Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	21 Dec 2024	11 Jan 2025

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Armenia-Azerbaijan_3	none	(orig. case)	4 January 2025

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Motions regarding User:Δ (formerly User:Betacommand)	8 July 2011

Motions

Motions regarding User:Δ (formerly User:Betacommand)

For this motion there are 15 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	8
2–3	7
4–5	6

Motion: User:Δ topic banned

Pursuant to the provisions of Remedy 5.1, RfAr/Betacommand 2, 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.

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 20:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
2. This motion is my first choice. The Cavalry (Message me) 21:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
3. Clearly too much editor and administrative time is being consumed by disputes over Δ's non-free content criteria enforcement: by my count there are threads within the last 48 hours at AN, ANI, Δ's AN subpage, AN3 (2), Wikiquette alerts, AE, and DRN. –xeno^talk 21:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
4. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
5. I have read the comments below in the discussion section, and while I do understand where people are coming from (in that Δ is essentially trying to enforce one of WP's core policies), however, to put it blunt terms.. in doctor's terms.. their bedside manner sucks, and they have been asked to improve it, time and time again, and they either can not or will not. A couple statements below also bring up BLP violations and try to equivocate it to what Δ does. However, that is a logical fallacy. We have carved out an edit warring exemption to 3RR for violations of BLP policy. There is no such exemption for NFCC violations. I'm not going to say whether there should be or not. We're not dealing with "how it should be", but how it is. In short, Δ is "right", but in the wrong way, consistently. SirFozzie (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
6. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
7. Part of what is required for a collaborative project is the ability to collaborate. Δ does work that is, fundamentally, correct and useful but he consistently does it in a manner that is so egregiously combative that it causes more disruption than can possibly be justified. He has been asked, begged, cajoled and otherwise encouraged to alter his approached over years to no avail.

   Even if we granted that everything he does is perfectly in line with NFCC, the manner in which he does it causes so much acrimony and disruption that it cannot be allowed to continue. — Coren ^(talk) 01:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

8. I think indefinite is warranted in this case as we've seen him time and time again repeat habits as soon as restrictions lapse. As Coren points out, Δ often does the "right" things in the "wrong" ways, causing more harm than good and wasting everyone's time. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
9. Should have been imposed as a condition to begin with. Cool Hand Luke 23:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. In the discussion, Black Kite and 28bytes make valid points. I think an indefinite topic ban is a little excessive, but given the ongoing nature of the concerns, I'd support a 3 month ban as suggested by Rd232. In addition, a 1RR/day restriction could be worth considering. PhilKnight (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Abstaining for the minute, trying to digest other concerns and figuring out if there is any other way forward. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrator discussion regarding scope of topic ban

We should ensure that we are all on the same page regarding the scope of the proposed topic ban now, rather than having to deal with a clarification request at a later date. How I interpret this proposal is that edits that enforce the non-free content criteria are prohibited, for example:

• 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
• Issuing warnings to users regarding non-free content criteria

However, edits that correct obvious errors (i.e. repairing an obvious mistake in a fair-use rationale) to make a particular image more compliant (it would be absurd to say that Δ cannot fix an error in a fair-use rationale, as this means that if he uploaded an image but made a mistake in the rationale, he himself would be unable to fix his own mistake), or edits to article or file talk pages that merely suggest potential non-free content issues exist (for example, to bring attention to pages to allow others to review NFCC compliance issues) would not be prohibited - see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request exemption of restrictions for two bots tasks that Δ has proposed that, under this interpretation, would not be precluded by the topic ban if they were approved by the committee^[1] and the WP:Bot Approvals Group. –xeno^talk 15:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Motion 2: User:Δ site banned

In breach of the provisional suspension of their community ban, Δ (formerly known as Betacommand) has engaged in conduct injurious to the encyclopedia and the indefinite community ban is hereby reinstated by motion of the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 20:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
2. I'd rather it does not come to a full ban, and would prefer the NFCC motion. However, in my opinion, Δ's extreme interpretation of the NFCC policy and refusal to compromise is hurting the project more than it is helping. It antagonises and ultimately drives away users who are acting in good faith, but I do understand that Δ does a lot of good work with the project in other areas, and I commend him especially for his work with Δbot (talk · contribs). The Cavalry (Message me) 21:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
3. Second choice for now, though I am unconvinced it will not come to this regardless; Δ has an unfortunate history of aggressively pushing the limits of any restrictions placed on him, and I fear that even the straightforward topic ban above will not be adhered to. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
4. I'm rather surprised that, after disruption after disruption, there are arbitrators who actually oppose this motion. Note that these motions are separate issues, and if both pass, both will be implemented. Jclemens (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Δ is capable of doing good work other than NFCC enforcement without issue; for example, Δbot (talk · contribs) has been quietly chugging away with no complaints. –xeno^talk 21:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
2. I think he can and does do good work elsewhere, so all that is necessary (for now) is the removal from where he is disruptive. SirFozzie (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
3. I don't think this is justified at this time. Δ has a chip on his shoulder the size of an aircraft carrier regarding NFCC enforcement, but I see no evidence that his work elsewhere is nearly as problematic. — Coren ^(talk) 01:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
4. I think a temporary site ban could be worth considering, however an indefinite site ban is somewhat excessive. PhilKnight (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
5. I'm not entirely sure that Xeno is correct in that Δ can do good non-NFCC-related work, but I'm entirely willing to give him a chance to be non-disruptive in other aspects. If it's only the NFCC issue that's the problem, we only need to avoid the near-occasion of sin here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
6. Give complete topic ban a chance. Cool Hand Luke 23:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Abstain:

Copied from User talk:Δ

If requested, an arbitration clerk will provisionally unblock so Δ may participate directly

Its an obvious farce, run around the community, both of their motions have been proposed and failed to gain consensus. If arbcom actually had a backbone they would remove all current sanctions that are placed on me (except perhaps the CIVIL) and give me four months to get this issue fully under control. Wikidemon by his own words has a 28.57% error rate, I know for a fact that my error rate is less than a tenth of that (3%) with my NFCC#10c removals. If anyone wants to disprove that Ill get a full listing of every NFCC#10c removal that Ive made for them to review. If can find a higher error rate (and I mean actually errors where 10c was met and I still removed the file) Ill stop my 10c enforcement of my own will. However I know that my error rate is far less than that. But getting back to my main point in four months I can get 10c removals to a handful per day with plenty of notification, warnings, and a binding NFC review system for individual article/files that is as binding as FFD or any other XfD. This whole process could become a lot more streamlined and manageable and user friendly, however as it stands getting these implemented has a snow balls chance in hell due to all of the loopholes that I have to jump through. So my counter proposal is this, arbcom give me 4 months of free rain and let me implement everything that I want, stop the harassment and stalking against me, and lets get the whole issue addressed and under control (its been 4 years already, far too long). Otherwise ignore the community and ArbFuck™ me again. Ive proposed multiple solutions over a long period of time but due to the excessive hoops Ive had to jump through, unable to implement. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion re: Motion1

