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

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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)

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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, [1] 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 [2], 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 [3] [4]. 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 [5].
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [6] [clarified], but even they have reported some bugs. [7] 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)

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 [8], 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 [9]. — 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 [10] 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 ([11]). 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" [12]. 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[13], 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 [14], [15], [16], and Δ has said he used the Pywikipedia bot framework (interwiki.py) to make them [17] (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 [18]. 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[19], but User:Toshio Yamaguchi afterwards has apologized for this on my talk page[20], 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 [21] 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 [22] 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)

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.[23].

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".[24]. (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)

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)

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)

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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: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 [25]. 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 [26] he was unblocked after it was determined it was not a violation [27]. 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)

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)

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)

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 [28] 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[29]) 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.[30]. 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)

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)

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)

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. [31]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:53, 6 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Template

3) {template}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {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.

Template

1) {template}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {template}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: