the best interests of the project and there is no obligation to offer evidence or explanation. So bad luck, you've become a wiki un-person and so you're stuffed. Unofficially, go make another account and sock puppet, it's your only way back." I realise my example is extreme but so is the idea of the community being able to ban without evidence or explanation. EdChem (talk) 12:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with EdChem; the first half of the second paragraph isn't bad, it's batshit insane. We don't ban people unless we can come up with a really good reason, period. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

@Kirill - I derive the conclusion that the community does not have the right to ban a member of the community that has done nothing wrong from WP:CBAN, which says "If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute.[1] When determining consensus, the closing administrator will assess the strength and quality of the arguments." (bolding mine).

@PhilKnight - I don't think I need to. I was calling the idea, not the editor, insane, and it's clear that Kirill recognized that distinction. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Same comment I made above in "authority of community" section. 66.127.55.52 (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

This reads as way too loose, it just gives me a bad feeling. Although it does follow from "authority of community", ArbCom should not be establishing a principle which it doesn't need to. My interpretation of what is meant is that there is no particular obligation to provide all the evidence in the final sanction discussion. This invalidates the tactic of other editors claiming that no case was made, as the community as a whole can use its collective memory and judgement. Unless that is a specific issue though, again, why try to define it? Vastly prefer 2.1 below. Franamax (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Restriction of an editor's participation by the community

2.1) The Wikipedia community has the authority to restrict or prohibit participation by individual editors whenever it determines that doing so serves the best interests of the project. As there exists no objective test for whether an action "serves the best interests of the project", a community consensus that it does necessarily constitutes adequate grounds for a restriction to be imposed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed, based on discussion above; this formulation is sufficient for the case at hand. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Side-steps the par. 2 issue but does the job, I think,  Roger Davies ^talk 06:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree to the extent that this wording could suggest that the Committee lacks authority to overrule a community sanction that we find to be disproportionate or procedurally unsound. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sufficient. "action" is a little ambiguous though, could clarify that the "action" is the imposition of the restriction, not the original actions of the subject editor. Perhaps "sanction" would be better? Franamax (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Role of the Arbitration Committee

3) The arbitration process is not a vehicle for creating new policy by fiat. The Committee's decisions may interpret existing policy and guidelines, recognise and call attention to standards of user conduct, or create procedures through which policy and guidelines may be enforced.

In interpreting policies and guidelines and evaluating the facts of a case, the Committee must consider any apparent consensus within the community as to the matter under examination, as well as any broader intent which underlies the manifestation of such a consensus. With the exception of certain cases where an apparent community consensus conflicts with constraints imposed on the community by external factors, the Committee must aim to respect the consensus of the community and to act in a manner consistent with the community's intent in expressing it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The first paragraph is taken directly from the new arbitration policy; the second paragraph is an interpretation thereof. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you simplify par. 2 any?  Roger Davies ^talk 06:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is broadly true but falls on the point of whether consensus was ever truly determined. 3 for, 1 against is commonly claimed on wiki as "consensus decision". So ArbCom would necessarily have to examine whether a reasonable consensus was reached, not just an "apparent" consensus. Franamax (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of community restrictions by the Arbitration Committee

4) As stated in §1.1 of the arbitration policy, the Committee is responsible for "hear[ing] appeals from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users", including users whose participation has been restricted by the Wikipedia community.

In certain circumstances, the Committee may vacate a restriction imposed by the community. By vacating the restriction, the Committee asserts that the restriction itself was improper or invalid. The Committee will vacate a community restriction in two scenarios:

1. Where the Committee determines that the restriction conflicts with constraints imposed on the community by external factors; or
2. Where the Committee determines that the restriction does not represent a genuine consensus of the community.

In particular, mere disagreement with a genuine community consensus on the part of the Committee is not sufficient grounds to vacate a restriction.

Separately, the Committee may commute a restriction imposed by the community. By commuting the restriction, the Committee asserts that the restriction was valid as imposed, but that restricted editor's subsequent conduct merits a degree of clemency sufficient to shorten the duration of the restriction or to lift it entirely.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed; this is slightly technical, but an important distinction nonetheless. The wording could stand to be tightened, however. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to think about this further but there are more than two scenarios when the committee vacates a community decision. The most obvious one is when the committee sees evidence not available to the community or not given sufficient weight by it (typically but not always a checkuser review) which exonerates. Other scenarios include a lack of opportunity to present a defence/rebuttal during a community discussion, particularly where - had the defence/rebuttal been presented - the community might well have arrived at a different conclusion.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I still prefer the test we approved (by a 15-0 unanimous vote) earlier this year in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question#Review_of_community_sanctions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• I too prefer the Shakespeare authorship question provision. The arbitration policy is the most authoritative decision, but in my mind it relates more to appeals of new sanctions rather than appeals for clemency of older sanctions (as is the case with those we allow, usually, every six months). Roger, the defence that there was "no fair trial" (for want of a more accurate term) is probably covered by s.2 of Kirill's proposal ("does not represent a community consensus"), but I agree that we also sometimes reverse a decision where the appellant's view was not properly considered. AGK [•] 13:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is an important distinction which has not always been clearly articulated. ArbCom can (and should) review Community bans; ArbCom should not (and as the principle makes clear does not have the valid authority to) simply override bans that are valid expressions of Community consensus. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Following on from Roger Davies' comments, it is not just technical evidence that may not have been available to the community - for example situations change and events may change how certain actions are interpreted, even if only in their severity. A a hypothetical example, if user:example were banned for their part in a dispute over the insertion of content where the other three participants were later determined to be sockpuppets of a previously banned user with a known conflict of interest regarding the topic, then the actions of user:example would merit being reviewed and sanctions possibly lessened. Although this is important for the principle, I don't see this aspect of it as relevant to this case. Thryduulf (talk) 14:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Mild disagreement with par. 3: IMO if ArbCom is commuting a community sanction, then the onus should be on ArbCom to clearly specify what is being commuted. If an editor was banned for saying "pink flowers" too much and AC/BASC decided to unban, then what happens if they resume with "pink flowers"? Reinstatement of the ban by any admin, AE request, another community discussion, editor now allowed to say "pink flowers"? The current wording is too open-ended for me, what happens next? Franamax (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

WikiGnoming

5) "WikiGnoming" is a term used within the Wikipedia community to refer to a particular style of editing that manifests as a tendency to make minor, incremental edits such as fixing typos, correcting poor grammar, creating redirects, adding categories, and repairing broken links. The term is generally not applied to occasional or incidental edits of this sort made in the course of more general edits to a particular article; rather, it is used primarily when an editor makes such edits across a wide range of articles, and without making more substantive edits to those articles at the same time.

Editors who focus on "WikiGnoming" as a primary editing style tend to make large numbers of minor edits rather than small numbers of major ones. In many case, though not always, this tendency results in the editor making a high volume of edits in a short period of time. Such editors may, but are not required to, utilize automated or semi-automated tools to repeatedly make identical or similar corrections to multiple articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

More background; trying to define "WikiGnoming" as a term of art. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• The proposal as worded is a negative portrayal of wikignoming, which I think does a disservice to the many productive 'gnomes on Wikipedia. Tar them all not with the same brush. AGK [•] 14:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

X) {template}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Betacommand

1) Δ (talk · contribs), previously known as Betacommand (talk · contribs) and under several other names ([38]), has participated in Wikipedia since November 2005.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Background. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Nature of Betacommand's editing

2) Betacommand's editing of Wikipedia has overwhelmingly consisted of edits which may be reasonably characterized as "WikiGnoming".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Background. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe that NFCC enforcement constitutes Wikignoming. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems to meet the criteria if they're interpreted broadly, in my opinion. What else would it be, if not WikiGnoming? NFCC enforcement—particularly of the purist sort practiced by Betacommand—is certainly not substantive content editing. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, looking at what I presume was the original page, then yes there is something along those lines mentioned there, which is somewhat lacking at the Wikipedia:WikiGnome page. However, I have a bit of a problem linking an arbitration committee finding to an article which has a "humour" tag at the top of it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Disagree While it may be that Delta believes he is doing nothing more than WikiGnoming, it is not. WikiGnoming is the effort of making minor, uncontroversial edits which help to improve content -- usually fixing spelling, grammar & punctuation issues, although many other kinds of edits are considered to be WikiGnoming. What the majority of Delta's edits do is to evaluate content in regards to whether it meets the standards of Wikipedia's fair use policy. (Call it what you will, the non-jargon term used outside of the English language Wikipedia for this is "fair use".) His approach is to evaluate information about the contnet against the letter of Wikipedia's fair use policy, which leads to material deemed as failing to meet the criteria being removed. However, a number of people have aruged that in many cases this failure is a technicality which could be fixed with as much effort as it takes to mark the content as having failed. This has far more effect on Wikipedia content than a mistake with a comma, semi-colon, or confusing "which" with "that" -- the usual proccupation of WikiGnomes. -- llywrch (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I think there's an implicit distinction from anything dealing with his past NFCC patrolling from the more recent edits that brought us to this present situation. NFCC enforcement would certainly be far out of the usual scope of Wikignoming. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Concerns with Betacommand's editing

3) Numerous concerns have been raised in regards to Betacommand's editing, including both concerns with the substantive content of the edits as well as concerns with Betacommand's ability and willingness to communicate the purpose and nature of the edits to other users.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Background. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, though some links would be good for transparency/process etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Community sanctions on Betacommand

4) The community has imposed a set of restrictions on Betacommand in an attempt to mitigate the concerns raised regarding his editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Background. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

agreed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Currency of community sanctions

5) Since the time the community sanctions were imposed on Betacommand, several discussions have taken place regarding the possibility of removing those sanctions ([39], [40]). None of these discussions have resulted in the sanctions being removed, and there is no reason to believe that the continued existence of the sanctions is not indicative of a current and ongoing community intent to restrict Betacommand's participation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

First conclusion. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Lack of grounds to vacate sanctions

6) No evidence has been presented as to the existence of any factor which would be sufficient grounds for the Arbitration Committee to vacate the community sanctions on Betacommand.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Second conclusion. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Lack of grounds to commute sanctions

7) Given Betacommand's recent violations of the community restrictions, as well as his overall history of recidivism with regards to restrictions imposed on his editing, sufficient grounds for the Arbitration Committee to commute the community sanctions do not exist.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Third conclusion. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Effectiveness of community sanctions

8) The restrictions imposed by the community have failed to effectively mitigate the concerns raised regarding Betacommand's editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Fourth conclusion. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Intent of community sanctions

9) Given the monotypic nature of Betacommand's editing, the applicability of the concerns raised across the entire spectrum of Betacommand's edits, and the generality with which the community sanctions were formulated, it is reasonable to conclude that the community's intent in imposing sanctions on Betacommand's editing was to generally restrict Betacommand's ability to freely engage in "WikiGnoming".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Fifth conclusion, and probably the most important element of the case as far as the proposed remedies are concerned. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd not say restrict the editing behaviour per se but to try by any means possible to reduce the conflict it has engendered. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

There is a difference between 'restrict' and 'stop'. Would it be truer to say that the community's intent was to stop Beta from engaging in wikignoming ... (list here of qualifications, including perhaps 'considering each edit' 'responding to concerns' 'gaining approval for each tast' etc.)  ? Jd2718 (talk) 03:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that this is over-broad. Firstly in the use of the word "community" in that there seem to be certain reltively small factions at play. Secondly of those factions different intents were shown, viz: to stop him completely, to restrict him, to allow him to continue editing. Moreover there is limited usefulness in trying to divine the intent (UK courts are expressly forbidden, I believe, from trying to "divine the intent of Parliament"), the focus should be on achieving the best possible outcome. Rich Farmbrough, 00:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC).

