Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ/2017 Advisory RFC

RfC: Advisory RfC concerning Betacommand

What should the Arbitration Committee do concerning User:Δ, also known as Betacommand? --Guy Macon (talk • contribs) 20:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

What this RfC is not

• This RfC is not binding on anyone. It is purely advisory.

• The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee is not bound by Wikipedia RfCs and AN cannot override any Arbcom decision.

• We are, however, free to advise the Arbitration Committee, which is what this RfC is designed to do.

Background:

On 15 February 2012, the Arbitration Committee banned Betacommand from Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year on a 10 to 6 vote.

In that decision, Arbcom said "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."

It appears from reading Betacommand's talk page (keeping in mind that we are only seeing one side of the story) that Betacommand has been trying to submit such a plan for over four years, but the Arbitration Committee has not presented the plan to the community for review and comment.

Previous discussions:

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3#Betacommand (February 2012 -- well over five years ago)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Betacommand/Archive (March 2013)

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ/Werieth (July 2014)

• User talk:Δ

Proposals

Please note that the following proposals are not exclusive. If you support more than one, please indicate, "first choice", "second choice", etc.

Proposal 1: Lift the ban

(Lifting the ban would start with an arbitrator posting a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. )

• Support Lift all restrictions for time served. Kids that were not born back then are in school now. If he turns out to be a negitive again, deal with it then. His technical skills should he welcomed back and I'm glad he is still interested in this project after all this time. Legacypac (talk) 00:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support: After much thought, I have decided to support a complete lifting of all restrictions per WP:ROPE and WP:UBCHEAP. Either Betacommand will be careful, manually checking any automated edits before saving and engaging in a thoughtful and civil discussion when someone disagrees with his edits, or he won't. If he does, we are done. If he doesn't, no additional restrictions or sanctions will suffice and he should be reblocked. Five years is enough time served. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Neutral: I am changing my !vote to neutral based upon new information and new arguments posted since I wrote the above. I don't know what is best in ths situation. I have always supported the basic concept that Arbcom gets to make the final decision no matter what the consensus of this non-binding advisory RfC is, but I no longer feel that I know enough to add to any consensus that emerges. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• If you're going to "Neutral", perhaps you should simply withdraw the RfC, and save some poor trio of admins the hassle of having to close it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support Time has passed, move on. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - As I said previously, the Betacommand ordeal lasted years, and was pretty much a swamp which simply grew bigger and bigger. I'd have to see some evidence that Betacommand/Delta has changed their approach to editing and, especially, dealing with other members of the community. I am not willing to extend him AGF, as that was more than used up years ago, and the mere passage of time guarantees nothing. I need hard proof before I can support lifting any of his sanctions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Whilst it is, indeed, a long time ago, it was also seriously disruptive over a long period. I do not support this, as it provides no safeguards. I think the community needs some safeguards, and I actually think it is fairer to Beta, in the long run, to have a more careful, structured return than to just let him dive straight back into everything with the real possibility he would be quickly re-blocked as a result of the many people who will inevitably be on the lookout for any slip-ups. Yes, this should have been examined sooner, but that doesn't mean we should not still exercise care. (I am supporting 2a) -- Begoon 08:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC) (Changing !vote, after reconsideration -- Begoon 05:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC))

