User talk:Δ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3 closed[edit]

An arbitration case regarding Betacommand (Δ) has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. The existing community sanctions on Betacommand were a valid response by the community to prior problems with Betacommand's editing, and that Betacommand was required to abide by those sanctions if he wished to continue editing. However, given that interpretation and implementation of those sanctions has led to ongoing disputes, the community sanctions are superseded by the more straightforward remedies provided for in this decision.
  2. Betacommand is banned from Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year.
  3. After one year has elapsed from the date of his ban, Betacommand may request that the ban be lifted. As part of any such request, Betacommand shall be required to submit a plan outlining his intended editing activity and demonstrating his understanding of and intention to refrain from the actions which resulted in his ban. The Committee shall present this plan to the community for review and comment prior to any modification of Betacommand's ban.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero | My Talk 01:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Best of luck in real life Delta. With any luck, ArbCom will actually do something to resolve this once you get back. This current remedy is just kicking the issue down the road. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Indeed it is. I noted this too in the last paragraph in this section. They have failed to provide any evidence of negative behavior in the six months leading up to the case. There's nothing to correct. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • And I just noticed that Δ can't even edit his own talk page. That was not called for as a remedy from the ArbCom case. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
That's been fixed by the blocking admin. Rich Farmbrough, 11:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC).
I am not familiar with the issues involved but I always respected Δ. So my best wishes to you Δ and here's hoping for your return. Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Another sad day in Wikipedia's time - or actually, a sad year. Uncalled for, and I am sure we did not hear the end of this. All the best, Δ, you know where to find me. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't suppose there is a community method to...err...override ArbCom on this clearly bad decision. There was no call for a one year ban, as there was no recent behavior presented that warranted a ban. The best they have is extremely old. All they are doing is attempting to throw it down the road, hoping that things will have cooled down by then. They blamed the entire issue on Delta, placed a ban on him, and closed the case. The didn't even feel the need to mention what behavior needs to be addressed. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 05:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh, there are different venues, Alpha Quadrant - Meta-RfC on ArbCom behaviour, local RfC on ArbCom behaviour, WP:AN unban discussion to just simply overrule the ArbCom, requests for clarification, amendments, motions against ArbCom. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • A consensus on AN can't override Arbcom. --Guerillero | My Talk 21:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Purple Barnstar Hires.png The Purple Barnstar
"The Purple Barnstar is awarded to individuals that had to endure incessant harrassment on Wikipedia and still stayed true to the site." The official description says it all, I believe. I can only hope you'll switch your energies at projects such as Wikisource or Commons. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a shame...I did not expect the result to be as one-sided as this, especially considering your good work the past few months and how few problems you have had recently; I am also appalled to see that you are not allowed to appeal the ban for an entire year. All being said, I do hope we'll see you again in a year's time.

For everyone else watching this page, is there going to be a replacement to Δbot? I noticed that it was still doing good work right up until the moment it was blocked, and as far as I know Δ's being banned doesn't suddenly make the bot's job obsolete. Acalamari 18:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Δ stopped the bot on February 5 and the task was taken over a few hours later by a new bot. I hadn't realized until recently that Δbot started up again on February 7. Amalthea 19:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Whoops, thanks. I misread the 5 as the 15. :/ Acalamari 19:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
It's interesting that Δbot was blocked; this was not part of the remedies set forth in the Arbitration proceedings. Further, nobody found any fault with the bot at all...anywhere. Seems pretty senseless to me. Δ never used the bot for anything other than bot edits in its assigned task. It seems a giant leap of bad faith to block that bot when it wasn't called for by arbitration, and when it hadn't been found at fault for anything; it's like there's a presumption that Δ will abuse it now that Δ is blocked. Seems pretty facepalm to me. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I asked the arbs and clerks back when the case was almost closed 10 days ish ago about this. The only reply I got was that it is the correct practice to block all of a person's accounts when they are banned. --Guerillero | My Talk 21:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the clarification Guerillero. Appreciated. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm also terribly sorry to see this, and consider it to be an error in judgment at best on the part of the ArbCom. As to the above comment regarding AN, I recall a comment from ArbCom a few years back (unfortunately, I don't remember where), that ArbCom could not in reality act against a consensus among administrators, as it relies upon administrators to enforce its decisions, and a consensus among administrators that its actions are wrong would result in them being unenforceable. I didn't think I'd see the day such a thing would actually be a possibility, it was a theoretical discussion at the time. I think that time may have come, and if Jimbo fails to act on the appeal, I think we may need to see about making it happen. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Seraphimblade, if at all possible that you could, finding such a discussion would be very, very helpful. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

To those coming here voicing sorrow at Δ's ban; we can and should do more. This case sets an extremely chilling precedent:

  • A case can be brought without ArbCom answering direct questions as to the scope of the case, in effect creating a free for all 1.
  • Double jeopardy is an acceptable outcome of ArbCome cases.
  • Sockpuppetry is acceptable in ArbCom cases 2 3
  • Anonymous IPs can inferentially accuse the subject of a case of committing a felony without repercussions 4. See discussion.
  • ArbCom can ignore obvious evidence of improved behavior in the many months leading up to a case, and instead ban someone based on nine month old evidence.
  • ArbCom can shut down discussion on case talk pages [1].

"Evil prevails when the good do nothing". This isn't to say ArbCom is evil. Far from it. But, an evil has been committed. This isn't to say that Δ is the poster child of editors. He isn't. But, what people find fault with him for are things a regular editor not under such intense scrutiny wouldn't even be brought to AN/I for. Δ's detractors have won, and done so in part because they have been far more vocal and aggressive in their attacks on Δ than those who feel this was improper. This isn't unpredictable. In 'real life', few people are willing to stand up and defend those whose reputations are black. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

See the third banner on my talk page  :) . Count Iblis (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Notification of ArbCom appeal[edit]

Δ I wish to advise you that I have requested an appeal of the ban imposed against you. This is done in accordance with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Appeal of decisions. You can monitor this request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Appeal of Betacommand 3. Best regards. My76Strat (talk) 10:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

  • An arbitrator has deleted it as malformed. So, rather than fixing the good faith attempt at appeal, just delete it as malformed. Curious. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Actually, it got userfied to My76strat's page at his request... although he's also been told that it's highly unlikely that we will hear an appeal of a case we just closed. SirFozzie (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Mhm, because ArbCom would rather put it off for a year, so that they don't have to deal with the issue now. Time isn't going to heal this old wound, so why wait a year before even working possible solution? Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
        It has been clarified that I misunderstood a policy provision and effectually lack the standing to advance an appeal. My prerogative would exist in requesting a modification, and I concede that it is rather soon to pursue that request. I remain steadfast however that an appeal should inherently be filed in close proximity to the decision being appealed. I hope the esteemed members of the committee are not aggrieved by my manner. I never intended to cast aspersions but with all due respect, in the opinion of an editor without standing, the body ArbCom failed to follow their own policy prejudicing their own decision. As an aside, I think it is remiss that ArbCom doesn't enunciate the right of appeal to parties who do have standing, particularly Δ who could easily believe he is not allowed to appeal the decision for 1 year. My76Strat (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

NFCC#9 Report[edit]

Hi Delta, I was hoping you could give me the source to this report. My bot has been using the report to enforce NFCC#9. I've been going through and cleaning up all my old code, and I was hoping to use the database query directly, instead of using your report. Thanks, Tim1357 talk 17:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I would recommend against doing so for a number of reasons, not least of which being that ArbCom may view such an action as violating the terms of his ban. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh. I didn't know. Sorry then. Tim1357 talk 20:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Eh, you could try sending him an email or asking him in IRC. ArbCom doesn't dictate what he can talk about outside of this project. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, they can. They banned Racepacket from saying anything about LauraHale on IRC or WMF projects, even though they lack jurisdiction by their own policy. I've raised this issue, but I'm told it's just a semantic issue. Regardless of that, by their own policy they can use evidence from outside of en.wikipedia. Further, since they're willing to ignore their policy on jurisdiction over semantic issues, it's possible they'll ignore their policy on admissibility of evidence. In short, anything Δ does or says can and will be used against him. His best course of action is to treat ArbCom with the advice given by James Duane here (that video is absolutely fascinating by the way; absolutely worth the time).
  • As was so well demonstrated in Δ's recently closed case, it's not the subject of a case that is up for debate, but the heat generated. The more heat generated, the more likely the subject will be banned from the project regardless of the veracity of the evidence provided for or against the subject. As an example, I cite the 9 November 2011 block of Δ by Franamax [2] which was done under the motion here, which banned Δ from any edit enforcing NFCC. The supposed offending edit was advising me, on my talk page, about a change in a report he has on the toolserver...NOT on en.wikipedia, but on the toolserver. Let me repeat that: NOT ON WIKIPEDIA. As you know, this was rapidly overturned with a large number of administrators standing against Franamax's actions. It should be common sense with so many administrators standing in opposition of the block that it shouldn't be used as evidence against him right? wrong (see "On 2011-11-8" line). But that's just one editor trying to use it, right? Wrong (Franamax is Admin 8 in that discussion). Franamax still maintains he acted appropriately. Whether you agree with him or not, it's "heat". Since Δ is the subject of the heat, the heat goes away when you remove Δ. You see, in the view of some people, the best way to put out a fire is to remove one corner of the fire triangle, and ignore the other two. It might not solve the root problem, but if it's the fastest, easiest way out...take it! --Hammersoft (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Fix ref script comments[edit]

I am hoping you are still able and willing to work on the script. Looking at this, I'd point out that the script, when alphabetizing references, should not separate lower and upper case refs. Also, it should put diacritics inside the regular alphabet (so, for example, Ł should be after L, not after Z). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

What script is that? I think it would be useful in my work. →Στc. 08:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Fix refs. Goodvac (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Report request[edit]

Hi Δ,

I wonder if you could help me. I'd like a report on the toolserver, perhaps generated weekly with data archived, showing the number of files (just files) deleted under G12, F6, F7 and F8 broken down by each of those CSD types over the prior week? Establishing criteria would be based solely on posted deletion reason summaries in the log (ie, specifying G12, F6, etc.). Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Fix Refs broken?[edit]

Returns 403 error as of today. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

  • It's not the only thing that's generating a 403 from his tools :( --Hammersoft (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
    • So it's a wider problem? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Very possibly. Some stuff is working, some isn't. I don't think the community as a whole fully realizes the dependency the project has on the work he produced that is still running from the tool server. I don't want to stir up a larger discussion of how he was treated. But, if I had been treated as he was I would have pulled the plug on everything and walked away, code in hand. I'm surprised he left things running. It's just a matter of time for his products to become increasingly non-functional. What we're seeing is just the tip of the iceberg melting. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
        • The injustice of what has happened to B/D aside, I think code is/should be as free as the content of our articles. If B/D is not here to fix it, we should ask on VP:T or somewhere else for somebody to repair the tools. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 20:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I see you also disabled http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/rationale%20check.html. If you plan to leave the project for good, let me say I can fully understand that. Apart from some niches I enjoy (some articles), Wikipedia just gets more and more disgusting. I want to personally thank you for your NFCC 9 and 10c reports and the rationale checker. I also want to thank you for this note and your responses to my inquiries to you in general. Furthermore I would like to apologize for this. I know this didn't come across very nicely, although it wasn't my intention to accuse you of anything, it was more for me to understand what you were doing there. I am sorry for that. I wish you that your skills will be appreciated elsewhere. May you have better luck elsewhwere. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlkctb) 20:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Script problem[edit]

The FixRef script seems broken. Do you want me to report on which articles? It seems broken on all I try. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Script problem 2[edit]

The fix ref script works fine on most articles, but I run into another pinkish error report trying to run it at 2012 Summer Olympics. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here

A kitten for you![edit]

Cucciolo gatto Bibo.jpg

How cute this kittens are they are all adorable

Valpiserv53 (talk) 04:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Script problem (July 2013)[edit]