Betacommand's desires

10) Betacommand has not indicated any interest in contributing to Wikipedia in a manner other than "WikiGnoming".

Comment by Arbitrators:

As far as I'm aware, in any case. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe NFCC enforcement should be considered as WikiGnoming. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this is unnecessarily complicated, and accuracy is lost by introducing a new term (wikignoming). why not just describe what he does. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Incompatibility of community's and Betacommand's desires

11) Betacommand's desired manner of participating in Wikipedia is fundamentally incompatible with the community's desire to restrict him from participating in that manner.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is implicit from #9 and #10, but might as well make it explicit. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is a leap in the dark (and an unwarranted admission of defeat), if the premises are shaky (which they are) the conclusion is a Tacoma Narrows Bridge constructed of waffles and cooked spaghetti. Rich Farmbrough, 00:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC).

Template

X) {template}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Community sanctions confirmed

1) The Arbitration Committee confirms that the imposition of restrictions on Betacommand's editing by the community was a legitimate exercise of the community's authority, and that it has found no grounds to vacate or commute these sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Betacommand banned

2) Betacommand is indefinitely banned from further participation in Wikipedia. This ban shall remain in place until such time as:

(a) Betacommand informs the Arbitration Committee of his desire and willingness to contribute to Wikipedia in a manner other than "WikiGnoming"; or

(b) The community collectively informs the Arbitration Committee that it has no further objections to Betacommand freely engaging in "WikiGnoming".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I guess this is the simplest solution, although you'll probably hear the "nuts" comments again soon enough... ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Nothing less is likely to work. --John Nagle (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

This has been the only method by which the issues regarding BC/Delta's conduct have been successfully addressed previously. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought the whole point was that they haven't been successfully addressed. Rich Farmbrough, 00:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC).

I thjink we should only use this as a last resort - and I think that ArbCom may be able to come up with a creative solution which is less than this and which could possibly work. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Od Mishehu has it. When all you have is a ban-hammer, every problem is a ban-nail. We have a whole universe of possibilities to work with. Rich Farmbrough, 00:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC).

This proposal is the quick & lazy way to address the problem. It's far too broad and overreaching. Surely ArbCom can come up with something better than this? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

why should they? this is just another example of how often I get ArbFucked™. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 23:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• I think it is clear that Betacommand is unable to function effectively on Wikipedia with his history. Making mistakes is part of life, and we learn from our mistakes and move on. Betacommand has been unable to move on as he is observed closely. The drama attached to Betacommand is detrimental to all - the community and Betacommand. I see three options - Protect Betacommand, Ban Betacommand, allow Betacommand a Clean Start. Protection would be unwieldy and time-consuming. A ban is clean, simple and effective, and in line with community consensus. A Clean Start would only be appropriate if Betacommand's edits were significantly error free, and the general consensus appears to be that his edits are not significantly error free. Has there been an analysis done of the last six months of edits? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Betacommand's edits are significantly error free. I've asked that ambiguity be lessened by clarifying some level as the threshold for significant. Without clarification it is hard to do a comparative analysis. In general however, most users editing Wikipedia average around 5% saves with error. Betacommand saves less than 3% with error. At minimum this is significant. The Clean Start provision is the best remedy available and I did wish to propose this. It seems it would require a willingness from Betacommand to accept as I do not know how such a provision could practically be forced. I would encourage Betacommand to accept this sanction as truly in his best interest. I feel certain that Betacommand has become polarized by an inescapable past. My76Strat (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think those stats mean anything, because of the nature of the edits. If my editing adds new relevant material to articles with a 5% error rate, then any one of my edits has 95% chance of contributing useful info and 5% chance of contributing info with an error, so I'm ahead by 90%, maybe a net positive. If my edits simply mess with template formatting or other stuff Elen calls "cushion-straightening" then it has 0% chance of adding useful new info, so if it also has 5% chance of introducing errors, it's clearly a net negative. Obviously this is an oversimplification but the point is that a heck of a lot of bot tasks (including most of Δ's) are unnecessary solutions looking for problems. We will be fine if they simply don't happen. If they do happen, the error rate should be held extremely low. 67.122.210.96 (talk) 05:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Template

X) {template}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by John Vandenberg

Proposed findings of fact

Unban conditions not met

1) On 11 July 2009, the Arbitration Committee unbanned Betacommand conditional on his full compliance with four restrictions including that his mentors send the arbitration committee monthly reports, and he must cease editing if the mentors withdraw. The mentors user:Hersfold and user:MBisanz did not meet their commitment to the unban terms[41][42], the Arbitration Committee did not pursue this unban term, and Betacommand continued to edit. In October 2009 the Arbitration Committee invited comments from the community regarding relaxing Betacommands restrictions. During July 2010, when some of the unban conditions were to expire, the Betacommand unban were discussed publicly in several forums, including two Arbitration Committee requests (e.g. WP:BN request by Betacommand on 11 July 2010; Clarification sought by Xeno on 20 July 2010; Amendment sought by NuclearWarfare on 25 July 2010). The community did not inquire regarding the mentoring, and the Arbitration Committee did not indicate that the mentoring condition had not been met.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. There is a lesson to be learnt here for sure. I'm not sure what the principle or remedy should be; the idea of enforcing this now feels wrong (Laches (equity) comes to mind). Betacommand should have complied with the conditions. The mentors, community and arbitration committee should have enforced them at a more reasonable point in time. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, I think this "monthly reporting" mentoring arranging is quite unique. The closest I can think of was user:Mattisse. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Mattisse was a whole different form of "complicated". I prefer "complicated" over "brutal", but yet agree with ASCIIn2Bme that complicated rarely works, and usually has a high opportunity cost that the community must bear. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Mattisse seems to be banned, so I guess that makes the monthly reports a twice failed experiment. (if WP:NOTTHERAPY wasn't compelling enough) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I agree that I did not send the reports as required. But I would like to note that Hersfold and myself exchanged several emails regarding incidents during the mentorship, so we were not totally asleep at the switch. MBisanz ^talk 02:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Article edit rate restriction

1) Δ is prohibited from editing more than three separate articles in a 24 hour window commencing at 00:01 GMT.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is based on #Δ restricted. The reset time each day could be adjusted based on BC's preference. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

If this is an alternative to a site ban, I support it as written. I'd suggest a limit of 10-20 articles per day, which is a fairly reasonable scale for human-type editing, and reviewable by others even if there's scripting involved. Further consideration of limits in other-than-mainspace is needed though, or a clear mechanism to deal with rapid edits in other-space should they become an issue. Franamax (talk) 04:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Most versions of this are fine with me at some level. I agree with CBM's observation that other namespaces should be covered too, but article space is where the most damage can happen. The idea of a very low page limit was for Δ to choose a few specific articles and edit them in depth, which is something he's never done and which I'd still like to see happen. But other proposals have converged towards 25 pages/day across all namespaces, which allows for a faster editing style while still being a backstop against the more destructive types of bot editing. 67.122.210.96 (talk) 07:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

1RR restriction

1) Δ is restricted to the one revert rule, with the 24 hour window commencing at 00:01 GMT.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The reset time can be selected by BC. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there have been problems here before. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I concur. - My76Strat (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Is reverting a problem here? If NFCC is out of the question, I'm not see Delta edit-warring on these small changes. --MASEM (t) 23:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

On it's face this seems like an extraordinary remedy, but I think sufficient evidence has been presented here and in previous cases around Beta's communication style and tendency to edit-war that this is a reasonable restriction. It gives Beta the choice to either engage in fruitful discussion, refer to a project/noticeboard, or just let it go. Masem, this actually opens the door to Beta eventually getting back into NFCC in a helpful way. Every NFCC patroller has to deal with that inital "WTF?" from people who see their work at risk of deletion, it's the followup that is crucial. Similarly for gnoming-type edits, getting reverted is really not that big of a deal, you just discuss it and get others involved to help - or move on. Franamax (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Granted, yes, but as I've understood it, the ban on NFCC is not going to be lifted by this case - this is focused on the small, large-scale edits, which I've not see any revert-warring over at all. If NFCC were part of this, then heck yes, 1RR is completely appropriate. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is that (with due respect to Beta, 'cause I don't think he means to do it) Beta seems to have a knack for bubbling out from under different parts of the lid. I see this as "setting conditions to succeed", and this paired with the articles/day restriction would set those conditions. We simply don't know what Beta is going to do next and if they decide to use their 4 articles/day to start enforcing whatever policy and start edit-warring to enforce their interpretation in questionable cases, that is almost certainly going to be fatal. Franamax (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I think Δ's engagement in any sort of policy enforcement isn't likely to end well. 67.122.210.96 (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by Elen of the Roads

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high quality encyclopaedia. Many roles are necessary to achieve this aim, and although content creation must have a high priority, the many roles involved in content maintenance - the vandal fighters, policy enforcers, copy editors, wikignomes etc, are also vital to ensuring that the encyclopaedia does not simply decay into chaos through the combined forces of vandals and the Second law of thermodynamics.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Some of us (and I'm thinking of me here) forget what valuable work the bot programmers and semi-automated editors do in keeping down the tide of effluvia --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Strongly support the principle, perhaps in somewhat different words. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Am warming to this idea. I'd lose everything from "simply decay" onwards, and replace with "erode" as my choice of verb. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Absolutely agree with this. Without behind-the-scenes roles there would be no Wikipedia to contribute content to. Thryduulf (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The last clause (or perhaps a couple of adjunct gerunds, who knows? from "does not simply" on) seems excessive. ArbCom should not be ruling on the fate of the universe. Absolutely agreed on the essential role played by the gnoming nerd hackers, definitely declared COI in that assertion. :) Franamax (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Franamax (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I like what the proposal is getting at. Yes all those sorts of edits are necessary, just like articles about abortion, the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the authorship of "Shakespeare"'s plays are important. That doesn't mean someone who repeatedly gets in trouble in a particular area gets to keep editing in that area. People get topic restrictions all the time, a practice that has been on the increase in the past few years as a kinder and gentler alternative to site-banning them. If you're suggesting having fewer topic restrictions and more site bans, that's fine (I have some sympathy for it), but you should say so. 67.122.210.96 (talk) 07:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Choke chains are for dogs