• Oppose - I'm not seeing where Beta has shown that they understand why they got banned. I don't expect apologies or anything, but I do expect some sort of acknowledgement of what went wrong and how they intend to avoid doing it again. All I'm seeing here is "it's been a long time". That's not going to cut it given how disruptive the whole affair was. And the belief that if they step out of line they will be swiftly blocked without drama is not shown by the history. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose any blanket lifting of all restrictions at this time. Betacommand may have good work for Wikipedia, but there should be no contact between himself and his former problem areas (copyright and bots). Giving him unmonitored free reign would just bring us back here in a month--Jayron32 14:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support - second choice. Acalamari 14:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support - first choice. My interactions with Betacommand have been productive over the years. Never have I once sensed disruptive behavior from this user, intentionally or unintentionally. Albeit, the interactions were on IRC only, but I think it's time that the community moves on.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, not only because the RfC is flawed and tainted from the start (see above), but also fundamentally: this is already his second ban, and during that ban he socked for two years or thereabouts (with a sock that succeeded in getting a block log before it was determined to be Betacommand in the first place). For an unblock, one generally expects an indication of understanding what lead to the block, and some honesty about previous socks and so on. Here, we have an editor who hasn't shown much of the former, and who didn't even mention this sock block when the RfC proposer asked him about sockpuppetry. Coupled with the fact that he is on his second ban, I see no reason at all to allow him back in as I see zero reason to believe that anything has changed since the ban. Fram (talk) 15:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per Jayron32 above. In those areas where he was disruptive, Betacommand was spectacularly disruptive. If there's a genuine feeling that he has something useful to contribute to Wikipedia, then let him demonstrate that somewhere where it won't waste large amounts of time from large numbers of people cleaning up the near-inevitable mess. ‑ Iridescent 20:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support - First choice. I think regardless of any official restriction or probation, Betacommand would be the singularly most watched editor for a significant period of time, and so much as one toe over the line would result in a flood at AN/ANI. After this much time, I don't think that giving a length of WP:ROPE is without merit. While in the past he had a fair bit of goodwill built up which may have helped shield him from sanction, I believe that it's all long since used up and is well into the red. I think that he would be well served to stay away from WP:NFC as a whole, and I trust that WP:BAG could deal with any bots that he wanted to propose on a case-by-case basis (although staying away from bot operating would probably not be a bad idea, either). PGWG (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC) supporting option 2b only, as I've been persuaded on the merits of the arguments that no restrictions at all is unwise. PGWG (talk) 12:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per Jayron32. It's obvious that there was a problem ongoing for a very long time which continued right up to the point that Δ needed to be sitebanned. While I fully support unblocking with restrictions, it would be irresponsible and disrespectful to the original sanction to simply allow Δ to go right back to the areas where their disruption was caused, even after all this time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. We need to avoid a co-dependency cycle in which we keep thinking that "one more chance" is the solution. Arbcom was clear enough: "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.". I do not see any such plan linked in the description of this RFC. Moreover, he has not even been willing to follow the terms of WP:SBAN while banned (e.g. [1]), making it seem even less likely he will suddenly begin to follow site norms if unbanned. Before I could vote in favor of unbanning I would like to see a clear plan along the lines required by Arbcom, which would need to include a complete recusal from every aspect of non-free image maintenance. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Proven to be an enormous net negative in photo patrolling. How many people has he chased off the project? Carrite (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• I support this as the most just solution and best allocation and use of our volunteer resourcefulness. Nevertheless, I understand that justice is beyond The Committee's purview, and that our community of eclectic volunteers would sooner forgo a fortnight of sleep than give assent to a proposal that wasn't straight out of the Rube Goldberg Manual of Style.--John Cline (talk) 09:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• oppose for now I'd first like to know if there has been any socking during this ban. I've had a few suspicions and would like a formal response on that issue. And if he does come back, I'd want a huge amount of restrictions. The risk/reward here doesn't seem great, but I'd want him to fully explain his own history, note if there has been any socking, and then propose a really clear way forward. Even then I personally have grave doubts and would be unlikely to support. But I'd object loudly to nearly anything else as a process. Hobit (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• In answering questions like the one you just asked, normally we simply go to the archived sockpuppet investigations page. That's the place where evidence is supposed to be posted so that we can check. For instance, I can check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hobit/Archive and see that nobody has ever accused you of sockpuppetry. We can do this with Beatacommand, and we get Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Betacommand/Archive which shows that the last accusation was on 16 March 2013 -- four and a half years ago -- with a conclusion of "There simply hasn't been enough evidence presented here" by well-respected clerk Rschen7754.

In the case of most sockpuppetry accusation that would be enough. Alas, in this case an accusation was made in in the wrong place, thus keeping it out of the SPI archive, and it took a while for us to even realize that the new complaint had been filed. It is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ/Werieth and was closed on 9 July 2014, a little over three years ago.

There have been no accusation of sockpuppetry since then. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Has Beta claimed there was no sockpuppetry since then? What I'm saying that I'd like him to identify his last bit of socking/IP editing. To be clear, I've no evidence he has been socking sense then, but I do recall thinking a few times "is this Betacommand?". I'm also unaware if he's acknowledged his socking as Werieth. Basically, I'd want him to come clean with previous socking and make it clear he understands why he was banned. If he can't do that, I think we've no business considering unbanning him. Hobit (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I asked him specifically about that here:[2][3][4] He denies the suspected socks at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Betacommand, which sort of implies that he doesn't deny the confirmed socks at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Betacommand The problem is that User:Werieth isn't in either cat, nor is he listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Betacommand/Archive, which is why I missed this at first. I really wish that admins who block users for sockpuppetry would document the action in the places where one would normally look.