Hi. script fails, removes references rather than moving them. This is a problem only in this article; in others it still seems to work fine. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

PS. Fixed - you may want to update the script so this won't mess it up in the future. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Script problem (October 2013)[edit]

(Fix Ref Script) It seems to do nothing (no error reported, runs and provides no results), for example on Jan Henryk Dąbrowski or Rejtan (painting). Could it be https? Or something else seems to have broken it across the board. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Please rejoin Wikipedia as an editor[edit]

Greetings Δ, I have missed your presence; far too long! As you have served the required span of your sanction, you are eligible to request reinstatement of your editing privileges. The Arbitration Committee is bound by the sanction; to give your request a fair hearing. The provisions under WP:UNBAN allow you to edit your talk page for the purpose of discussing matters related to such a request. I, for one, fervently hope to see your prose and furthermore hope that its message will indicate a willingness to return.

Statement from Δ
The following statement was included in an email I received from Δ asking that I post this reply on his behalf:

I’ve always been ready to appeal the request. The issues I’ve been debating was whether or not I had enough support to make traction on any such appeal. Given the extremely vague terms that where given when it was implemented I just haven’t dug around to figure that out. I have been active supporting Wikipedia via toolserver and labs the entire time. I have release several new tools and have migrated most of my stuff to labs. There have always been a dozen or so projects that I have wanted to finish, I have also seen dozens of WP:BOTREQ that have gone un-done due to insufficient bot operators or an unwillingness to take on the task that I could have easily done. In returning I see several issues that are fairly glaring and I’m not sure how to overcome those. I want to be able to return to editing without having users stalk my edits and harass me. I know this will be disputed but it is one of the major issues. I also don’t want to be under such expansive restrictions that I am unable to contribute. The previous restrictions where so broad and vague that an admin could just about twist anything into a violation of those conditions.

In reply I asked Δ to join the discussion himself as soon as his technical circumstances allow him to do so.—John Cline (talk) 02:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Users who would support Δ's return[edit]

  • Support - as proposer—John Cline (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Dreth 14:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • SupportEpicgenius (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes. Things like UserCompare are instrumental in identifying sockpuppets in WP:SPI. The restrictions on automated tools are overly vague and inconsistently implemented. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Very helpful on the toolserver and makes very useful lists for users (such as a list of double 'the' errors in articles). -Newyorkadam (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
  • Support - No reason to not support this. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 16:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Users who would oppose Δ's return[edit]

  • Oppose - After years of bans, arbitrations, and more bans, why ask for another round of drama? --John Nagle (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per blocking at times and violating policies. blastertalk! see 14:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This editor was given many many extra chances, but repeatedly proved unable to work consensually. His technical skills are superb, and were widely appreciated; but he was banned despite a clear understanding of those skills, because he created so much unnecessary drama.
    See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ for an index of the huge collection of WP:ANI discussions about him. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Just as a reminder: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3#Appeal of ban. My personal perception is that Δ's strength lies in the creation and maintenance of his tools, but that might not be what at least some part of the community expects from him. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. This is why I think it would be a good idea to discuss his unban request here, before it is filed, to achieve a winning strategy; provided Δ is interested in returning as an editor of course.—John Cline (talk) 01:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Vitruvian Barnstar Hires.png The Technical Barnstar
At 04:29:01 I posted to VP:T asking for a list of accounts; at 04:35 http://tools.wmflabs.org/betacommand-dev/reports/users.txt (warning to stalkers, file is large) appeared in response to my request. Thank you for using your powers on my behalf. —rybec 07:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...[edit]

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 18:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
I want to say thank you for migrating the NFCC#10c report to Labs and for your continued updates to it. Although I don't do a lot of NFCC enforcement anymore, your report is as useful as it has always been for what I still do. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 07:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Δ/Sandbox[edit]

User:Δ/Sandbox, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Δ/Sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Δ/Sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 06:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

A BotStar for you![edit]

Animation2.gif The Labs BotStar of Awesome
For assisting me with many problems on Wikimedia labs with HastuerBot and cron. Hasteur (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Clarification motion[edit]

A case (The Troubles) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)