2) Wikipedia editors are - unless they themselves indicate to the contrary - assumed to be capable of reasoned understanding, and with sufficient grasp of the English language to be able to read and comprehend the various policies and guidelines. While there may be a need to sanction an editor to stay away from a topic if their personal feelings override their judgement and result in disruptive behaviour, there should be no similar need to impose "throttle" restrictions on editors in respect of automated and semi-automated editing. Either they are capable of editing in accordance with principle 1 using these tools - in which case they should be prepared to take appropriate responsibility if there are problems. Or they are not capable of editing using these tools - in which case they should not use them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Some of the restrictions proposed in earlier discussions (and in other cases) went from the sublime to the ridiculous. Bot/AWB editors are under the same rules as the rest of us, their edits have to be a net benefit to the project or they shouldn't be making them.Full.Stop --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

And at the same time, if they are a net benefit, then there should be community consensus to the activity, and the editor should deal with any errors or problems in the same way that any other editor deals with it if they made some kind of a mistake while editing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting conversation. My feeling is that there is no point restricting an editor to X edits per day if their edits are only useless cushion-straightening that introduces errors. Better to tell them not to bother. If they are actively contributing in a consensus area (eg removing a pre-defined typo, as Beta is trying to do at the moment, having run database analyses to find 'em) but there is a problem with accuracy, that needs a different strategy to deal with it.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the statement, but not the implication. Obviously, the simplest solution is to ban Betacommand, such that intricate sanctions are moot. I also happen to believe that's the best solution for Wikipedia, and most consistent with the multiple failures to get Betacommand's contributions up to community standards. Jclemens (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is far too simplistic. For one thing, it allows the "give 'em enough rope" approach, which might not always be the fair way to do it. More importantly, it disallows the approach of permitting community restrictions where a GF editor may or may not have a valid intention with their editing, but the overriding requirement is that those potentially valid edits be done at a rate sufficient to permit individual community review. This is a recurring theme - mass AFD nominations, mass creation of micro-stubs, mass categorization changes, mass "cleanup" edits. It's entirely reasonable that the community should have the option, where it's not unambiguously possible to determine "all bad" or "all good", to impose a restriction on rate of edits. Other proposals in this page address the details of throttling, but I believe the principle is sound. I believe the genesis in this particular case was a community ban discussion which I both opposed and sort-of "closed" [2 diffs not entered as evidence] in a way that avoided choice of a ban. I do believe this led on to CBM's involvement with the "ad-hoc" committee solution to the bot-or-not question. Rate throttling IMO is absolutely a potential solution. Plus the rather colourful heading, not only dogs are instructed to not do things too quickly, humans earning piecework rate are commonly placed in shackles to ensure their actual human hand is withdrawn from the stamping press before it cycles. Trying to do things too fast often leads to mistakes, but that's not a reason to prevent people from trying to do things at all. Franamax (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

What's happened here is that we have put Delta in a position where we have both pre-emptive requirements on him (must announce his intentions, etc. etc.) and reactive requirements (data editing rates). Given the implicit fact that no one is perfect and errors can happen, only one of these is necessary: either you pre-emptively make sure actions are approved and done correctly on a random sample of articles and then the editor go to town at an unbound rate (easier to manage overall), or you don't prevent the editor from doing something and force him to limit to a rate, which feels like a completely bad solution.

If you set up a very explicit process, fully aware that Delta's basically running a script to automate editing, that requires Delta to call out all these edits under a specific edit summary name, get approval and demonstrate said edits on small samples, and require him to stop and respond quickly and politely when a problem is spotted (just like we have BAG for actual Bots), then this pushes all the disagreements and the like to the front of the process that may take time in talk page debate to work out but avoids disruption of actual article space later. As soon as Delta is seen introducing a new type of mass edit without seeking approval and demonstration of the problem, you then can slap his wrist (temp block or the like) with a clear X strikes rule (I'd even say a 0 strike rule here if everything is clear enough). The trial period is where everything should be roughted out, and make sure that Delta is summarizing his edits in an appropriate manner. As I read it, this is what most editors want from Delta but are too preoccupied from making sure Delta cannot damage the work that they're not looking at the more proactive solution. --MASEM (t) 00:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

One problem, of course, is determining what a "new" task is, given the claims from a few editors that the most recent incident did not involved a "pattern" of edits. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Complete agreement on that factor. The way I would take it is as follows (and likely not in as many words): If Delta makes an edit with his automatic tool, that edit summary has to be clear it is coming from the tool among what other tasks it is doing. Delta should be expected that edits that are not of what has been explicitly approved will be met with potential blocks. Delta should expect that any edit that he does that otherwise does not name this automated tool in the edit summary will be scrutinized as to whether it is a bulk editing task that should have been approved before doing so, and the community is at its end such that if this does occur, an indef block is the most likely result. He needs to be very aware of this fact and avoid it: if he thinks that he's going to be doing something that will be considered a mass edit, take it to get community approval. (I would at least define both a number and rate here but, say, a common edit that affects more than 25 articles or that is done on more than 10 articles in any day period, so that it's clear that a small simple repeated task on 2-5 articles isn't mistaken as a pattern of editors). Perhaps there should be a mentor here specifically that Delta can turn to , and ask if a certain task will be taken as a pattern of edits or the like, and if the mentor thinks so, Delta needs to obtain consensus. But key here is that there is very little tolerance for introducing mass edits without alerting the consensus - again, everything on the pro-active side of the picture. There's bound to be a simpler way to state this, but that still captures the spirit of the matter of this FOF; once things are approved, there's no need to apply restrictions. --MASEM (t) 00:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

(e/c with Carl, who has largely scooped my sober analysis. :) Respectfully disagree here, as Beta has historically been uncooperative with requests to release software code for public review and has historically made apparent changes to that code without discussion. The classic past example I believe is using a bot to over-edit a page to put it within the MW software limits preventing admin deletion (yes, far in the past). IMO there is justifiable suspicion within the community as to whether or not Beta is willing or able to properly define and execute a pure bot (or bot-like) task at high edit rates. From principles stated (not yet enacted) above, it follows that a dual restriction is desirable, i.e. "ask permission first, then do it slowly enough we can be sure it's done right". If that is the wish of the community, then why not? It serves the purpose of improving the content of the 'pedia. Franamax (talk) 00:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, "do it slowly enough to be sure it's done right" is the whole point of the example period. And if editors want to have multiple test runs (first 25, then 100, then 200, or whatever) then so be it.

As for the source code, and that's a point I agree on, have ArbCom require Delta to provide the code in private to an uninvolved, bot-savvy editor appointed by ArbCom, require that Delta not make changes to this code without altering this editor, and be expected to indef block Delta should the automated edits fail to follow what the provided code says it does. (outside of trial periods, of course). I understand Delta's hesistation to open the code, but at the same time, sharing that would go a long way towards good will and intent. --MASEM (t) 00:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I would argue for a policy that all 'bots privileged to make edits to Wikipedia article space must be open source. But that's a separate discussion. --John Nagle (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

If the task is ill-defined, then what purpose is served by a test period? In computing terms, the problem space has not been sufficiently explored for potential errors in the face of an inaccessible algorithm, it's testing a "black box" and it never really ends. To expand on Nagle's point just above, the failings of BRFA (not requiring source code, and I will lead without evidence, possibly not always sufficiently determining full consensus for the proposed task) should not hinder a solution here. My observation is that requests to Beta for source code get met with "why do you want it?" and "my code is very powerful, I've seen other people make bad edits quickly". Neither of those arguments are related to disclosing publicly what exact code will be used to trigger any specific edit in context, nor what exact code will be used to correct the purported problem. I've yet to see anyone specifically request the (possibly proprietary) code which allows Beta to time and sequence their edits, the requests are to see the underlying logic (executed in portions of proposed code) of detecting, formulating, and executing specific edit tasks. I find those requests reasonable, but I would equally find a mentorship/code-depository of Masem and CBM to be pretty darn reasonable too, assuming they could pass the code around for further comment. Franamax (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I ask about who is using my code because I dont want powerful tools to fall into the wrong hands. I have yet to really get a serious request to view my code from someone I trust, and that would know what they are looking at, that I have not addressed. For example, User:EdoDodo asked for some information and I gave them one of my minor scripts. What I dont want to do is have someone who is clueless about that the code can do, attempt to use it. I dont build in the "Idiot Proof" features that programs like AWB have in order to prevent someone not familiar with the program from breaking something. Ive kept my code in a private SVN repo for quite a while and Ive also started a simi-public (restricted access) SVN if someone wanted to review my code. However it is my code and I will not just hand it out to anyone. If anyone wants access drop me an email and I can go over the issues/requirements for access. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 04:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

If the task is ill-defined, then what purpose is served by a test period? - if the first step of the process is to seek consensus to even add the task, the test period only comes into play once consensus had generally accepted the task but wish demonstration of it before allowing it to proceed. Consensus may then change as a result of the test period. That's the same model at BAG. --MASEM (t) 13:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Responding to Elen. The general philosophy of Wikipedia is that we don't spell out everything in policy-guidelines, and we expect editors to show sound judgment about their editing, perhaps with occasional mistakes. Unfortunately Betacommand has demonstrated chronic bad judgment, compounded by the use of fast automated tools (cf. a bad driver made worse by a fast car). The goal of the edit restrictions was to try to avoid a ban by substituting the judgment of other editors for the judgment Betacommand lacks. In the dichotomy you have set up, unfortunately the answer is that Betacommand "is not capable of editing using these tools". — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Concur with CBM. As for "choke chains are for dogs", when Δ acts like a dog (or a rogue bot), he should be treated as one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Elen. Fundamentally an edit either improves the encyclopaedia, makes it worse or leaves it the same. Without going as far was WP:FEET, we should be looking for net positive all the way. Anything else can be dealt with fairly easily. People who object "on principle" to improvements to the encyclopædia may have a point, but if it is one that WP:IARovercomes, they haven't. Rich Farmbrough, 00:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC).