You make a good point about coming clean with previous socking. Why not just go to his talk page (User talk:Δ) and ask him directly? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Guy, you did seem to be aware of the Werieth issue in a similar discussion last year which Opabinia recently linked from Beta's talkpage, when you said: "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ/Werieth was closed on 9 July 2014. The most recent test we have of Δ's willingness to abide by sanctions is not the Werieth case. It is the two years plus since the Werieth case with no known sockpuppetry." I realise that's over a year ago now, but I link it because that whole discussion seems of interest, and I don't see it mentioned. -- Begoon 00:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I did write that, but I did not remember that it was among my 37,746 edits when I posted this RfC. Alas, one certain editor decided to disrupt this RfC and accuse me of bad faith simply because I added a link to the Werieth issue the moment I became aware of it (again), which makes me reluctant to expose myself to further abuse by adding a link to the Opabinia discussion. The good news is that this is a non-binding advisory RfC, which means that Arbcom only needs to consider whatever consensus we arrive at along with other factors, including any emails that we haven't seen, and possibly even things they cannot reveal for privacy reasons. I think we can safely assume that Arbcom will consider everything on the Δ talkpage -- including the archived material at User talk:Δ/20160801 -- as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Please note that I just changed my !vote from support to neutral, based upon this new information and the arguments of several editors here. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose This process is out of order and the subject has been given too many last chances already. Andrew D. (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Wow, that's a lot of reading. I read a good bit of it, though, and, from what I understand, the editor socked and used bots without permission, among several other things. However, the last known on-wiki activity (save on their talk page) from the user (and their socks) was from over four years ago. A lot can happen in four years. What's more, the user recently got a barnstar from Headbomb for reviving one of Headbomb's bots, Bibcode Bot. Based on the length of time elapsed since the last incident and the fact that user has apparently been helpful to this project very recently, I say we give them a second chance, but we keep a close eye on them without harassing them. From what I can tell, they've gone through the proper channels to request an unban, and that should also be respected as well. This shows signs of maturity. — Gestrid (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Moved support to #Proposal 2a: Lift the ban with indefinite restrictions. — Gestrid (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting the ban without restrictions. I have supported lifting with restrictions elsewhere. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. The actions Betacommand were banned for were extremely serious - he severely damaged the wiki, irreversibly deleting large parts of it without seeking consensus or discussion with anyone else along the way. On top of this, as far as I know he has never expressed any regret or remorse for this, and has, if anything, indicated (by ignoring all the restrictions placed on it) that he could happily do it again at any time if the opportunity presented itself - his comment in the previous ArbCom case in particular expresses a complete lack of contrition. The ArbCom ban against him specifically allowed him to request to return by clearly expressing the contrition and agreement not to repeat his actions as outlined above. Given the irreversible damage his reckless actions did and the fact that he still seems to stand by them, the idea of letting him back in without at least that bare minimum is ridiculous. I would also point out that many of the Support !votes here are, based on their arguments, clearly people who agreed with the initial rash of bot-deletions that got Betacommand restricted (and later banned); that is not the issue at hand. Supporting someone who ignored both consensus and the ArbCom to imposed their own vision on the wiki through automation, simply because you agree with that vision, doesn't strike me as an argument that should be given any weight in an advisory RFC. I'm of the opinion that he should never be allowed back, but it is certainly absurd to suggest that he could be allowed back in without the statement that the previous ArbCom result required - what people are requesting here is essentially a post-hoc amendment to the previous case declaring what he did to be acceptable. It wasn't, and it's extremely important to establish that (hence the severe nature of his ban in the first place.) --Aquillion (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• A qualified Support. Whew! (bot brought me here) I just want to say quite frankly that my support was not an easy decision. There was a lot of information to read. What makes it a bit harder is the fact that I have a great deal of respect for all who serve on ArbCom (even though I may not always agree with their decisions), Guy Macon, BMK, Carrite and all the other editors commenting here with whom I've interacted over the years. The arguments on both sides are convincing. I've not had any interaction with Δ but have a pretty good handle on what occurred and what this RfC is about, and I'm fine with how it was presented. I'm of the mind that an editor deserves another chance if they expressed a sincere desire to return to productive editing, are willing to take the necessary steps for consideration, and made assurances they will conduct themselves properly. My decision was influenced by a somewhat similar case involving an editor who at one time aggressively created disruption, was banned/blocked for wearing different color socks, was given opportunities to return after admitting and recognizing why they were banned/blocked. Each time was over a different issue, but that editor did manage to turn the page and transformed into a productive member of the community, and adopted a collegial approach when confronted with an issue. I strongly believe in second chances and possibly even a third, depending on the circumstances and potential for positive change. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support this option as first choice (option 2a is the second choice). I have been watching this from the sidelines (most of the time). Successive ArbCom's stonewalling and pocket-vetoing shows a lack of communication on their part and should not attribute it to Δ, especially when ArbCom crafted motions and statements which are at times unclear or ambiguous which allowed them open to interpretations by admins (and becoming a game of "gotchas"). If my memory serves right, didn't we have editors wikilawyering who advocated the view that typing website address would have constituted a violation with the "semi-automated tools" restriction since the browser converted domain name into IP address? The sillyness and pettiness of these wikilawyering are partly to blame, but ArbCom are also responsible for dropping the ball too. In any case, 5 years is a long time (you could have gotten a university degree to put it into perspective). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Can't support a no-restrictions lifting.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  07:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of proposal #1