• I wonder, just how many times does it take to make something stick to a wall? It's certainly less than how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie roll tootsie pop. These endless proposals for this, that, or the other band are insane. Everyone is effectively saying "Δ, until your morale and attitude improves, the beatings will continue". The results here are utterly predictable. ANYone forced to put up with as much abuse as he has suffered would have "issues" with his behavior. Want a real proposal? How about a moratorium on the *()#@$@#! endless ban/topic-ban/beat-senseless proposals. Those arbcom members voting support of either sanction are ignorant of the underlying issues that are happening right now and the constant, unending harassment for the work Δ has been doing. You are railroading Δ, pure and simple. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• A topic ban was proposed at WP:AN, and failed to reach consensus. A site ban was proposed at WP:ANI, and was snow-closed amid overwhelming opposition. For ArbCom to resurrect both proposals in an explicit attempt to override what the community has decided feels like a bit of a slap in the face, to be honest. 28bytes (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed. Thoroughly agreed. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
• I've get to see any policy state that a 65% majority is not enough to enact this ban. It failed only because no one was willing to enforce it yet. It didn't fail consensus based on any policy.--Crossmr (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• It failed because it didn't have consensus. Hence the further disruption and forum-shopping that has ended up here; sadly ArbCom appear to be even more clueless than the community. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• Define consensus. WP:CONSENSUS clearly states that on a major change (which this is) more than a simple majority is required. Can you define that? I would define it as a case where we had 18 or 20 vs 17. In this case we had 32 vs 17. That's more than a simple majority. It's a very obvious majority. There is no other policy definition.--Crossmr (talk) 04:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• Consensus needs to take account of both strength of argument as well as numbers. ("The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view.") A number of those supports were well argued but a number were also WP:IDONTLIKEHIM. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• There was very little of that, unless one applies an assumption of bad faith to the many editors who simply said they had given up on Delta, thought he could not be trusted to abide by community rules, or that they felt he was unlikely to contribute constructively. On the other side much of the !vote in opposition expressed only perceived persecution, claims that those wishing to ban him were using the vote as a proxy for opposing non-fair use rules, or simply said they supported Beta because they support NFCC, none of which are particularly on point. It hurts the discussion to advocate that people who are for or against a proposition are doing so not for the reasons stated but because of their personal whim. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• ArbCom should also be aware that Δ has performed thousands upon thousands of edits over the last year in support of NFCC enforcement. This was done without creating very much fuss, without a whole bunch of hoopla about it. ArbCom should also be aware that over the last three months inclusive, six different reports were made to WP:EW in an attempt to get Δ blocked for NFCC enforcement. Only the most recent of those reports saw a block come down for it (and that, controversially). All the others were found to not be violations but one that ended up going stale. The people asking for his head have been wrong over and over and over again. But, instead, we take the cop out approach and topic ban him? Wow. Utterly wow. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
• Responding specifically to Xeno; just because there ARE threads in existence doesn't make Δ WRONG. Case point; the WQA thread found in Δ's favor. If I started threads at multiple locations about you, should we then assume you should be topic banned? You are compelled to look deeper than this. Do it. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

  I haven't said anywhere above that Δ was wrong. But as the committee suspended the community's indefinite ban of Betacommand (a ban that was placed in no small part due to never-ending disputes with regards to Δ's non-free content enforcement), we are obligated to be mindful of the effect our modifying the community sanction has on administrative and editor resources on the same subject. Echoing Coren, Even if we granted that everything he does is perfectly in line with NFCC, the manner in which he does it causes so much acrimony and disruption that it cannot be allowed to continue. By my reading of the topic ban, Δ will still be free to assist in identifying NFCC problems, just not enforcing them. –xeno^talk 06:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• The biggest act of ArbCom hypocrisy ever. If Delta was edit-warring to remove BLP violations, you'd all be running desperately to defend him. Despite the fact that NFCC is as much of a pillar as BLP (in fact possibly more so - look at that word "Free" in the top left hand corner of the page), you're all pandering to the peanut gallery. It's frankly sickening, and you really need to take a long good look at yourselves. You are enabling copyright violators. Pathetic. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Echoing Black Kite. This is an absurd farce. Look at our Five Pillars, our m:Mission, and then tell me you really believe the fault lies with Delta and not the asinine hounding, berating and abuse he takes simply for trying to help keep us true. I signed up for this project the same time many others did im sure, seeing Jimmy's interview posted on slashdot back in the day, about giving every person, every child, every school free knowledge. Freely shared, freely used, to better actual lives. To improve education, to improve access. We had morals, and these motions do nothing more then implicitly turn our backs on what we once reveled in. This is shame-worthy. -- ۩ Mask 23:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
    • "Wikipedia is first and foremost an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language. Asking whether the community comes before or after this goal is really asking the wrong question: the entire purpose of the community is precisely this goal." Jimmy in 2005, on the mailing list. Quite simply, at this point I think what we're seeing is a conflict between 'the community' and 'other people who are editing wikipedia'. Founding principals determine the scope of membership for organizations and nonprofits such as ours, and that should not be forgotten. I like to view it as Reform Judaism, accepting converts from all others to build our cause. -- ۩ Mask 23:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Precisely. Still, at least this Arbcom looks like it will go down in history as the one that declared "Free Encyclopedia? No, can't be bothered with that, it's just a website like any other". Well done. When are you going to change WP:5P? Black Kite (t) (c) 00:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
        • How is strongarm tactics going to win over the community in general? We have issues with editor retention as is and the (adjective redacted) edit wars of recent weeks are ridiculous. Yes we need to address NFCC, but in some cases I've seen betacommand's interaction has been unconstructive to say the least. So if one is rude enough, the other party will suddenly be converted??? this was ridiculous, we are supposed to be editing collaboratively, not self-appointed wiki-cops doing the equivalent of ordering about content contributors like naughty children. I do concede that I am undecided about the bans though, if you supporters can think of anyother way forward I am all ears. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
          • Cas, have you seen this? Δ links to this in his edit summaries. But if you look at some of the timestamps of when people revert his image removals, it's clear they don't even take the time to look at this document that tells them how to fix the problem, begs them not to edit-war, and gives them a list of editors who will help them. Does Δ have to copy and paste the whole thing to their talk pages to get them to understand? There are quite a few of us who are trying to mitigate the conflict between NFCC enforcers and people who get mad their images are removed, but those folks have to meet us halfway. 28bytes (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
          • Cas, you are missing the point. If people turn up and violate BLP all over the place, we block them and frankly we don't really care how we communicate with them. However with NFCC there appears to be the case that a vocal minority of the community thinks this particular policy should be treated differently. Yes, Delta is not always the easiest editor to deal with, but his usual edit pattern tells people what they're doing wrongly. Seriously - removing his ability to deal with huge amounts of non-controversial NFCC enforcement rather than trying to find a way to fix the issue without the pitchforks and torches? Isn't discussion the way this Free Encyclopedia website is run? But since AGF has run out here, so has mine; the Arbs who have !voted for a site ban have made themselves look idiots. Kudos at least to Xeno here. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
          • (edit conflict) I have to second 28- there all too often seems to be an "oh, it's those non-free content freaks again" mentality. I know you were using it as the unpleasant extreme, but a lot of people seem to actually view the situation as "wiki-cops versus content contributors", in the same way there is sometimes a "civility police versus article writers" dichotomy. I don't think that mentality is helpful. J Milburn (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
          • I'm in total agreement with Cas here. The problems we're having now are essentially exactly the same problems we were having 3 and 4 years ago with the same user - I don't honestly believe he's demonstrated a capacity to change, and his interaction with new users is in the main lamentable. Orderinchaos 00:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• @SirFozzie: There actually is an exemption for NFCC enforcement. Please take a look at WP:3RR#3RR exemptions. Granted, it only covers "unquestionable" violations, but most (admittedly, not all) of Δ's reverting past 3 has been indeed to remove unquestionable violations. 28bytes (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I did. In the vast majority of cases, yes, he's right to go the way he does. However, there's enough edge cases where what he is doing is Edit warring, not covered by this exemption, that I do not feel compelled to change what I've said. Now admittedly, with the sheer amount of work he does, there's going to be edge cases left right and center, however he does the bull in the china shop treatment in all cases without recognizing if it's the best tactic, and that is why there is so much noise about him. SirFozzie (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, with respect, I think ArbCom would serve the community much better if it were to tackle these edge cases rather than throwing away the obvious and uncontroversial good work he does along with it. Why not propose a motion to tackle these edge cases? Something like "no breaking 3RR, even if the policy says other editors can"? I mean, come on, right now the site ban is winning the day among ArbCom even though that exact proposal was soundly rejected by the community just today. ArbCom is essentially telling us it doesn't care what we think. You're all smart people, surely a more imaginative solution to the problems than "ban him" can be formulated? 28bytes (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• • • • • • • (edit conflict)x2 I'm also going to have to agree with 28bytes. No disrespect intended to AC, and I appreciate that they are attempting to reduce the drama; but, the image removals are fully within the NFCC policy, and the WMF has even posted their desire to move away from the fair use stuff. Delta get a lot of harsh talk thrown his way, and to be honest, I think he's shown a tremendous amount of restraint. I understand he's not a "warm & fuzzy" conversationalist, and I know he's made mistakes, and pushed boundaries. This just seems to be kind of harsh, and I have to wonder if it's feelings from the past which are influencing decisions in the present. — Ched :  ?  01:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say feelings, but I think most all of us (arbs, parties and interested onlookers) are cognizant of the history of Delta in this area, and it guides us in our decisions by answering the question "Can/Will Delta improve behavior in those edge cases?". SirFozzie (talk) 01:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