Re Beta's "powerful tools": There's already PyWikipediabot, [43] an open framework for making changes in bulk. Since the MediaWiki API was developed, making changes to Wikipedia from a program is easy. If someone wants to make high-volume changes to Wikipedia, the open source tools are out there. Any claim that the release of Beta's "powerful tools" would pose a risk to Wikipedia is, at this point, bogus. --John Nagle (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

That ("the open source tools are out there") is certainly true. On the other hand, what little I have released has been taken and perverted to the detriment of the encyclopedia, while still "within the rules", so Beta does have a point. Rich Farmbrough, 23:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC).

Rich, I would be interested in more specifics about what kinds of problems you think releasing the code can cause. There's tons of other miscellaneous bot code already floating around, and the MW editing API is documented and easy to program, so I don't see the issue unless the code is doing something edgy. And Δ should definitely not be doing edgy things. 64.62.206.2 (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I respect Elen's work and her judgment in many areas but I think she is wrong about this choke chain principle. Wikipedia has many choke chains (the information security term is "velocity limits"), for good reason. As an unenrolled editor I have to solve a captcha whenever I add an external link to Wikipedia, a (good) choke chain designed to slow down link spammers. Any editor can revert anyone else's edits (except on protected pages), but reverting them in bulk requires a rollback permission that has to be granted by an admin and can be withdrawn if misused: another choke chain. Even non-editors wanting to read-only download Wikipedia data have a choke chain: http://dumps.wikimedia.org/ says "Please note that we have rate limited downloaders and we are capping the number of per-ip connections to 2. This will help to ensure that everyone can access the files with reasonable download times. Clients that try to evade these limits may be blocked." That is to prevent impatient downloaders from overloading the servers—we're quite reasonably protective of the capacity of this inanimate hardware. Why would we not also protect the capacity of human editors, our most valuable resource, to examine and fix edits, by requiring editors (especially those with a history of disruptive high-speed editing) to stick to relatively low speeds except for pre-approved operations? WP:BOTPOL is very clear, "Operation of unapproved bots, or use of approved bots in unapproved ways outside their conditions of operation, is prohibited and may in some cases lead to blocking of the user account and possible sanctions for the operator. (¶) Administrators blocking a user account suspected of operating an unapproved bot or an approved bot in unapproved ways should block indefinitely."

There is a workshop proposal that got some traction, to limit Δ to editing (say) 25 distinct pages/day maximum. Arbcom can't decide this but I'd actually be very happy if such a limit was implemented in the wiki software and applied to all editors, except those with a bot flag or rollback-like "gnome flag" that would be granted to editors with good gnoming records, and withdrawn in case of too many errors. That would have stopped a huge amount of painful drama over the years (think of the date delinking case). Principles like BRD and "anyone can edit" absolutely should not apply to high-speed editing, because of the difficulty of review and reversion. "Anyone can edit" is based on easy reversion, so it should not mean "anyone can run bots". That is a specialized function that (like adminship) should only be given by community consensus, either implicitly through BRFA, or through a wider RFA/RFC-like discussion in case of a bot operator getting into controversy. 67.122.210.96 (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Another example: WP:3RR is a choke chain that applies to every editor. Tightening it to 1RR or 0RR is a fairly standard restriction when editors get into so much conflict that 3RR becomes a license for disruption for them. That happens all the time and is sort of like what we're dealing with here. 67.122.210.96 (talk) 10:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Betacommand's contributions to the project

1) The substantial part of this editor's contributions to the project have involved using database tools, bots, scripts and other automated tools. This editor's skills lie in this area, and this editor's preference is to contribute by using these skills in maintaining the content of the encyclopaedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Statement of blinding obvious. More follows. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Not sure if this is fully supported by the presented evidence, but from my own observations over several years, yes, blindingly obvious. Colloquially, Beta likes to use his own or other's software to set up a list of targets, then execute tasks, often as fast as possible, from that list, often using proprietary software to execute the task. Franamax (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Δ is not a stupid person, and saying his skills lie entirely in the area of bots and scripts assumes facts not in evidence. He hasn't so far chosen to show us other skills that he might have, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have them. I'm sure he has some actual real-life interests (whether in programming, baseball, building demolition, or whatever) that are topics of Wikipedia articles, and that if he chose to, he could edit those articles at a skill level at least as high as the average random editor who finds their way to the project and whose contributions we welcome. If stuck to that for a while, I think he'd become a more well-rounded editor and get into less trouble if he were later allowed to return to running some scripts. 67.122.210.96 (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Betacommand has poor "customer service skills"

2) A major cause of the ongoing conflict has been that while Betacommand has good technical skills, they have poor "customer service" skills. While Betacommand no longer engages in activities like article tagging that require interaction with inexperienced editors ("Why did you tag my X for deletion???"), there remains a problem in cases where Betacommand must discuss problems with their edits.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I hope this isn't seen as a slight. I'm focusing on the "customer service" aspect - dealing with people who respond badly to tags etc - I'm not talking about general demeanour or personality. People who have excellent technical and customer service skills are not common, one should not necessarily expect someone to have both. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Elen, I wordsmithed, but please feel free to restore your previous version or make further edits. AGK [•] 15:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

"Customer service" is not the only issue; selection of tasks is just as important. Betacommand has a history of choosing tasks without adequately taking community consensus into account. One example from 2010 involved tagging a large number of articles as "BLP unsourced" when there were references which happened to be underneath an "external links" section header [44]. The poor customer service is often just a symptom of the real problem, which is poor judgment. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. In my interactions with Δ lack of "customer service skills" on his behalf did no strike me as the outstanding problem. The not-so-wise choice of tasks he chose to (semi-automatically) implement across many articles is the more significant aspect of the September-October incidents. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The most heated debate on Δ's talk page during that time did not involve Δ himself but User:Hammersoft, e.g. this long exchange with Tristessa. Basically, Δ did the doings and Hammersoft did the "customer service" talking. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

"Customer service" I think is the best term, and the statement hits in the right direction. --MASEM (t) 00:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• I do not disagree with this assessment. I do disagree with the need to assert it here. Is having good customer service skills now to become a criteria for editing without sanction on Wikipedia in general? There are quite a few people I would consider very poor at communication skills on this project. Are they all to be sanctioned now? If not, how are they any different than Δ such that they escape sanction but Δ doesn't? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

They weren't doing restricted actions such as blocking people or running bots. 67.122.210.96 (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Beta does not always pick useful tasks

3) While there is no evidence submitted that Beta sets out to edit unconstructively, he often picks tasks that have not been previously discussed, where there is not a previous consensus to make mass changes, and occasionally where there has been previous consensus not to make a change. Not all of these tasks are considered useful by the community, and some are considered unconstructive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Trying to capture the discussion above Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Good summary. 67.122.210.96 (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Editing errors have been an issue with Beta's automated edits

4) Automated editing will naturally amplify any error in the programming. If a lack of UAT is coupled with edits that are only marginally useful, or which have not been discussed more widely, then the community's patience may rapidly become exhausted, and this has happened on a number of significant occasions where Betacommand is concerned

Comment by Arbitrators:

Taking feedback from above. If we can define the problem, we may be able to define the solution. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Edits must be within consensus

1) Because of the potential impact of automated and semi-automated editing, Beta is disbarred from the WP:BRD process. He must be able to show that all his intended actions have the current agreement of other editors. No specific route is prescribed, but discussion at WP:Village Pump (proposals) or on the talkpage of the relevant project, template or whatever, is sufficient for non-bot editing. Bot actions must go through WP:BAG as normal.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is put up for comment and input Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

@Masem - excellent point about talkpages. Clearly this isn't aimed at single talkpage edits, and will need to clarify that. You've got what I'm after with this proposal - if Beta edits articles, he needs to have some kind of prior consensus to do so. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

One difficulty is that other people do not have the energy to monitor all of Δ's posts. If he posts on some obscure template talk page that he is going to edit 2,000 pages, with a very vague description of the task, and one other person respond "meh", is that evidence of agremeent?

The same problem holds for some of the other proposals here: they assume there is a group of other people who will perpetually monitor Δ, give feedback on his edits, etc. (and they assume he will listen to them). The problem is that, inevitably, people get tired of doing that, leaving him "unsupervised", at which point his poor judgement eventually brings us back here.

The "choke chains" proposal above says that if Δ cannot be responsible for his own large-scale edits, he shouldn't be making them at all. This proposal implicitly assumes he can't be responsible for his own edits, but then it disregards the other half. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

No one's edits are 100% monitored, that's unrealistic. But under this proposal, Delta would need to recognize that if he makes an edit that likely does not have consensus behind it, and someone finds that, he will likely face scrutiny and a very low tolerance towards an indef block if there's no justification for it. Mind you, we need to be careful of how consensus is considered here: say that Delta brings a page on an obscure (low view rate) topic into well-established MOS compliance (say, moving a ref outside of a sentence), and there's one editor that has been enthusiastically maintaining that page in the format they want it in, the editor will likely complain about Delta's action, but that editor's opinion is not consensus established by the MOS. --MASEM (t) 15:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

This proposal says, I believe, that Δ cannot be "bold" and has to get approval first. So there is no "likely" involved. But that sort of thing did not work in the existing restrictions, both because Δ ignored it and because it fundamentally is difficult to get other people to take the time to supervise him on a perpetual basis. If we keep basically the same restrictions as he currently has, there's no reason to expect any improvement. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Taken literally, this could read that any non-talk page edit that Delta does, he needs to seek consensus. That's neither appropriate nor possible to even enforce. But what it should mean is that if Delta is making any non-talk page edit, he better well be assured that he has the backing of consensus behind him such that the edit is clearly not Bold. If it is an edit that can be taken as part of a large bulk edit, he better have those tasks checked through via consensus. If it is a one-off edit like the moving of the reference example, he better be well sure that that adjustment is standard practice (which in this case it is). As soon as he does an edit that is not one of his consensus approved bulk tasks (that includes testing periods too), nor one that clearly is supported by established consensus (and I will give an example, his moving of refs to the reflist style, as the preference for this should be left to the article's editors), I fully expect that there be some punitive measure here per this remedy (following appropriate discussions). --MASEM (t) 17:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

All of these proposed enforcements hinge on Betacommand having at least a passing interest in listening to the advice and feedback of others. I'm not convinced the evidence supports this assumption. TotientDragooned (talk) 06:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The evidence is a bit convoluted consisting of a mixture of facts and biased interjection. (both for and against) Upon isolating the facts it becomes more and more convincing. (in the affirmative) My76Strat (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why "no one's edits are 100% monitored". I presume that all my edits are monitored by RC patrol and I'm happy to have it that way. If someone is editing too fast to be 100% monitored, they should have BRFA approval or something similar, or they should slow down. 67.122.210.96 (talk) 07:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Restriction on error rate

2) Everyone makes errors, but scripted editing creates the risk of introducing a high volume of errors in a short period of time. Beta is restricted in the number of errors he can make in a 24hr period, to ensure that he is not introducing a high volume of errors. All these restrictions apply only to errors which are not immediately corrected before the next edit is made - errors corrected at the time they are made are ignored.