• Comment As can clearly be seen from examining Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3/Evidence, previous restrictions resulted in multiple editors hounding Betacommand over minor technical infractions that had nothing to do with anything bad happening to the encyclopedia. After five years, either he "gets it" and will no longer do harmful things that multiple editors objected to five years ago or he doesn't "get it" and never will, which means a reblock. I say give him a fair chance to prove himself. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken, how, exactly, do you propose that Betacommand show you hard proof that he has changed his approach to editing and interacting with other members of the community while he remains unable to edit or interact with other members of the community? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, I don't propose anything, I'm not the one looking for sanctions to be lifted, I'm quite happy with things as they are. The usual suggestion is to edit another Wikipedia for a substantial amount of time with no problems, or to make a particularly convincing statement of recognizing what you did wrong, saying in what ways you've changed, and making a pledge of good behavior. But really, ArbCom didn't reach out and say "We've gotta ban this guy", and his dilemma wasn't caused by "other editors hounding him", Betacommand worked himself into this situation, it's up to him to figure out how to get out of it. All I can tell you is that I don't want the community to go through that years-long shitstorm again, so I'm agin' it until otherwise convinced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

So Betacommand must do the impossible to overcome your objection. Got it. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

No, not impossible, just very very hard, as it should be for the very very very high level of disruption caused by Beta. BTW, if you're here as an advocate for Betacommand, as opposed to a neutral party, you should have made that abundantly clear. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

If, as you claim, it is very very hard as opposed to impossible, please describe, in detail, how you propose that Betacommand show you hard proof that he has changed his approach to editing and interacting with other members of the community while he remains unable to edit or interact with other members of the community. Also, there is no rule saying that the person who posts an RfC cannot take a position in that same RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

No, Guy Macon, I've already explained that I have no interest in providing such a proposal. If Betacommand/Delta -- and not his advocate -- has a specific proposal, I'm happy to evaluate it and comment on it, but I'm under no onus to do his work for him.

It seems to me that the only argument being presented here is "time served", i.e. he's been banned for a long time. Others appear to find that sufficient, but I do not, and other editors appear to agree with that position. If Beta really wants to be unbanned, let him come up with some comprehensive proposal that can be examined and discussed. If he's not going to put any effort into this, then I fail to see why it should even be considered by the community. Editors who have disrupted the project far less then Beta have been denied unbanning on the grounds of "it's been a long time", what makes Beta think he deserves it? Certainly, no argument has been put forward here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Sort of like what is at User_talk:Δ#Public_Appeal, which he has repeatedly asked ArbCom to bring to the community (as is the procedure set out during his banning), and they have failed to do? PGWG (talk) 02:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