@Arbs: it's probably too late at this point, but I would urge you to consider a less restrictive motion, as I had proposed in recent community discussions at ANI about a topic ban. I had suggested "make it temporary (3 months), and make it clear that all activity except image removal is allowed." This gets to the core of the matter, and ensures that things like the current proposals for Delta disambiguation fixing and NFCC 10c notification are unaffected. It would seem to me a highly constructive compromise. Delta is the posterboy for NFCC enforcement, but hardly the sole editor to carry that flag in a way others dislike; and it seems perverse for Arbcom to take him out of the game just as these constructive things (Wikipedia:AN#Request_exemption_of_restrictions) may be about to happen. So, at this point you might prefer to make it indefinite, but I'd urge you to focus the topic ban on the actual problem area, which is NFCC image removals. Rd232 public ^talk 01:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, the topic ban being considered will prevent any edit enforcing the criteria. The two bots proposed at AN would 1) bring content in line with the criteria and 2) advise on talk pages of possible non-free content issues. Δ would also presumably be free to create lists of content he felt may require attention to assist other individuals who focus on NFCC issues. –xeno^talk 06:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Well if the motion is intended to achieve what I suggested, that's good - but that's certainly not what I get from the motion's wording of banning "any edit enforcing the non-free content criteria, broadly construed". Personally I find the distinction between "enforcing" and "bringing in line with" unconvincing, and if one is intended in the way you say, that really should be clarified more officially (as part of the motion?). Rd232 public ^talk 09:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Arbitrator discussion regarding scope of topic ban. –xeno^talk 16:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• Sir Fozzie may I ask a question? (ok, 2. :)). And I understand that this is purely hypothetical but: If Betacommand and Delta were not the same person. And we were dealing with just the edits of Delta, would you still be making (or supporting) this motion? And I admit that I haven't been here as long as most of you. I was just wondering. — Ched :  ?  01:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  • As a hypothetical? I can't speak for the other arbs, but I would say that we wouldn't be considering a site ban and possibly not a topic ban. There's a reason why we throw a Recidivism findings in some cases (one formulation states: Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to improve their behavior. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions.) Or in other words, if Delta didn't have the history they do, we'd be looking at the situation and wondering if a lesser sanction could get them to modify their behavior. Here, we don't have that question. SirFozzie (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• Though I disagree this is a proper fix to the overall problem, I agree with how it is being stated in that "Delta may be NFCC-correct, but the manner needs to stop". That said, in relationship to a comment that xeno made above, it would be extremely helpful for ArbCom to specify what they consider as "broadly". Given that this is Delta, and there are people that want to vilify him, this is going to leave open a huge hole for them to find a while to block/ban Delta from WP indefinitely if, say, he made a comment on a WT:NFC, or even a NFC recommendation on an article talk page. Is there any way to make a whitelist of the types of things he is allowed to do that are non-contentious in NFC actions? As suggested by xeno, tagging an image as being non-compliant (at the image page, article talk page , or user uploader page) is a far cry from actually enforcing NFC by removing the image, but as it is worded "broadly", someone will find a way to make the former actions grounds for a block. The more specific ArbCom can be here, the better this topic ban will be for Delta and everyone else involved. --MASEM (t) 12:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that. Here are my current thoughts about how I would interpret it; perhaps Arbcom can start with these and edit them to make a final list.

1. The topic ban includes removing images from articles for NFCC reasons, or where the only plausible reason is NFCC enforcement.
2. The topic ban includes edits to leave tags, warnings, or messages, or other notices about NFCC on image pages, image talk pages, articles, article talk pages, or user talk pages.
3. In general, if Δ begins editing a new article (meaning he has not edited it in some time) and among his first edits he makes changes to images or discusses the non-free images, there is a reasonable presumption that the images are the reason that he began editing the article. If he makes occasional changes to images as part of other editing, this is acceptable.
4. In general, it is up to Δ to make sure that his edits cannot be reasonably construed as NFCC enforcement.

I am sure that these can be improved, please feel free to criticize and fix them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The first seems in line with the above discussion but 2 and 3 are counter to what xeno suggested in that Delta is free to comment on a broken NFC image, but he cannot take steps to remove it -- and I just realized -- to fix it (since, bringing a rationale to compliance by fixing a typo can "broadly" construed to be NFC enforcement). Again, four is begging for those editors that want to see Delta completely banished from the project a huge mallet to that with. That's why I really think that we need explicit white and blacklists of actions that the committee sees as acceptable or not w.r.t. NFC, simply to avoid the issue with others. --MASEM (t) 14:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Arbitrator discussion regarding scope of topic ban. –xeno^talk 16:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• That depends. some users often complain about his templating because the template seems aggressive. fix your image or you'll be blocked, big warning sign!! It's really unnecessary for the first template of a user to include any mentioning of blocking (unless its extremely blatant), and I think there is some text somewhere that indicates that all level 1 warnings shouldn't include that kind of language because it assumes bad faith. Let's look at one of his standard templates [2], in this ice breaker we've got a big warning sign and a bolded threat to block. This is not a conversation starter. Yes, it is a template. He didn't create it (but he was the one to make the warning sign larger and more menancing [3]), but for someone who has conflict issues, this is a poor choice for a template. As a community I think we need to rewrite this template (or create levels), but nothing precludes him from choosing a different one/creating his own now.--Crossmr (talk) 13:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

  Fixing the level 1 template is certainly a reasonable step to do, I just don't believe that we can blame Delta for using that when that's a readily available tool that most other editors would use too. --MASEM (t) 14:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

  That's besides the point, I think. If Delta is banned from the topic he needs to stay far away from the topic, broadly construed, and the burden is on him not to test the boundaries. The problem isn't that he's been given faulty tools. He's been pushing, testing, rejecting, and subverting boundaries for years. Inviting him to test the boundaries again by helping out, writing bots to fix things, etc., is just going to end up with more trouble. The line should be that if he's working on a few personal articles and projects here and there then of course he can get involved in a few images that are incident to those articles, as long as he doesn't have a melt down over them. However, he should not be getting involved in any project-wide image compliance efforts. Drawing the line as image removal versus image fixing, or tagging versus deleting, is not going to work for the boundary reasons I just mentioned. Nor is the notion of commonly available tools versus custom made ones. You can crack a nut with a rock or a nutcracker, either way you cracked the nut. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• This was headed to ArbCom with a ticket on the express train anyway, even I was sketching out notes for a proper RFAR. The stall of the community topic-ban discussion with majority support but no consensus, close of AN3 notice as "no vio" with minimal explanation followed by close of another, similar case with a block, close of an RFE request with "Hounding needs to stop" - these are all indicative of a community in deadlock, which is where the Arbs typically get to earn their bloated pay. I'll stay as the lonely guy kicking a rock down the road, muttering "why didn't we try a 1RR restriction?" - but whatever, this way gets us part-way there. Franamax (talk) 02:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• I want to thank ArbCom for taking this up. Although both sides are attempting to spin the meaning of the various discussions to their best advantage, the problem of Delta's behavior is clearly not one that the community is able to resolve. The lines are drawn, positions have hardened, the same people man the barricades again and again, and each time the situation fails to reach any reasonable conclusion, instead continuing to fester. This kind of circumstance is precisely what ArbCom was created to deal with, even without a formal request for arbitration, and I'm glad you are doing so.