1. no more than 3 errors that are exactly the same (eg. removing the same text, changing the same spelling, adding the same content etc)
2. no more than 5 errors arising from carrying out the same task (eg. fixing the same typo and introducing random errors around it, introducing the same content and randomly breaking the formatting)
3. no more than 8 errors arising from carrying out the same type of task (eg. fixing typos generally and randomly making mistakes, applying a number of different maintenance tags and breaking the formatting).

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is put up for comment and input. What is not acceptable is high volumes of errors that the community have to chase around to fix. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Language needs tightening, intention is that any of these is sanctionable. Will the idea work. It gets us away from "patterns of editing" and "what tools is he editing with" and into "what are the consequences". Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

@EdChem, open to good suggestions as to the language. This was a first stab, to see if this idea has any legs. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

@Rich, good thoughts. The figures are wholly arbitrary, so perhaps a percentage would be better. And the point of needing mass reverts should be reached only rarely, because mass reverting unless it's done pretty much immediately is a problem - I've seen it make a worse mess than the original mess when attempted too long after the fact. But if a reasonable break/fix rate can be set, then it would get people off monitoring every one of Beta's edits and complaining about one mistake in a block of 20 edits, which is far less than the number of mistakes I make (I just make 'em slower). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced that there is any justification for going this far to allow these sorts of edits. Occasional mistakes by editors are accepted as a normal part of editing; this, however, would enshrine a right to repeated and systematic mistakes. Frankly, if Betacommand is going to generate nearly 3,000 uncorrected errors per year—more errors than most editors make edits—then he needs to find a new hobby. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

If this is enacted it must be accompanied by language that makes it explicit:

• Whether in any 24 hour period 4 type one errors and no other errors is a blockable offence or not (i.e. if up to 16 errors of any type are permissible or whether the proscribed limits for each type are the key).
• Whether this is per task or totalled across all edits he makes in a 24-hour period - i.e. if he makes 4 type 2 errors fixing typos and 4 type 2 errors fixing "a orang-utan" to "an orang-utan", is this a breach of the restriction or not?

along with anything else that could be wikilawyered over. When dealing with restrictions in this case, history shows that precision is vital if we don't want to end up with a Betacommand 4 case. Thryduulf (talk) 10:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Elen, do you plan to define "error" in such a way that it is not open to subjective debate? I recognise you've offered examples that are clear-cut but it is the edge cases that will lead to debate about whether a less-than-perfect change is an error or not. EdChem (talk) 10:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Elen, I recognise that you are looking for a different approach that might work, which I think is a good idea. I have no idea what to do in this case, in part because some of what Δ has done was totally unacceptable whilst other actions have seen him treated outragously. What I do know from seeing some of the behaviour around the pattern issue is that there are editors who will twist anything remotely unclear around to use as a weapon, and so I wanted to flag that I see the potential for more battles around the meaning of "error". Maybe if ArbCom makes it clear with some sanctions that pursuing a vendetta against Δ is unacceptable, you could discourage some of the more egregiuos campaigns that have dogged him at times? Also, perhaps mandate that debates about the meaning of sanctions are prohibited, and that any specific case where the meaning is unclear simply be referred to the drafter for clarification of the intent? I don't mean that ArbCom decide every ANI complaint, simply short-circuit debates about what the sanctions mean and then leave discussion to truly disinterested and unbiased admins / editors. Just some thoughts... EdChem (talk) 12:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this idea has some problems, even if interpreted with GF. If someone attempts to correct 5 typos a day and makes 3 mistakes, then they need to find something else to do. If they correct 1000 a day and make three mistakes, then yay for them!

Also it's in the nature of assisted editing, which is in effect a multiplier, that mistakes are multiplied, as are correct actions. When this happens, going back and correcting the mistakes is something that is usually accomplished either with the same tools or mass reverting. In that sense 20 or 100 undisputed errors by Δ are no more of problem than 5.

Having said that I don't believe this case to be technical at base, I think it is about human relations. That is why I proposed a procedural way of handling the human relations side which avoids the friction. Rich Farmbrough, 00:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC).

What is the definition for "error"? At the heart of some of the issues here is that BC, and others who have historically supported his actions, do not believe that they are in error if they are following policy (sometimes even in defiance of agreed restrictions). Otherwise, who shall define what is an "error"? LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Naturally an error is not at all vandalism. It occurs when you cause an effect opposed to the intent of your edit. This predicates that your intentions were in good faith. Saving a misspelled word is an error. If your intent was to misspell the word, to misrepresent, that is vandalism. An error is synonymous with a mistake, and mistakes are not discouraged. Policy states: "Even poor edits, if they can be improved, are welcome." (synthesis mine) Also stated: "As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained." It follows that the editor making them should be retained as well. Even more so when the edits aren't even poor. Betacommand makes good edits, with only a relatively small amount of mistakes. Give him a Clean Start. We all deserve it. My76Strat (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

That policy you quote is for human editors, not bots. We don't have "bot personhood" here, or at least I hope we don't. 64.62.206.2 (talk) 11:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Requirement to UAT

3) When a new task is being actively discussed under sanction 1, then there may be a requirement to test code. In these circumstances, with the approval of other editors in the discussion, Beta may run a test which generates more errors than in sanction 2, provided all these errors are removed within 24 hours of starting the test run. It is acceptable during the test run that errors are pointed out by others - indeed it is recommended that Beta get a UAT group to check his edits and help fix errors if necessary to make his deadline.

Comment by Arbitrators:

UAT, the key to a successful implementation.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

UAT is great. BAG has a process for trial edits, which in my humble opinion is underused. Rich Farmbrough, 01:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC).

As I've said above, one or more test periods of this nature would likely do wonders to assure the editors that Delta's mass edits aren't going to be causing problems, as long as what he does is very clearly spelled out. --MASEM (t) 01:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Is the value (cost) of the effort required to supervise Beta greater or less than the value produced by Beta's efforts? --John Nagle (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

If a sensible approach were taken, viz: using automated processes, doing scaled testing, having a revert path, then the answer is unquestionably yes. If a weird process is used whereby he is required to follow kabbalistic restrictions for the sake of them, then the answer is yes for a different reason - those who will monitor such restrictions are unlikely to be doing anything non-destructive. Rich Farmbrough, 23:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC).

The value of doing what is right far exceeds the value of doing what is easy. My76Strat (talk) 02:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Template

1) {template}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {template}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {template}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by My76Strat

Proposed principles

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that "any one can edit". By the nature of this construct, it is written in policy to expect, even encourage, all manner of good faith editing. Policy shows it is better for Wikipedia to retain, "even a poor edit" over an error free version, with the same content removed. (provided the content is appropriate to the subject of the article, and would have remained. except for the error.)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

@My76Strat-03:40, Honey-topped misrepresentations in the 11th hour will only give you a soapbox to stand on and flail your rhetorical arms while the ship of facts is merely a dot on the horizon from where you stand, and is sailing away from you. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed - My76Strat (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

This is generally true for edits adding substantial content, for example a well-sourced pertinent NPOV new section in a small article where the sources are just bare http links, which is a "poor" edit in wiki-culture, but a good edit in wiki-overall-aims. It's less clear where edits are being made to existing text that correct some problems but introduce others, especially when most of the sub-edits don't improve the reader-visible text. Franamax (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

In word, it is true. By enforcement it is, as you say, only generally true. Because of its word, many of Betacommand's contributions which have been categorized as disruptions are by policy, defined as improvements. I find this dichotomy disconcerting. My76Strat (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

A neutral point of view is required

In striving for information that documents and/or explains the major points of view in a balanced and impartial manner, Wikipedia requires a neutral presentation of verifiable facts, without bias.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Relevance to this case? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed with further extenuation that discussions, especially public discussions like this ArbCom case should be held to the same requirement. - My76Strat (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

This is relevant because if the principle codifies true, it prescribes the best manner of strive to achieve "a well documented explanation". Because so many strive in opposition to this principle, "a well documented explanation" is not their congruent goal. Deliberate strives to undermine fairness, by documenting a convoluted explanation, colored with invective bias is disruptive. The egregiousness of this disruption exceeds that of vandalism, which is merely aesthetic, and tangibly harms a living person, the process of arbitration, and the institutional goals of Wikipedia. My76Strat (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have firm rules

Rules in Wikipedia are not carved in stone, and their wording and interpretation are likely to change over time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed with further extenuation that this principle applies equally to words and interpretations as they relate to sanctions and editing restrictions. - My76Strat (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Unrestricted editing

If an editor is editing in an area not directly restricted or affected by the broadest application of some related sanction they are as free to edit that area as another editor with the same user rights who has never been restricted by sanction.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Truism or platitude?! ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

My76Strat, after reading the explanation below, I see great potential in you, and so I encourage you to run for an ArbCom seat at the earliest opportunity! We need more straight shooters capable of awesome logic feats and unremitting courtesy. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed - My76Strat (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It's definitely not platitude. I assert it is a truism. If it codifies as fact, it and others, combined. can prove the assertions which you choose simply to mock. Another truism directly derives upon considering the condescending nature of your disruption. No one could demonstrate ever absent bad faith by your conduct. I hope it helps the arbitrators who are seeking this truth to see your 11th hour antics. My76Strat (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Betacommand

Betacommand has edited or withheld editing Wikipedia in accordance with ArbCom sanctions for the most recent 5 year period preceding this finding of fact.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The defendant has driven or not driven over the speed limit as the rules of the universe embodied in the simplest principle of logic hereby clearly attest, and God is witness. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

If what you are really trying to say is that he never violated ArbCom restriction in the past 5 years, then how do you explain the blocks for civility violations logged here, some of which explicitly refer to this remedy? It's true that the community restrictions also put him on civility parole, but arguably he violated both ArbCom and community sanctions simultaneously in that regard. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This fact has been shown in evidence. - My76Strat (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC) glad you concur

I do prefer simplicity over snide. And I am glad you concur. It actually shows you would rather contradict your own comments then pass an opportunity to demonstrate your intellect and wit. My76Strat (talk) 11:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course I am not trying to say Betacommand never violated a provision here and there. The intent in spirit is "has edited (when editing was allowed) or withheld editing (during periods here and there where a block was in place) Wikipedia in accordance with (every aspect of the cycle to include the blocks were iterations of the sanctions), ArbCom sanctions." My76Strat (talk) 04:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