  For my part, I believe that Motion #1 is the best of these two options. It's clear that Delta still has value to offer to the project, as his SPIbot effort shows. My hope is that if Motion #1 passes, Delta will find other areas to work in, preferably ones in which his "customers" are a more select group and not (potentially) all editors, as is the case with NFCC work. If Delta creates that same kind of disruption in another area that he has done in image work, then I would be inclined to urge you towards a site ban, but, as bad as he has been over the long haul, I do not believe it is justified now. I would urge the passage of Motion #1 with a well-defined scope to discourage gaming the ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion re: Motion 2

• See my response to motion 1. Further, today a proposal was made to ban Δ from the site. It was overwhelmingly opposed, 19-3. It isn't what the community wants. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • You appear to be under the illusion that ArbCom is here to enable the community. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Or the illusion that a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS somehow 1) undoes the past community ban, or 2) is actually in the project's long-term best interest. Jclemens (talk) 07:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
      • That was a pretty clear consensus though, unlike the one on an NFCC ban on ANI. Yet ArbCom turn up and trample all over the community. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
        • According to GWH below, there was nearly a 2/3 support for a topic ban. If that is what Arbcom passes, it seems like they are simply making a decision for which there was substantial community support. Also, in your first comment, I originally read enable in the sense of the linked article. In that sense, Arbcom is certainly not here to enable to community. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
          • No, but neither is it here to do exactly the opposite of a community discussion. That stinks of "we know better than you peons", doesn't it? Black Kite (t) (c) 15:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• I cannot offer arguments beyond what everyone else has done time and time again. I'm not on ArbCom, I've never had much to do with ArbCom, and I doubt I will ever have much by way of dealings with ArbCom, but banning Delta would be a terrible thing to do, and I hope those who have voted in support will reconsider. J Milburn (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  • No one is considering banning him. He's already banned. What is on the table is un-suspending that ban. Jclemens (talk) 07:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, I'm having a lot of trouble understanding this distinction. Could someone please explain this? J Milburn (talk) 10:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
      • My interpretation is that ArbCom are withdrawing the suspension they made of the community ban. That leaves Delta free to appeal the community ban (but to the community rather than ArbCom) and get it lifted, but that is different to whatever discussions took place recently in community venues to ban him (for a second time). The fact that those discussions failed is not the same as saying that the original community ban (whenever that was) has been overturned. It has not, it was only suspended (by ArbCom, not the community), and ArbCom are proposing to withdraw that suspension of the community ban. The whole history of arbitration cases and community ban discussions is a bit convoluted. Hopefully it has been laid out somewhere (and no-one has missed any nuances here or got things in the wrong order). Likely those proposing a community ban recently were not aware of the details of this history. Carcharoth (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• My views are posted above as well. — Ched :  ?  01:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• To repeat here what I said below, reinstating a suspended community ban is not the same as an outright ban. I am sure that if Delta asks the committee (as a courtesy) for leave to appeal his community ban to the community, it will become clear whether or not there is a consensus to lift this reinstated community ban or not. This is different, of course, from lacking a consensus to ban someone. It is quite possible that if Motion 2 passes, the community will lift the community ban but will (sensibly) leave the (obviously passing) topic ban in place. Carcharoth (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• I would not favour ArbCom re-instaing the previous community ban at this time, though I laud their efforts in Motion 1 (except where is Motion 3, 1RR restriction in contentious areas?). Feelings are running too high for a community unban/endorse-AC-reban discussion to reach a proper result at this time. An NFCC topic restriction may or may not allow this editor to reach a better state of editingt. Only time will tell on that, but I prefer to allow the time. Franamax (talk) 03:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• In response to Hammersoft, specifically, in regard to consensus that delta/Betacommand is banned; He is banned by community consensus, and has been since 2008. After been banned Betacommand, as he was then, attempted several times to change that consensus and failed. In the event, Betacommand then agreed with the Arbitration Committee to suspend the ban, under strict conditions, for a year. After the year elapsed Betacommand was permitted to continue editing, providing he continued to comply with agreed restrictions on his editing speed and with WP:CIVIL as previously required. However, it has not at any point been noted that the existing ban has been voided or overturned. Therefore there needs to be a consensus that the existing ban is lifted, and not one for a new one to be enacted. I noted this to delta back in April of this year, shown here together with his response. I also noted the fact that the ban of Betacommand may still be in existence in one of the ANI discussions back in May. These points were rejected by delta and ignored or refuted by his "supporters" - and here we are again. At some point delta and his - and I will argue the appropriateness of this term if asked - enablers will have to confront the probability that it is their actions and viewpoints that has lead to these motions being discussed, and not the complaints by the community. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

General discussion

Today, I was trying to find a venue to bring ArbCom's attention to the unending spat of ban/topic-ban proposals that have erupted over the last week, and the constant harassment that Δ has endured and couldn't find an appropriate place (complaint for another time). I had a false hope that ArbCom might have the wherewithal to recognize the serious situation for what it was; a massive conflict with a ton of flame added by a number of editors contributing to the dispute. I had hoped ArbCom would have been willing to step in and calm the waters. Instead, it appears ArbCom is willing to take the cop out, and refuse to address the serious problems created by all contributors to this dispute. Shame on you ArbCom, shame on you. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said elsewhere from the last weeks of additions: If you take out Delta from the "NFCC and Delta" problem, the issue will only return as "NFCC and (someone else)", whether that be Hammersoft, Black Kite, or a half-other dozen editors that keep NFC in line on WP, because there are editors that simply bother not to learn the policy or have come to resent it. I cannot fully clear Delta on his behavior on certain actions of late (as there's a confluence of numerous issues). But to simply to ban/block Delta without addressing the other side of the issue (whether this be the consensus for NFC, or those that employ a very loose interpretation of it, or a number of other factors) is a temporary reprieve. I will say this: there may be several pending ideas to improve NFC, and it may be a wise idea to try to bring in ArbCom to at minimum assign a moderator to assure the consensus process is not derailed by personal issues. --MASEM (t) 22:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If another editor decides to step into Beta's shoes with clumsy disputed mass edits followed by scolding, insults, threats, and edit warring, over what Chase Me describes as "extreme interpretation of the NFCC policy and refusal to compromise", then they will ultimately have to stop as well. The phrase "editors that simply bother not to learn the policy" is indicative of the problem, an utter and complete refusal to acknowledge that some editors legitimately and reasonably believe NFCC policy and the NFC guideline urge an image be kept or its rationale fixed in a given case, or ask as the guideline instructs that some things are consensus matters to be resolved through discussion. Edit warring and incivility are the antithesis of constructive work on the encyclopedia, and the former is permitted as an exception to WP:3RR only in the extreme case where something "unquestionably" violates the policy. Telling others that their question doesn't count because you know you are right is no substitute for discussion. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The place for discussion is at the policy page, not knowingly breaking the policy and then saying you don't agree with it. That should be obvious. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec)And ergo, a ban/block on NFC is not the right solution if the issue is "edit warring and incivility" (and again, to be clear, I support Arbcom re-establishing this facet of the community restrictions). But again, the other facet is NFC itself (not Delta); I've pointed out many many times before that if there is a problem with how NFC is interpreted differently by different people, then there's should be proposals aplenty at WT:NFC to amend and revise the policy to either reaffirm what it says or bring it in line with what consensus suggests, but that's not happening relative to the amount of discussion there is about Delta's specific actions. No one wants to seem to touch the core problem, which is the dissent to which NFC is handled. There is an RFC attempting to generate ideas to improve it, and I will offer that Delta offered two automatic bots that would aid in fixing and tagging broken NFC images, so it is not like there's no attempts at all - just not what I'd think there would be. --MASEM (t) 23:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It could also be argued that the correct way to go about getting one's editing sanctions lifted is to stay within them and to keep one's nose clean, rather than to repeatedly violate them while continuing to get into lame, petty spats like 3RR violations. I don't doubt for a minute that Delta was goaded into a good few of these (MMN taking him to ANI for a civility problem really takes the cake), but very few people seriously think this is a stitch-up. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 23:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem has always been and continues to be Delta's behaviour. There is absolutely nothing in NFCC that dictates or mandates his behaviour. Nothing. Not a single word. I touched the core problem. I went out and enforced NFCC in a community focused manner without causing disruption, hurt feelings or generating any dissent. Neither one of us had our edits mandated by NFCC policy and there was an entirely different result. Delta's edits are his own choice and his own behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You did it well away from the edges where consensus may or may not be there for the types of actions Delta was doing; therefore, there's no reasonable expectation that you'd get hit with what Delta has. Delta operates at the fringes where he and several others (including myself at times) think he is right in application (not necessarily approach) and several others think he's wrong. Those that think he's in the wrong when the policy is not clear need be ready to revise and clarify the policy to bring that part of the policy closer to their view. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Or vice-versa. Policy is almost never black and white where reasonable editors disagree, for if it were their disagreement would not be reasonable. Disagreements have to be handled through reasoned discussion, not force of aggressive content changes. The encyclopedia has largely complied at this point with the Foundation's requirement for non-free use rationales and we are in a stage of maintenance and refinement (if a huge problem remained the Foundation or ArbCom could step in at any time, and they have not). Thus, any editor wanting to enact a large scale change across many article in how we handle images needs to establish that consensus, policy, or the Foundation is on their side. Saying "you're wrong" many times in succession doesn't make it so. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If you're referring to the removal of files without a rationale, then that consensus has existed for years. The policy requires that any usage has a rationale, and so any usage without a rationale can be removed. That's not controversial. Some people don't like it, and some people dislike/misunderstand the NFCC, but that does not mean that it's not the policy, and that does not mean that the policy does not have consensus. J Milburn (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Not at all - you're quite mistaken on that. There are two different issues here. I was speaking to the first, where there is a legitimate difference of opinion on how the policy and guidelines apply to specific images and whether they are justifiable in articles. Wherever you draw that line there are going to be matters of interpretation and some images that fall on the line, so editors have to work together in a spirit of cooperation to work through the hard choices on a case-by-case matter. "I'm enforcing NFCC so you're wrong" is not a legitimate way to deal with that. The second issue, regarding missing or flawed tags, is a different discussion. Everyone agrees that images should have use rationales. "Any usage can be removed" is a long way from "You can't disagree with any scheme I come up with that removes images and if you you're a disgrace to the project". - Wikidemon (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite mistaken on what? I really have no idea what you're talking about; so far as I can see, none of what you said has much to do with what I said... J Milburn (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

You're mistaken if you believe there's a consensus for the manner in which Delta was removing images without rationales. He was racing through years-old image uses alphabetical order, possibly using automated tools, making a lot of mistakes, with zero effort to examine or fix obvious things before removing them, and leaving no good record of which images he had removed. As an example, before he was stopped he was removing every single free use from articles that had been moved, merged, split, or disambiguated, as well as obviously free images that had been given the wrong copyright tag. I can think of a whole bunch of ways to clean up noncompliant image uses, and his way is near the bottom. If he's going to do a few thousand of those he needs to work with other editors to do it right. Not every edit in service of policy is a good idea. A policy that says "no dogs on the lawn" does not justify taking out a bazooka and shooting grenades at everything on the lawn that might be a dog. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

No, but it does justify removing anything labelled as a dog from said lawn, with an explanation that no dogs are allowed. That would be what Delta was doing. A bazooka would be automatic deletion, or blacklisting, or blockings, or some other ridiculous extreme. You mention removing images (I assume you mean non-free images) "from articles that had been moved, merged, split, or disambiguated, as well as obviously free images that had been given the wrong copyright tag". It is not Delta's fault that these were incorrectly labelled- removal is one way of dealing with the issue which, sometimes, will be a very real issue. You mention your longing for consensus "for the manner in which Delta was removing images without rationales", but that's a somewhat ridiculous demand. Do I need consensus to fix a spelling error using AWB? Tabbed browsing? What if I'm running through a category to look for articles to cleanup? If there were a large number of mistakes (that is, policy-compliant media being removed) you may have a case, but what you're demanding now is silly. J Milburn (talk) 01:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Disagree and I'm not being silly. Perhaps you're not cognizant of the history, in which Delta and some followers were in process of removing somewhere north of 200,000 images from the encyclopedia. Guess how many of those are still here? More than half, no thanks to the bots. It's not delta's "fault" the first time he mistakenly removes a compliant image because of a technical problem that fooled his bot or his cut-and-paste fingers. But we can ask him not to remove five hundred compliant images at a time... again and again, year after year, despite pleas to think or discuss before he acts. It is also his responsibility if the mistake is pointed out and he says, like you, that he can't be blamed if his error happened because of another person's error and it's not his problem to sort out the details. Removal is one way of dealing with the issue, sure. But in some cases it is not the best way. If people are objecting to the removal when there is a better way, yet an editor persists without any attempt to work with anyone? Part of working together on the project is to, well, work together on the project. In your AWB spelling error example, you do not need consensus to fix a few articles here and there with spelling errors. On the other hand if you go through 100,000 pages in alphabetical order without notifying anyone or pausing to listen, and you change 13,000 instances of "yo" to "yon" as your autocorrect feature urges you, you just made a big goof. There were a lot of policy compliant media being removed. There were also many that could easily have been fixed because they were simple, blindingly obvious cases like logos and cover art, yet the way Beta was proceeding did not leave a log or usable organization that others could use to go back and fix them. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why we can't make things work by letting Delta and Crossmr collaborate on the issue of removing "illegal images". Delta could do what he is doing now, except that he should stick to 1RR when removing images. When reverted twice, he simply posts a notification on a page monitored by Crossmr. Then Crosmmr focusses on these cases where good personal interaction skills are more important.

So, the bulk of the removals are then handled by Delta, his approach is necessary to do that, but where the potential problems could arise, which is a small fraction of the total number of cases, Crossmr steps in. Count Iblis (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• I am normally one of ArbCom's biggest supporters, but you're wrong here. If there was a community desire for this, it would have been done already. Today a site ban proposal for Delta was overwhelmingly shot down. A recent topic ban proposal got up there, but still failed. Overriding the community like this is perceptively why there is so much distrust for ArbCom, perceptively why people call you GovCom, and as much as I think a great deal of WR is nothing more than pathetic spewings from haters of Wikipedia, you're validating a whole lot of what they say about you. You've lost my respect. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

  Several above have indicated that the recent community-initiated topic ban proposal "failed"; this is inaccurate as the proposal is actually still ongoing. –xeno^talk 06:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is it's far too big of a job for just 2 people to handle, but perhaps 10 people could handle it. We don't even really know how big the NFCC problem is. No one can tell us how many new NFCC issues are generated each day (which really shouldn't be that hard to figure out, generate a list today at midnight, generate a list tomorrow at midnight and remove the image/article combos that appear on both lists, do that a few times and average it out). The problem starts with the way Delta does it. While he's improved his generic edit summary, it starts with his first edit and his first edit is simply a binary parse: Does it match? No. Remove it. Template, generic summary, move on. The way forward with NFCC is to improve the image of the project. The first question should be: Does this image look like it remotely belongs. It really does not take that long to read a possible description, check the source link if one is provided, look at the file name itself, and even look at the image and make a quick "Hmm.. there is a reasonable chance this should be here". If it's utterly ambiguous then it might require you contact the uploader/adder. In this case I'd recommend automatically adding the name of the file to a bot for removal from the article in 24-48 hours. Ask the user what the use is, and if they don't get back to you in a reasonable time it'll be automatically removed from the article. But there is no deadline. The foundation's directive doesn't say we have to remove them all today, this minute. We just need to work towards the goal of making them all complaint or removing the ones that can't be made compliant. While they say the remover doesn't have to do that, they don't say that the remover can't do that. And that's the important part. It needs to be a community driven effort to improve the image of NFCC and make it a non-negative part of daily wikipedia life that projects actually want to participate in and work with.--Crossmr (talk) 04:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I had been mostly ignoring the massive threads about this, but it was clear that nothing was going to get resolved and it had become (again) something that the community was unable to deal with. Still, I hadn't expected this. Were the motions initiated here without warning, or was there some prelude to this? Hopefully Delta will get the chance to say something here at some point, and hopefully the rest of us will fall silent long enough for him to have the chance to say something. Oh, I see he is blocked for 24 hours. His response seems to be here. Still, I would hope that the motions stay open long enough for him to say something. I think the topic ban reinstatement is reasonable, but that any siteban should come with an explicit provision to allow an immediate appeal (to the community) of the community ban that is being reinstated. i.e. ArbCom are well within their rights to withdraw the suspension of the community ban (something I think they took a lot of flack for at the time), but the community need to show a clear consensus to lift that community ban, rather than a consensus to not reinstate it. Carcharoth (talk) 02:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Could arbs or a clerk clarify which arbs are recused and/or inactive and what the majority needed is for each motion?