An olive branch

Within the 5 year period where Betacommand was held to restrictive sanctions, reviews and modifications, he was never restricted against invoking WP:IAR. The spirit of this olive branch provided Betacommand some autonomy under sanctions that otherwise would have not been possible.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

IAR assumes that the edits unequivocally improve Wikipedia. I think there's disagreement that all of Δ's edits did that. In fact, a sizable part of them did not, according to a sizable part of the community. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

IAR assumes no such thing as what you have stated. A considerably larger group than the one you describe, well articulates with evidence the value of Betacommand's contributions. Evidence also shows Betacommand was in compliance to the letter of what IAR states, without respect to assumptions which seem to be entirely yours. My76Strat (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

IAR is worded conditionally. It most certainly does assume that the action improves the encyclopedia. Moreover, edits by banned users are routinely reverted, even if otherwise good. IAR isn't carte blanche to do whatever you want and ignore the community, even if some of your edits are good. --NYKevin @129, i.e. 02:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your comments NYKevin. The difference between you and ASCIIn2Bme being: that an edit should be seen to improve, agree, that the improvement must be unequivocal, disagree. My76Strat (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Exploiting a loophole

Invoking IAR from time to time is a healthy alternative, for both the editor and Wikipedia, opposed to the stifling nature of comprehensive adherence to the letter of restrictive sanctions, or even policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It's amusing to see yet another devil's advocate volunteer his services here, but when did Δ actually invoke IAR? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This finding is known from experience and observation. - My76Strat (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

While I understand your jubilation, I do not understand, or excuse, the manner in which you amuse yourself. You are not at liberty to declare my motives, in an attempt to reduce my credibility by claiming I am not being sincere, but instead playing a laughable role. My76Strat (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What is laughable or not credible about the role of devil's advocate? Have you read our article? It's a dead-serious role, although I must say you've not acquitted yourself particularly well, as your rather contrarian views don't seem to form a coherent diff-proven whole and arrive when voting on the Proposed decision has already begun. You are backing nothing here with specific citations, merely assertions, so it is indeed difficult to interpret your contributions here. Franamax (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand your reservations, To one point, I have only very recently returned to an active editing pace. I lament not being available earlier. To another point, I have shown some diffs in evidence which should at least show I had an active interest and involvement with Betacommand well prior to this case. Also that I participated in the ANI which preceded this case. And that the editing which spawned ANI and ultimately this arbitration were edits Betacommand accomplished while he and I were directly collaborating to achieve three specific goals. If there is a specific diff you want to see, ask. Do you intend to infer I can not produce a diff to show good edits in tandem with good faith intentions. While you have not asked to see a diff to any specific regard, I can also show diffs where I have asked, specifically, even challenged, to see certain diffs. I trust your intentions are sincere so I ask you to review from the diffs I have shown, also look at my edit history and you should see a period of a markedly different pattern of availability. And after considering some of these things, tell me how founded it is to speculate against my motives, even seeming to suggest that I materialized to this case without a comprehensible reason for being here such that I might even be a DUCK perhaps. Regarding the role of devils advocate, I never even suggested it wasn't or couldn't be important. I said what I said and "takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with, just for the sake of argument" implies what it implies. My76Strat (talk) 05:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Bad faith has not been shown as a motive for any of Betacommand's edits

Betacommand has never played games or attempted to make any points contrary to the best interests of Wikipedia. The ever absent bad faith extrapolates to show ever present good faith. And in no small measure, is reason enough for ArbCom to conclude these proceedings in the appropriate manner shown.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Forgetting WP:COMPETENCE and "ArbFucked™" maybe? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I see you insist on this red herring issue here 5 seconds to midnight, so maybe you should read the FoF from the proposed decision that insofar has attracted unanimous support from the Arbitrators. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Ah yes, AGF, a well-regarded ingredient in a good batch of fries. But "never"? What is your alternate interpretation of Beta 2 - FOF 4)(C)? Franamax (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

My interpretation is: youthful indiscretion compounded by a well intentioned "super-zeal". By the absence of bad faith, edits are at times "poor quality", but nothing less. To my eyes, evidence hasn't shown a smoking gun to substantiate any claims of "bad faith", nor have I seen a direct accusation to even claim such a practice. And I have directly collaborated with Betacommand, achieving several tenuous goals, and coming to understand with the perspective of first person. My76Strat (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

In particular, what is your interpretation of your claim here that Beta "has never ... attempted to make any points" relative to the fairly clear wording in 4)(C), "engaged in harassment and in disruption to make a point"? Franamax (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Community sanctions on Betacommand

The community has sanctioned Betacommand and imposed a set of restrictions in a mitigating attempt to remedy editing concerns raised against Betacommand. This remediation derives from the conclusion that Betacommand's editing presence was preferred, over his absence, and a belief that he could be mentored away from disconcerting practices while being shown ways to edit more productively.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Fact shown with further extenuation that the full benefit of the sanctions and their intent have been achieved. - My76Strat (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Remove community sanctions

The Arbitration Committee confirms that the restrictions on Betacommand's editing by the community was a legitimate exercise of the community's authority, and that full and complete remediation of Betacommand's formerly contentious style have been achieved. It follows that these facts provide valid grounds to vacate all sanctions currently in force.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Non sequitur much?! ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is the only remedy that affords succinct alignment with the results of this review by ArbCom. - My76Strat (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Betacommand is free to invoke a clean start

Betacommand is provided the following additional counsel: After consideration and evaluation of a benefit analysis it is recommended that Betacommand invoke the full provisions of a clean start and re-enter the community under the best possible circumstances and the most likely chance at success.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Betacommand has attempted a clean start before. It didnt work .. and IMO that is because he wants to keep his extensive WP friends network on IRC, and his communication style is consistent. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

WP:Clean start says: "The principle is that clean start is not a license to resume editing in areas the community might need scrutiny or where scrutiny has happened in the past. It is intended for users who wish to move on to new areas having learned from the past, or who wish to set aside old disputes and poor conduct." Do you really think that's going to be the case here? Is he going to stay away from maintenance tasks? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is the only remedy that gives Betacommand a fair opportunity to succeed. It falls within the remit of ArbCom and warrants full implementation. The voluntary nature of this remedy allows Betacommand to proactively demonstrate his sincere desire to edit Wikipedia in a constructive manner, non-divisively, and without the polarizing disruption that precedes his reputation. - My76Strat (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I can not speak for what Betacommand may or may not willingly accept. I can only repeat that I support this as a valid remedy, even as a resolution of first choice. If Betacommand did agree to the policy, and after giving his word to comply, which means not returning to the same pattern of editing, then yes, I would take him at his word. I am not aware that his integrity is in question at any level. Are you? My76Strat (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

A strict mentoring regiment under ArbCom sanctions

3) Betacommand is encouraged to conjoin the stringent supervision of a qualified mentor with any editing privileges he may retain at the conclusion of this arbitration. In proposing this, I agree to serve in the capacity of mentor and stipulate that I am qualified, have previously served as a mentor for others, (to success) and will dedicate the best of my ability to achieving success for Betacommand, the committee, the community, and Wikipedia overall.

To demonstrate sincerity I request that I be bound by sufficient clause and held accountable to endure in tandem any and all blocks that my be required for any reason appropriately summarized and attributed for cause against Betacommand. If he fails at any level it will be a failure of mine as well.

I assure with the weight of promise and the bond of word that I will monitor Betacommand and maintain a record of every relevant action, discussion, or third opinion sought to show, demonstrably, the proactive steps taken to achieve full remediation and productive editing rehabilitation. I will also maintain an up to date analysis of progress made. Additionally I invite ArbCom and any other concerned party to append concerns which they expect to be alleviated, so I may show their eradication as well.

If there is room to accommodate a request initiated here, I would ask that ArbCom provide a clearly delineated path to full reinstatement of normal editing privileges for Betacommand with established benchmarks in place. I beg the committee to allow some manner of editing from the main account across all name spaces to facilitate the recording and measuring of success. If he's not allowed to make a mistake as the consequence of a restriction or ban, having not made a mistake will have no assessable value. I will share with Betacommand, pride, when we can show the edits, collaborations, discussions, compromises, article improvements, and every other positive thing, with all afore held concerns vanquished. It will be pride in abundance for no one will say we did the easy thing, but rather the right thing, and that it was done well.

Comment by Arbitrators:

My76Strat, you are a gem. This lacks legs until Betacommand agrees to accept a mentoring arrangement with you as mentor. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I proposed a similar idea a while ago, with a different mentor (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3/Workshop#Proposals by User:Tristessa de St Ange) which was originally a part of my section. I have no issues with My76Strat. I just want to see something workable by all parties. The current system just isnt. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 17:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed - My76Strat (talk) 10:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Mentoring has failed two times before, so I am not sure how a third time would be different. Moreover, a mentor has a fundamental conflict of interest in being an enforcer of sanctions. If Δ does something wrong, it is difficult for any mentor to lobby for Δ to be blocked, because this reflects on them, so the mentoring arrangement only makes it more difficult for the community to handle problematic editing. So we would still need a separate set of objective sanctions to reduce drama at the enforcement stage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Carl, I am looking forward from here. It's folly to debate the past to such an extent that it dominates every comment. I'm not even sure I fully share your definition of failure. I am more interested in knowing how we succeed! That's what Δ wants, and I, and several others. And we are part of the community too. You should curtail speaking for the community, for all of us. You have stated "the mentoring arrangement only makes it more difficult for the community to handle problematic editing". By what authority do you sum up the entire community's voice through your own. And I do not see a reflection of my views at all. This proposal is said to conjoin with whatever additional sanctions might arise from this case. So there is an allowance for the development of a set of sanctions. You wonder what could be different this time. The first thing is that we, and others like us, can remember that we are colleagues. If we act accordingly, we will increased the power of our collective efforts. I'll seek compromise. Are you able to bend a little? Can I count on you for help? If you want things to be different let's do things differently. My76Strat (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone else said this in 2008, and I find it more accurate now than I found it then: [45]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

That comment may describe the 2008 version of Δ. It does not describe the 2011 version I have met, collaborated with and observed. This is also part reason I reserved that we may have different definitions of failure. If that was accurate regarding Δ in 2008, he has improved exponentially. If you can not see this yourself, some of our differences are actually fundamental. My76Strat (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Designating a free zone for editing