General discussion: arbitrary break

My few cents...

Last night, I was in the middle of a specific NFCC content dispute with Delta, in which first Wikidemon, then I, then (on another page, but the same problem) user 4twenty42o misinterpreted Delta in exactly the same manner (and we were all in the wrong, to be honest; Delta had called the situation properly initially).

I spent considerable time attempting to civilly discuss with Delta the importance of not repeating templated warnings or actions that were misunderstood or misinterpreted the first time. I was engaged for over five hours before going to bed; others continued the discussion afterwards.

For administrators, taking administrative action, we have the following policys:

(WP:ADMINACCT) "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed."

(WP:NOTPERFECT) "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another.[2][3][4][5]

Administrators should bear in mind that they have hundreds of colleagues. Therefore, if an administrator finds that he or she cannot adhere to site policies and remain civil (even toward users exhibiting problematic behavior) while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct."

While Delta isn't an administrator at this time, I think this is and should be a rule all of those enforcing policy and administrative action should take to heart and live by.

We've all been through this before. This is a 4-year-old problem. My efforts last night were honest and extensive and as civil as I could be to point out the communications problem I do not feel that Delta accepted that there was a problem that he was contributing to, much less responsible or accountable for. His near-final response, after extensive discussions of how not just one, not two, but three long-long time editors had independently misinterpreted his templated warning in the same way, was "I don't know how much more clear I can be than xxxx(the templated warning)".

This is not about NFCC enforcement; if Delta's thing was NPA, or edit warring, or new page patrolling the results would be the same. There is a deficit in comprehension of how other people are understanding and responding to communications. We've had community findings on this, multiple arbcom findings, something approaching 100 blocks over 4 years (one every 2 weeks on the average).

NFCC is not a popular area, as there is great dispute over what the policy should be, what it is, and how it should be enforced. It requires special care by those engaging in enforcing it to avoid unnecessary disputes, and to resolve disputes that arise in as calm a manner as possible. Delta is not the right person to be doing this. We've known this for years. Even most of those who support his continued participation in the area have admitted so at one point or another.

More than 2/3 of the community who bothered to express an opinion on the subject !voted to topic ban him over the last few days. That's not our normal community consensus threshold for bans or blocks; but it is a clear and evident expression of exhaustion of commuity patience (and, the degree to which the community is now polarized).

It is entirely right that Arbcom review the situation. I don't know how anyone can say that this is not ripe for Arbcom action. The entire point of Arbcom is to be the intervenor of last community resort when the rest of the community is at odds. I can't even directly count the number of threads on noticeboards this has engendered in the last couple of weeks, and a 2/3 majority on a topic ban, and several hung restrictions reversal !votes, ...

As late as last night I was still acting on the assumption that hope was not lost, and that rational discussion could perhaps get Delta to change the problem behaviors.

This morning when I woke up and reviewed the overnight developments, I resolved to file the topic ban as an arbcom request. Work intervened and Roger Davies began this on his own initiative, rendering that intention moot. But this is entirely appropriate for Arbcom to take up, act, and resolve.

We've had four years for Delta to reform enough to not attract this negative response over and over again. Despite weeks of active criticism on noticeboards and community proposals, last night Delta demonstrated that he still does not get it. Under the circumstances, four years is enough.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Quite right. Nothing about either motion reprimands the work that's been done, only the non-collegial manner in which it has been undertaken. The first job of any Wikipedia editor is to get along with other good-faith Wikipedia editors--that is what has been breached here. It's sad that there are plenty of NFCC partisans who see a sanction of Delta as a repudiation of NFCC work--nothing is further from the truth. Jclemens (talk) 07:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Since the effective results will be the same, the motivation matters little. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Black Kite: From what you're saying, you endorse "Well, you can be a jerk, as long as you're mostly right"? SirFozzie (talk) 08:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

You will see that I supported a civility restriction in the ANI thread. Anything further is simply throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

No, a "civility restriction" is doing nothing about the issue except guaranteeing more and more long drawn out arguments (and as the 2009 decision shows, Delta is ALREADY under a civility restriction). Again, this is not a particularly new or innovative problem with Delta. It's been so bad in the past that the community said flat out that they did not want Delta working on WP, because of these very same issues with NFCC (amongst other things). The Committee lifted the community ban in hopes that Delta could improve his behavior. There's been a backslide, instead. So, the feeling of the committee, and many editors is "Ok, we've tried everything, but we're just not going to get a change in behavior in this area". SirFozzie (talk) 08:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, if his edits are usually fine but his civility is not, why are we targeting the editing rather than the actual cause - i.e. the communication - of people turning up at ANI? I'm sorry, however you justify it, the events here still stink of a lynchmob who couldn't get their wish through community discussion so decided to circumvent it by forum-shopping it along to an ArbCom who have a record of sanctioning Delta. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If we are in a position where Delta's work is being praised, but his manner is being challenged, would there be any legitimate objections to, hypothetically, another user taking up the work that he is doing, but taking care to, firstly, fix simple problems when they are found (Delta's disambiguation page bot would be helpful here) and, secondly, carefully explain the issues to anyone who objects? J Milburn (talk) 10:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If another editor did similar work to Δ but did it in a far more collegial fashion: with appropriate decorum and tact, striving to educate and explain to users why they feel there is an issue without rapidly edit warring using the same edit summary over-and-over, not creating problems that a careful editor would be expected to detect, no - I would not object. And there are many users who already do this - a good number of them have commented here already. –xeno^talk

We are doing that, but realizing that his incivility often shows up when people oppose him over an NFCC issue. Take away his ability to create those situations and we take away that avenue of uncivil discourse generation. if the incivility shows up elsewhere than it's an indication a much further ban is required. As always Delta is in charge of his behaviour and he's had years to get his behaviour in check over NFCC stuff and he's failed, that's why he's being taken off it now.--Crossmr (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with Georgewilliamherbert. Additionally, the constant hounding of those who bring up problems with Beta/Delta's behavior, and obvious filibustering over any community proposal to do anything about his behavior issues (see... everything above, for example) are what's made this necessary. People are sick of Delta, and they're sick of being shouted down every time that someone starts a discussion about him. The "zOMG NFCC!!!" defenses don't help anything, either. (and now, que the shouting directed at me just for speaking up here. [which, I'm sure, will actually happen elsewhere and at a later date] Ugh. Oh well.)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 11:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I thank the committee for deciding to take this up, however the manner that they wish to take it up has convinced me that the committee has gone from an appellate court to a kangaroo court of popularity. Should any motion pass that restricts Delta, I will note the Arbs voting for and will oppose their candidacy for the next community review period. That Delta has had to deal with repeated threads calling for various forms of censure should be a clue to ArbCom that something is very wrong. Hasteur (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you threatening the arbitration committee? "Either vote the way I want or I'll vote you out next time". The fact that Delta has had to deal with those threads for years should be a very clear clue to you.--Crossmr (talk) 12:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not a threat, it's simply me declaring my intentions based on observations of the committee's actions (both as individuals and as a whole) over the past several months. As a hypothetical, how would you care to have a new thread every day at one of the governance forums calling for sanctions to be placed on you? Delta has tried (from what I can see) to be civil and polite about it, but now we're left with nothing but bitterness because he has to take time out of the work he would like to do and defend himself at one (or more) forums against the same argument over and over again. Hasteur (talk) 13:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