4) If an editor requests editing assistance where any member of the community could consider, Δ is as free to provide the assistance, in accordance with policy, as any other editor who could have seen the request. Such an edit would not count against any sanctioned limits, and no accumulation would be excessive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed - This would establish an area where Δ could demonstrate a variety of positive edits without being overly distracted by concerns that he might exceed some sanctioned allotment. My76Strat (talk) 05:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Δ can respond to WP:BOTR requests by launching more unapproved bots? Bad idea. 67.122.210.96 (talk) 09:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

All edits are required to be in accordance with policy. There is no provision to launch an unapproved Bot and this proposal would not create one. You indicate in your comment Δ has launched an unapproved Bot in the past. Please show diffs to substantiate this allegation or please remove it as baseless. My76Strat (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: unauthorized bots in the past: See items C and E here. Not exactly the same thing, but close enough. I could probably find something more interesting if I looked harder, though. --NYKevin @306, i.e. 06:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

My remarks pertain to this proposed remedy. There is nothing in the context that would excuse any of the types of conduct being shown here. Are you suggesting that this provision is an attempt to give Δ latitude to do these things, or that if he did any of the things you showed somehow it couldn't be a violation if this was to pass. I don't see it. Regardless, it is simply an academic point from here. My76Strat (talk) 07:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You asked for evidence that Beta had run unauthorized bots. I provided such evidence. I have no opinion about your remedy. --NYKevin @798, i.e. 18:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Generally I wouldn't accept "close enough" as conclusive proof. The uniqueness of the case however seems to allow it, so certainly you are correct. My76Strat (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Franamax

Proposed principles

Edits made by automated methods are held to a higher standard

1) Wikipedia editors are generally free to pursue their own areas of interest when editing. Some editors prefer to engage in repetitive small tasks, which in many cases is referred to as "wiki-gnoming". Some editors also choose to use computer-assisted automation in selection and execution of the tasks they perform. Editors are generally granted large margin for error in their editing, however editors using automatic means should expect extra scrutiny of the tasks they are performing. Repetitive edits using software assistance are normally subject to community scrutiny and approval, as with standard editing-assists such as AWB, Twinkle and the popups gadget, and even more so via the bot approval process. The expected error rate from approved tasks is extraordinarily low, since the computer code itself is relied upon to select the edits.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This seems reasonable to me. Jclemens (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Rather than focus on "automated", which is the method used to edit and is not provable, I would prefer we focus on the nature of the pattern of edits which are a) repetitive, b) high volume and b) fast. I.e. this could be titled "Repetitive edits are held to a higher standard". Also "wiki-gnoming" can also refer to slow and deliberate edits, so I think we should avoid mentioning that term in this principle. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I think this could be reduced to just high-volume editing without reference how that is achieved. Having to fix a hypothetical 5% error rate in 100 articles is perhaps not a big deal. Having to fix the same rate in 10,000 is surely more work, especially if you don't have an automated way of finding the errors. I think we see a similar problem at WP:CCI, which doesn't involve much high tech editing tools. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Seriously late to put this up here but it just occurred to me. One recurring theme I've seen on this wiki is that doing things fast and automatically attracts a lot of attention. Such a finding of principle of course has very broad implications across many editor activities (see eg at Elen of the Roads' proposals and discussion). There is an extra burden here when tasks are being done fast, as both the editor and the software could be making mistakes. Franamax (talk) 04:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that fast repetitive editing is potentially much more disruptive than tool assisted editing at a human pace. Unfortunately I also have strong indications that some editors are simply intent on preventing what they deem to be automated edits with little regard to efficacy. When I first started using wp:reflinks, it wasn't a week before I was party to an ANI, I felt was rather ugly. Since that time, I have used reflinks many times, but change the edit summary so reflinks is not mentioned. I've never had an additional problem which leaves me to believe that some editors discriminate simply for seeing that your choice of edit disagreed with their perception of propriety. I've been on the receiving end of accusations that I meant to impose my style preference when that was furthest from my intentions. My76Strat (talk) 09:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the general principle, subject to reservations mentioned by others (e.g. re the term "wikignoming"). The Betacommand 2 principle "Responsibility of bot operators"[46] also is good, and I mentioned it in my own proposals, as is the standard "fait accompli" principle. I think per MEATBOT we should give up trying to distinguish between automated and unusually fast manual or semi-manual editing. The issue is the speed and volume, and the suspension of thoughtfulness by the person who is editing so fast (by whatever means).

I'd say there's something of a "moral" issue too though. If a careful human editor makes a mistake in an edit, I don't mind fixing it, on the theory that I make plenty of my own mistakes and I'm grateful that other editors fix them, so I should do the same. But a bot is just a damn tin monster of subhuman intelligence (even if its programmer is very smart), so it's offensive to require humans to examine and fix its messes, especially given the difficulty presented by high editing volumes. This also applies to humans editing in bot-like fashion, i.e. with their brains switched off. Such editing plans should only be carried out after prior discussion and with a very low rate of errors. 67.122.210.96 (talk) 04:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

"Automation" is judged by proxy measures

2) Unless specific source code is provided to verify a claim of automated editing, it is not possible to determine whether an editor is or is not using script or code-based assistance. Community assessment of the degree of automation used will necessarily depend on the nature of the edits themselves. "sutomation" is judged on many factors, including: the speed of edits in any given period of time; the quantity of edits over sustained periods; the repetitive nature of edit tasks; whether singularly or in combination in any given edit; the edit summaries used and how well those summaries describe the edits; repeated undetected/uncorrected errors. A combination of these factors can be construed as automated, or automation-assisted, edits.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I don't want to break the purity of my first principle, which I think is important as-written. This principle follows, and I think is unfalsifiable. If you consistently improve articles to GA level, yes, that's a pattern of edits. If you (as often claimed) set up 30 browser tabs and commit them all at once, that is a burst of editing. If you spend a few days straightening out a category tree on 50 articles, creating new categories, annotating category pages, using the edit summary "clean cats", you are using a repetitive edit summary which doesn't explicitly describe each action. All these are fine - unless you're a bot. Franamax (talk) 06:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

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. My76Strat (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Proprietary bot code is undesirable

3) Wikipedia is built on a foundation of software released under free licenses and is intended to be an open project. Custom-written bot software is welcome where it solves identified problems. In all cases, open-source softwre is preferred over closed-source or limited distribution software. Any software used to maintain Wikipedia should be executable by another editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Given that several BAG members only provide closed-source bots of their own, I don't think this has actual consensus. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Maybe editorializing or maybe another fundamental point. One of the arguments against banning Beta has been that SPI can't survive without his bot. Beyond the flaw that SPI has made itself too complex is an underlying flaw: mission-critical procesases cannot depend on proprietary code. The essence of this project is that our work survives, whether or not each of us is here to see it. BRFA does occasionally support this principle by asking for underlying source code / regexes. Franamax (talk) 06:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Configuration_tips says "Authors of bot processes are encouraged, but not required, to publish the source code of their bot." I'd like for the policy to be stronger per the project's principles (especially for long-running bots, which can be thought of as part of the server), but arbcom is limited in how it can handle this. Regarding the SPI bot: I do note (per ASCIIn2Bme's mention above) that MZMcBride offered to rewrite the SPI bot[47] and I'd expect that a request at WP:BOTR would get plenty of other takers. In any case, IMO we absolutely should not let the supposed indispensibility of the SPI bot dictate the outcome of this case. I'm just boggled by this whole thing. If an admin was on his third arb case for blocking people inappropriately, we wouldn't argue against desysopping on the grounds that he also blocked some actual vandals. Similarly, someone on their third arb case for running persistently disruptive bots isn't excused by having also run a few useful ones. 67.122.210.96 (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

SineBot is open code, ClueBot NG is open code (though closed-group configuration I think), HBC AIV helperbot7 is open code, HersfoldArbClerkBot is open code, SCSbot is open code, I'm pretty sure Miszabot is open code. Did I miss any of the "infrastructure" there? But yes, there is no requirement for open source, which is why I worded it as "preferred". As in JV's proposal at the PD page, that is an option which can be enforced as a remedy. It is a preventive, rather than punitive, measure. Franamax (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't have any problem with your proposal, I can just imagine problems passing it, and pushback from the bot community if it passes with the current wording. I agree that requiring code release is a legitimate potential remedy in a case like this (I in fact made such a proposal). I haven't paid much attention to which bots have released code; I just remember Cluebot as a particularly compelling example. 67.122.210.96 (talk) 09:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Betacommand engaged in a series of automation-assisted edits

1) Over a recent period of time, Betcommand engaged in a series of repetitive edits constituting a pattern, in that they showed signs of uniform (random) target selection and execution of a set of patterned edits based on which particular aspects of the selected page triggered an editing rule in the software. These edits were largely titled "Cleanup" in the edit summary. Not all of these automation-assisted tasks had been previously vetted by the community, and no indication was made which particular sub-task was executed in any edit.

Comment by Arbitrators:

You'll need to increase specificity, and include some sample diffs for this to be adopted, but it seems to be designed to fit an identified gap in the FoFs.. Jclemens (talk) 05:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Unless you think Tristessa was plain bullshitting on ANI, this seems indisputable. And a diff for lack of prior approval is obviously impossible to produce. Some of this was covered in CBM's evidence. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, see Special:Contributions/Shimane Kanagi for a similar incident in 2009. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Not particularly going anywhere with this, but I'd like to know what ArbCom thinks here, to me the "pattern" here is pretty obvious, but it was somewhat vehemently disputed by some editors - so I'd be interested in knowing if I and many others were dead wrong on that. I'd also be interested in Beta's view on this, while I'm sure they would add more, I think my statements above are factually true. I also believe (but not totally sure) that the evidence already presented supports this finding. A determination would be helpful going forward. Franamax (talk) 04:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I felt there was ridiculous wikilawyering over "pattern" but to my surprise there were also some otherwise-sensible editors who weren't convinced. I'll try to find the diffs. 67.122.210.96 (talk) 09:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Betacommand is restricted on a page per day basis

1) Except for the restrictions and exceptions appended, Betacommand is limited to editing from one main account and approved bot accounts. The main account may edit any 10 pages in a 24-hour period beginning at 00:00 UTC each day. Participation on talk and project pages, to discuss either the specific edits, underlying policy, or interpretation of these remedies does not count toward the page limit.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

If Beta makes edits at a scale reasonable for others to review, I don't care how many computers he uses first, simple as that. This incorportes NYB's proposal 7, as Beta can choose to create/update pages for others to work from, and can discuss (not spam-notify to user talk) the implications. Or fix a category and explain what is happening. Or bring 10 articles to GA simultaneously. Franamax (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I can easily support this proposal. I would like it if there were incremental increases for successive months of compliance and good faith indications, with an end game in sight, but accept it in its current form. My76Strat (talk) 08:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