@Crossmr: It is acceptable to tell an elected representative that you will not vote for them again. On the other hand, part of the difficulty of being on arbcom is the necessity of handling difficult cases. I'll point out there were just as many people upset when Arbcom explicitly supported non-collegiality and uncooperative editing during the BLP deletion spree – nothing pleases everyone. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that depends entirely on how and when you tell them. It's one thing to say during elections "Because of your past decisions I'm not voting for you", it's another thing to say during an on-going process (During which I assume a member could change their position) to say "you aren't voting the way I like so I'm taking my vote away from you later". It seems like an utterly irrelevant statement to make right now during the on-going discussion.--Crossmr (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think there's ever anything wrong with making the statement that you're not going to vote for someone because you don't think they're doing their job properly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this is not only permissible but the foundation of a representative system (which ArbCom ultimately is). Of course, this doesn't mean I have to agree with Hasteur or change my own vote; ArbCom only intervenes, after all, when an issue is divisive which unfailingly means that someone will be displeased with what we have done (And if we do nothing, someone is sure to be displeased by that). — Coren ^(talk) 19:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

About damn time. A cadre of fanatical Betacommand-apologists, who believe that NFCC enforcement is an end justifying any and all means, loudly obstruct every community attempt to handle this issue. If Motion 1 above does not pass, I'll very likely file a full Arbcom request. TotientDragooned (talk) 04:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is a wrong solution. Sure, there are discussable cases, but a great deal of edit warring is on cases where Delta (or the others removing the violations) are unquestionably right (images which are plainly replaceable, images which plainly do not have a rationale (not the ones where the rationale is broken in process), images which are on pages outside mainspace, clear, unquestionable failing NFCC) - but that does not matter, editors will edit war with Delta (or more general, with removers) anyway. Whether it is unquestionable or not (and generally more fierce when the violation is plainly unquestionable). And the way of discussing often it is You are an asshole <remover>, because there is no violation, I am reverting because you're a vandal (diff, ), or it is I don't see what is wrong, so it is right (diff), or, to a lesser extend: It is obviously broken, repair it instead of removing it / find a better solution in stead of removing (diff). So your solution is, take out the person who is right, but because others are always yelling at him, so he must be wrong. No matter how many cases there are where Delta is asked politely, and where Delta answers politely (this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this (until the 5th post in that thread ..), this), the yelling cases are exaggerated, amplified, and the good cases are ignored, what, people even filter specifically the cases where Delta is yelling, ignoring diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff - do you see any excessive (or even minor) incivility by Delta in these interactions?

• Xeno, too much editor and administrative time is wasted over this - yes, completely true, but not due to Delta, 4 years of editor and administrative time has been wasted on other things, ignoring solving the problem.
• SirFozzie, 'their bedside sucks' - see the examples provided above, if Delta's bedside manners suck, then for sure many, many others have worse bedside manners. And not just when they are next to Delta (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff).
• Coren, also, see the examples. And sure, someone will be displeased with this, but the question is, will it please the ones that are displeased now, and will it solve the problem? No.
• Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs, also see the examples.
• Cool Hand Luke, and that would have solved the problem? Or do you think that people only yell at Delta (see examples given to SirFozzie). The issue is that people will NOT discuss when images get removed from 'their' pages, they start with yelling. Expecting the remover to solve their problems, don't assume good faith that the remover did see something wrong, but did not see the solution.

As far as I see lately, it are the re-inserters that start yelling, and whether the remover suggests positive solutions, or goes on removing, or repairs - the effect is the same, people will yell, what, they even yell 'why did you not solve the problem in the first place', instead of 'Oh, I did not see that that was wrong'. And yes, there are people that misunderstand Delta, but also that is just a minor group. But there are several who simply understand what the problem is: diff, diff.

And therefore, applying either of these bans is giving completely the wrong signal. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

On "reminders"

I think this whole "formally reminded" business is insufficient given how the whole 'Delta issue' is currently perceived by many admins, to whom such reminders are aimed, as well as Delta himself. To illustrate, I offer the ANI report I filed yesterday, asking for action or assurance over personal attacks on me & others by Delta, and their deliberate restoration by him. You can read it to see what the facts of my complaint was. Unfortunately, it was immediately derailed by *somebody else* proposing a site ban, which had just one predictable effect, but which also completely derailed the ANI report too, with many thinking it was me who proposed it and simply jumping in to 'vote' before even reading the complaint. However, the various actual responses to the actual substance of the report were to my mind:

• deny it's an attack (it's an obvious attack)
• admit it was an attack, but not serious (Delta flatly denies it's an attack of any kind)
• blame the reporter for the attack (or suggest that's why no action needs to be taken)
• claim it was a heat of the moment thing (the restoration was 33+ hours later)
• claim it was a 1 off incident (I cited a long term pattern of behaviour, right up to last month)
• claim his NFCC work is to blame, not him (I included a non-NFCC example)
• suggest he's too valuable to the project to be held to basic standards
• repeat the attack!

What should really shock arbitrators is that the above list was not drawn from all the responders, but a sample of what actual admins said.[4][5][6][7][8] Now, I'm a big boy, I don't cry wolf and I'm not particularly precious or sensitive, but his attacks are serious accusations requiring serious evidence, per the policy. There are editors out there who will believe this crap if it's just repeated often enough, with no action seen to be taken. As such, per WP:NPA, it's simply unnacceptable for admins to be treating reports in this manner. If I'm wrong, if there's an actual consensus it's categorically not an attack (and the committee are free to say so here), then fine, I'll drop the complaint. I don't think that's the case, and such a consensus will never arrive. But neither will what's needed in the opposite case, either from Delta or admins. ANI has become next to useless in that regard. As such, I would like to see at a minumum, the appointment of a single arbitrator or other suitable person, to whom such complaints against Delta can be brought for a fair, proper, and ultimately decisive, outcome, free of the kneejerk drama & irrelevance that is now the default when trying in the normal processes. Otherwise, I'm still minded to make the issue of Delta's personal behaviour & its handling the subject of a request if all that passes here is Motion 1, as it doesn't stop a repeat of the behaviour in non-NFCC areas, and doesn't fix what is by now is an institutional failure to deal with what are basic & obvious violations in the normal channels. Yes, his sanctions & past record are not a tool with which he is to be beaten, but they are expected to be taken into account without fear or favour, when he is shown to be in 2011 still deliberately & intentionally violating basic policies like NPA, and hiding behind his NFCC work to do so. I strongly suspect that there are a few admins whose trust by the community to remain unbiased and neutral when it comes to matters involving Delta, or at the very minumum hold their tongue if they can't at venues like ANI where such opinions are being sought, has been pretty much forgotten. MickMacNee (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-arbitrator comments on scope of topic ban