This wording seems pretty good to me. I don't see any need for incremental increases outside of the regular appeal process. 67.122.210.96 (talk) 09:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Betacommand restricted to 1RR and 0R for bots

2) Betacommand's main account is limited to 1 revert per page per day. Bot tasks approved henceforth may not make an edit which reinstates or repeats a prior bot edit.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Firm limits. The "making GAs" model crumbles here, but that can be addressed in the eventuality. This should cover everything else, problems can be taken to talk / noticeboards. Franamax (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I concur that this is prudent, and should go far to alleviate concerns that Betacommand is attempting to impose his style preferences, while allowing that he should be entitled a collaborative impact in the spirit of BRD. My76Strat (talk) 08:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Civility restriction reconfirmed

3) Betacommand is subject to the same civility restriction as implemented under the previous community sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Needed for the time being, Beta seems to chug along just fine, then explode. There are often signs of increasing frustration, which is where it all needs to end. Outbursts need to stop, also any feasible resort to low-key derision. Since we don't know yet what civility is, this should be easy to pass - right? :) Franamax (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe civility requires a remedy beyond expecting what is already expected by pillar and policy. A closing admonition to comply with the letter and intent, subject to blocking should be sufficient. My76Strat (talk) 08:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Bots are allowed

4) Currently approved bots run by Betacommand may continue to run their currently approved tasks. Betacommand is free to seek approval of additional bots, provided that they are run under separate user IDs for separate tasks. The Bot Approval Group is urged to ensure that requested tasks have community consensus (e.g. by request at VP/PR) and to request (or for mission-critical tasks, insist on) source code such that the task may be carried out by another competent editor. Edits made by the main Betacommand account to correct bot errors or explain bot actions will not count against the 10 page/day limit.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

For real on the bot approval stuff, anything outside of that should come to ArbCom for clarification. Good Beta-bots = valuable edits. Beta can choose to use one of their 10 pages / day for a BRFA. Simple. As far as requiring source code, maybe I'm out ahead of the community here, but it follows from my principle above. Plus I love that "we urge" stuff, who came up with that anyway? :) Franamax (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

This proposal my not be as unambiguous as intended. I can foresee the testing regiment associated with preparing the bot/tool being easily labeled as normal edits in some form of a violation. Some of the evidence here surrounds edits made pursuant to such requisite testing, and I don't believe this point has been firmly established. My76Strat (talk) 08:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

10 pages per day - that's enough from the main account to pre-prove a bot task. Almost nothing ever on en:wiki absolutely needs to happen in one day. At the actual BRFA stage, they give explicit permission for a trial run, which is done from the bot account. Still bulletproof IMO. Franamax (talk) 08:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree but where you exclude "Edits made by the main Betacommand account to correct bot errors or explain bot actions will not count against the 10 page/day limit." you appear to waive the 10 page rule which is the area I see as ambiguous. I may not be clear but my intention is that if the 10 article limit is to be the actual litmus then it may not be possible to exclude that limit in such a manner as this example shows. My76Strat (talk) 09:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

NFCC ban confirmed

5) Betacommand is subject to an ongoing Arbitration remedy wherein they are banned from <blah blah>.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I have no great interest in going here, as I made what seemed to me a straightforward block by my interpretation, which did seem to be a little controversial. Rehashing the incident wouldn't be productive here (though I have no problem with being told I was wrong) - just looking for clarification going forward on whether and how NFCC is involved in all this. Community sanctions may be superceded, but this is an AC sanction. Personally, if Beta wants to use their 10 edits a day on NFCC and comply with all the above, I have really zero problem with that. Franamax (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

This is an area I am least familiar with. I would like to say I don't believe certain edits, ie to revert vandalism, or remove copyvio text and or images should ever be regulated in advance. In such cases, the editor must be free to uphold the higher values of the institution. These should not be counted as restricted editing. This does not imply that sound judgement is not required nor that Betacommand shouldn't be held to answer or subject to blocks when necessary. My76Strat (talk) 08:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

There are some attempts further up to defend Δ's style of editing as "wikignoming", but I can't agree with that. Gnomes are mythical (supernatural in some tellings) non-human entities, so specializing in "wikignoming" is already in some tension with "editing like a human". More importantly, "wikignoming" to me evokes completely low tech, manual methods, befitting the medieval-style garb of the gnomes (picture). I also think of gnomes as paying very careful attention to detail, treating every article and citation as a precious gem to be cherished and perfected. Δ engages in indiscriminate mechanized editing with little or no demonstrable concern for actual subject matter (despite any perfunctory manual review). We are talking about bot-like editing (picture), not gnome-like. They are completely different things. The /Evidence_talk discussion of Fram's diff [48] gives a comparison of what a gnome might do, vs. what Δ's bot script seems to have done. I wouldn't describe any of Δ's editing as gnoming. 67.117.144.140 (talk) 03:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The basic problem with Δ's 'bots was that they made too many mistakes. No one else could fix them, because the code wasn't publicly visible. Δ's own messages indicated that he didn't use source control or off-line testing. (See Capability_Maturity_Model. This is level 1 work, "chaotic, ad hoc, individual heroics".) Eventually, he was banned from running 'bots. This led to an era of 'bot like editing with semi-automated tools, with roughly the same problems being reported. The fundamental problem is that this user is not a good programmer. Nor does his work seem to have improved much in the last five years. (Yes, there's a civility issue too, but if the code worked better, that would be less of a problem.) You just don't let people like that work on the live database. --John Nagle (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest you to take a look at Δbot's contribution before making a fool of yourself? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Nagle, wow I havent seen such a blatant personal attack directed at me in a while. I am a very good programmer. take for example, http://notabilia.net/ I provided the raw data for that user and his thesis. I run tools:~betacommand/UserCompare a report for finding socks. tools:~betacommand/AFD.html a breakdown of every open AfD. I also have User:Δ/Copyvio Detection Candidates.js and User:Δ/Fix Infobox.js which are both tools that are used by the masses with no issues. I also am in development of a Reference tool that User:Piotrus requested. Its a fairly complex tool with just a few minor tweaks left to adjust before its ready for mass distribution. Most of the edits by BCBot where fairly error free, There where a few tweaks to how it operated that I wasnt able to implement. But the actual "error rate" was very minimal less than 0.5% ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 21:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I would guess that User:BetacommandBot is the previous work that was being referred to. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

John, I don't have any opinion of Δ's programming ability (I've never looked at his code) but I don't think program bugs are the issue here. The program as far as I can see in this instance was working as intended. The problem is that this type of editing should not be done by programs at all. It takes human judgment and thoughtfulness about the article content, which is not compatible with Δ's style of mechanized editing. 67.117.144.140 (talk) 04:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a good way to look at it. My point was that some of the things that have brought Δ to arbitration and AN/I again and again (yesterday was the 5th anniversary of his first block[49]) could be done by much better programs. Some of the BetacommandBot problems in the non-free area came from failure to properly handle Wikipedia operations like moves, causing valid images to appear to be unreferenced and in some cases actually deleted.[50]. A well-written 'bot designed to err in the direction of not deleting, written by a competent programmer, might be preferable to inept script-assisted manual editing. --John Nagle (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

John, yet more personal attacks, lies and miss-statements by you. failure to properly handle Wikipedia operations like moves is an utter lie. BCBot handled regular moves perfectly well. The case that you bring up isn't an issue of a simple move. What happened their was a significantly more complex situation. The Silver Branch started out as a stub article on the book which existed for about 6 months. It was then cut/pasted to The Silver Branch (Sutcliff novel) and the original page was changed into a disambiguation page. There was no move log, nor redirect left behind so how is a robot supposed to detect that? <side note> Im going to find an admin to fix this cut/paste situation.</end note> BCBot never tagged a file for deletion due to just a simple page move. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 20:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. BCBot did not delete files without rationales. That was left up to independent administrators. If an administrator is not properly reviewing issues before deleting you should bring those issues to the attention of the said administrator. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 20:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably true. Two of Beta's bot's edits (1) deleted the rationales; and (2) tagged images for not having rationales. You can't really expect the admins to notice the sequence if done with different bots at different times. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

@John Nagle, your characterization of Δ as inept goes beyond anything I've seen in evidence and encroaches incivility. This to your own detriment because you have prejudiced the credibility of your participation here. There's no second chance to make a first impression. Here you have shown a potential to be disingenuous at the very least. My76Strat (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

After five years of blocks, bans, arbitrations, and general headaches with this editor, almost all associated with automated or semi-automated edits, it's reasonable to infer a certain degree of ineptitude. If a "fresh start" would work, this issue wouldn't be in arbitration again. --John Nagle (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that reply. Of course, it is your prerogative to extrapolate circumstances to fact as you deem appropriate. My lexicological compass may be broken, but it points "inept editing" to mean always. If it allows varying degrees as you state, it would still seem to sit in context, as an invective, but to a lessor degree. Oh well, fuck it who cares? My76Strat (talk) 06:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Notes on the name and history issue

WJBscribe (talk · contribs) recently commented in Evidence [51] on the process by which "Betacommand" became "Δ". That was an amusing saga at the time. Because of the way it was done, it concealed the history of blocks and bans. The bureaucrat's note was "Such that the user has added a conspicuous note to their talk page, I see no reason not to grant their request to delete their userpage per U1."[52] That "conspicuous note" is no longer present, and disappeared by the end of 2010. "Δ" fought any mention of a link to "Betacommand"[53][54] The renaming process itself involved a considerable amount of obfuscation through multiple moves and deletions, resulting in the deletion of history. The history of User:Δ only goes back to March 2011.[55]. Reading the archives of User talk:Δ, incidentally, gives a sense of the vast number of people annoyed with this editor's activities. The page is set up for very frequent auto-archiving, so unless you look at the history, you don't see the full scope of the dissatisfaction. --John Nagle (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Notes on the proposed remedies

We seem to be coming down to one of two alternatives:

• A new set of restrictive rules for "Δ" combined with strict mentoring. There are several different proposals for this.
• An outright ban.

It's up to ArbCom now. --John Nagle (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

When you put it that way, that is essentially the same decision we had back in 2008 when the sanctions were put into place. The choice then was between banning Δ, or coming up with a strict set of sanctions instead (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/I_have_blocked_Betacommand#New_proposal and the section below it). At the time, the choice we made was to go with sanctions, even though many editors at that time expressed the argument that enough is enough.

Looking back at Δ's editing since then, it seems that the current problems are not very different, and that Δ has not been successful at resolving the issues that led to the sanctions. The following comment from that discussion stands out:

Why bend over backwards to work with Betacommand when he makes no effort to work with us? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

— Carl (CBM · talk) 20:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I could not agree more. Back to square one. --Asterion^talk 00:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)