I hope that the ban does not literally refer to the content of the edit summary, because that sort of restriction can be gamed by just giving a different edit summary or not giving any edit summary at all. If the limits say something like "apparent justification" or "only plausible justification", they will be less vulnerable to that sort of manipulation. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe this is an appropriate start; I would still be worried of some users taking the "suggestion" of non-free problems as a warning. And for a hypothetical, if an image has a single rationale for one page but lacks a second one for another page, it's very hard for Delta to "suggest" there is a problem because that is a problem per policy. And that may interfer with the automated tasks he's suggesting. I realize that most of the regulars involved here would be able to make the right judgement call, but all it takes is one editor that is unaware of this history and sees a comment from Delta and decides its a violation, and we're back here again. --MASEM (t) 18:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• For the sake of discussion, since this stuff still needs to get done, would Delta be allowed to, so long as he dosen't edit file pages in doing so, generate lists of possible issues for other people to look at and/or generate a set of instructions so that other people can fill in for this task (hopefully with less drama)? Sven Manguard Wha? 19:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC
  • My opinion is that any sort of activity like that qualifies as NFCC enforcement. The point of the topic ban is that Δ should do something else entirely, and leave non-free images completely to other people to deal with. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
    • The issue with that is that Delta is tremendously knowledgeable with the NFCC, the issue is with his interactions and his error rate. If he's willing to show other people the ropes, it'll save the knowledge while cutting the drama, which I think would be a good thing. Mind you I'm not convinced that the harassment of Delta is going to stop because of this, there are a few editors who have dedicated their lives to running him off the project entirely. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
      • For the sake of argument, if people are trying to drive him off entirely, and Δ wants to avoid that, it would make much more sense for him to completely leave the NFCC area. I'm not sure, though, exactly what knowledge he has about NFCC that other people who work in the area don't have. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Delta handing off his NFCC issue detection bot code to someone else would probably be optimal. He's resisted that as he's afraid his bots will be misused by vandals (as I understand it). If he remains unwilling, someone else could code up replacement code. If that's not going to happen... I don't know. I don't object to the work being done, by someone. I don't object to automated repairs. I don't object to automated listing of stuff for review and possibly removal. I don't feel comfortable with Delta working in the topic field to do those things. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
          • "I don't object to the work being done, by someone". Short term memory loss?. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
            • I was objecting to your apparent focusing efforts on those who criticized Delta. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
  • He generates that list off wiki on the toolserver. He's not interacting with files on-wiki when he generates that list so there is no problem.--Crossmr (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
  • (e/c, possibly in right spot) I personally don't see any problem with Beta generating lists of targets. Via their toolserver access they are already doing this, regardless of local topic bans. The interaction and direct page editing has proven problematic. However, Beta can be quite good at dentifying targets, and potentially could be good at categorisig them for projects to address. It's in the individual discussions that problems arise. Franamax (talk) 00:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I wish to draw the committee's (and other editor) attention to two issues of concern to me as regards bot tasks. These revolve around my opposition expressed at the AN exemption request from 00:20, 7 July 2011 and subsequent discussion there with Beta. First, when discussing "task-1", Beta is using phrases such as "its not really machine readable, its using several guess algorithms to check and try to repair rationales" and "Ive still got a few kinks to work out". I had somehow formed the impression on reading Beta's proposal the first time that this was some kind of easy shit that could be knocked off quickly. A little discussion showed that perhaps it was not all so cut-and-dried. I think that AC, BAG, and contrary to the overwhelming endorsement of giving Beta a bot task to do in that thread, extreme caution is needed when proceeding. See my small-print comment there, if it's so easy, it already is in machine-readable format. Secondly, I'll just use this one example (it was hard enough to wade back to find it) but look at this edit and the subsequent discussion. Beta has consistently stated that you just have to read the edit summary, but there is no mention in that edsum that hidden comments are considered "clutter" and should be removed without notice. Yep, just one instance. I found a few more at the time and was going to discuss it with Beta, but 8 days ago I figured they already had too much on their plate (!) This edit ties into my concern that when Beta edits rapidly, they also tie all their various self- or community-approved tasks into one big bundle which you can either take or leave, fuck you very much. I'd love to see a change, and I'm absolutely fine with getting productive results - I'd just urge caution when setting parameters going forward. Franamax (talk) 02:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggested alternate motion for an arbitrator to propose

• Delta 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.

Reason for offering this proposal

1. It allows Delta to continue with the good work.
2. It avoids the 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 fora to discuss them.
5. It does not make value judgements on a complex and protracted discussion, and the events leading up to it.

I would prefer this to be an agreement between the community and Delta than an injunction form Arbcom. I will not comment on the reasons that this has come to Arbcom in various guises, nor on the events of the past few days, except to say that they are, in the vernacular "not a pretty sight". I hope that the above or something similar can be used as a platform for moving forward positively.

Rich Farmbrough, 00:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC).

Note: a similar or identical suggestion was proposed on Delta's talk page by user:Worm That Turned. Rich Farmbrough, 00:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC).

So in other words let him edit in an area, but not actually communicate with people? oh yes, that will end well. If he can't communicate with editors in the area he's working in he shouldn't be working in that area. He does in fact become no better than a bot.--Crossmr (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

As long as he is contributing to the encyclopaedia in a positive way, I see no problem. You can create a useful (rather than scathing) analogy with a bot, if you wanted to, the NFC expert part of the community would in effect be the botmaster, checking individual queries and feeding back any systemic problems to Delta. Delta would still be free to discuss policy, and indeed anything else. He would also be free to concentrate on the bulk of the enforcement work, rather than concerning himself with the small percentage which are challenged. Rich Farmbrough, 00:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC).

Except in this case Delta is in fact worse than a bot. He's shown a repeated unwillingness to investigate any images he's removing and simply parses "does the FUR rationale link here?" and removes the image if it doesn't. A bot could do that. What Delta adds is conflict when he's opposed where a bot would just plow on forward. So if you're going to take away his ability to create that conflict, well you might as well just be running a bot, but that's not really the answer. His expertise is not fully supported. He's certainly experienced in that he's done it a lot, but several editors don't seem to trust his judgment regarding how and when to remove images, which is what leads to some of the conflicts. His making those edits in the first place will still generate conflict. We need editors handling NFCC who are in it for more than just a race to the finish line.--Crossmr (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I did suggest this as one of a few remedies (I thought a more helpful edit summary and an early warning system might also help), and I still think it's a good idea. If we take the edit warring out of the equation and replace it with discussion, everything stops being about Delta and his interpretation. It's all about shifting the problem back to the content, not the editor. EDIT to add, I thought at the time I might have piped up too late, and conversation stilted very quickly on my suggestions, probably due to this page. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggested alternate motion for an arbitrator to propose (#2 from Δ)

The request at AN edited fairly well it was 21 support 9 opposed to the bot tasks. To that end I propose that I be granted permission to implement both tasks in a two step process, and I will step back from active enforcement of NFCC (I will not remove/tag files) and instead take a role as a organizer and informer. I will leave the actual enforcement up to others.

This follows the intent of the topic ban, while providing the best of both worlds to everyone else. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting very confused about what proposals are where and are proposed by whom... Delta, a large part of the current confusion is because you made a proposal on one board that drew support while an opposite proposal on another board drew support. Can we perhaps all stop making proposals for a couple of days? Worst case scenario is that the motion number one passes and you get to go on a holiday for three or four days while we deal which whatever proposal is next in line? Is that not a reasonable suggestion? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Will the arbs at least show me a little respect and comment on this proposal? ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I've asked my colleagues above to comment on the scope of the topic ban to determine if the two tasks proposed at AN would fall afoul of the topic ban as written. If the topic ban passes without the required clarification, you can ask when you seek the required exemption in your restrictions to run the tasks. It may make sense (for greater clarity) to begin drafting the BRFA page, as there have been concerned raised above the scope of the proposed task. Once you've drafted the two BRFA pages, you should update the VPR thread to seek additional comments with a view to determining whether consensus exists for the tasks to proceed. –xeno^talk 13:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Separate or alternate motions

From this edit (making one of the motions a first choice) and this edit (saying that the motions are separate), it seems there is some confusion among arbitrators about whether these are separate or alternate motions. I know this is somewhat of a perennial problem, but it would be good to sort that out before the confusion spreads. Carcharoth (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

That's part of the reason I explicitly made the motions separate. If they were alternates, we can just quit now and topic ban him, because that's clearly got superior support, and we all knew that prior to the motions ever being posted. Iff they're separate does proposing to undo the suspension of the site ban make any sense. Jclemens (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

In situations like this, I thought "first choice" simply means that, if that first choice passes, that person's vote for the other motion should not be counted. That doesn't prevent both motions from passing anyway, if different people support them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)