As I understand it, Betacommand gave Arbcom "a 3-6 month outline of planned activities, and suggested restrictions for re-integration into the community" which was not responded to, and that the emailed negotiations between Betacommand and Arbcom have been declared by Arbcom to be confidential with a threat of sanctions (block him even harder?) if Betacommand reveals the content of those emails. The section of his talk page is a summary of what he says are in the emails. I personally doubt that anything Betacommand does will change the opinion of Beyond My Ken, and thus it would be a waste of time to "come up with some comprehensive proposal" other than what he has done already. We have each expressed our opinion. I say we wait for the final consensus and stop with the debates that will not change the outcome. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I know this isn't a new post, but every time I look at this page I see another place that various claims about secret arbcom emails have been repeated, and those who are new to this issue shouldn't have to look through the whole page to find correct information. Δ did send an email a couple of months ago that did not get a prompt response. (There was some internal discussion and one email to Δ, from me.) He then posted his "public appeal" thread on his talk page. There were no "emailed negotiations", and nothing meeting that description has taken place since I've been on the committee. There certainly have not been any threats about confidentiality. That doesn't even make any sense - while arbitrators treat emails to the mailing list as confidential, the authors of those emails are perfectly free to republish them elsewhere. Since Δ has not made these claims in public to my knowledge, and hasn't made them by email to arbcom, I'm unclear on where you're getting your information from. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: While this isn't visible, it's worth noting Betacommand has remained engaged off-wiki with a variety of on-wiki things since his ban. One of my bots, for instance, uses a report he designed for me as its list of pages to run on. He's been tremendously helpful to bot operators in general, and I believe giving him a chance would be to the benefit of the project. That is not something I usually say about long-term banned editors. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, and noted. I'm glad to hear he's been helpful and useful to bot operators, that makes sense since it's his primary area of interest, but if he's been helpful while banned from en.wiki, he really doesn't need to be unbanned in order to continue to be helpful. Given that, and knowing what a considerable problem he was, and is more than likely to be again, I'm not seeing the advantage to en.wiki of unbanning him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Nice Catch 22 you have there. If Betacommand has been helpful during his ban, your demand is that that he somehow show himself to be helpful in order to overcome your objection to unbanning him. If Betacommand has been helpful during his ban, then he doesn't need to be unbanned in order to continue to be helpful. That's almost as good as your insistence that he make good edits while banned from editing in order to prove that he can be trusted to make good edits. I have decided that I am going to change my vote and agree with you 100% All you have to do is post an eleven-digit prime number. Any eleven-digit prime number will do. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

No, not a Catch 22 at all. A suggestion was made that certain of Beta's activities while banned were helpful to some people, which I accept as valid information, but since he's providing that help while banned, it doesn't seem necessary to unban him for him to continue being helpful in that fashion. That's not in any way a "catch 22", it's simply my rejection of a specific rationale for Beta to be unbanned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Carrite, you raise a rhetorical straw man in asking: "How many people has [Δ] chased off the project?", unless you can quantify it yourself? I do not know of any but I do know of one he chased away from leaving; strengthening that one to continue editing instead.--John Cline (talk) 09:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Carrite and John Cline: I am also aware of the opposite .. editors who considered to leave / left / decreased editing because of the decisions. My trust of ArbCom has been low for a long time (they made me cease editing). It was getting a bit better, but recent events have not actually shown any improvement that I thought to see. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I came close to leaving Wikipedia when several arbitrators made a provably false accusation against me and failed to respond to my repeated requests that the arbitrators post evidence supporting their claims. See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 35#I believe that I am owed an apology. for details. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Hmm...based on the lack of an answer to your question despite plenty of time to provide one and give examples, the answer appears to be "he hasn't chased off anyone". Acalamari 02:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
    • So, is that the standard we're using now for unbanning someone, you have to prove that they drove someone away from editing, otherwise they get to come back, no matter how disruptive they've been for however long they've been so? So we have to survey every editor who stopped editing during the period that Betacommand was misbehaving in order to determine if he was the reason they left? Ot is it an even stricter standard, and we only count those who posted on their user page "I can't stand it anymore, Betacommand's shenanigans have finally driven me off of Wikipedia! Goodbye, cruel enablers! Farewell, Internet encyclopedia!!" Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
      • No, but it is the standard for banning people. Guess it is time to ban quite a number of people on this place. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
      • It isn't but Carrite has insinuated that Δ has driven people off Wikipedia. If Carrite is unable or unwilling to back that implication up, he should withdraw it. Otherwise, it's an unsubstantiated attack. Acalamari 15:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
        • It is, and always was, an opinion, as it's virtually impossible to substantiate. However, I see nothing terribly wrong with long-term editors expressing their impression of the zeitgeist at the time, even without objective evidence to back it up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
          • Opinions aren't facts. It might be Carrite's opinion that Δ has driven people off the project but unless he backs that up with evidence, it's bogus. Based on what you've just said, we should be free to make up stuff up people we don't like or who are unpopular simply because they are "opinions" that can't be verified. How many editors has Carrite driven off? How many have you driven off? How many have I driven off? Unless it can be quantified, it shouldn't be considered. There's plenty of other reasons for keeping Δ banned and while I don't agree with them, at least they can be argued with evidence rather than with knee-jerk emotion. Insinuations are unnecessary and poisonous. Acalamari 00:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
            • Yes, it's true that opinions aren't facts, I pretty much said that, but that doesn't mean it's "bogus", since, as I said, Carrite is a experienced long-term editor who lived through the Betacommand Era, and their evaluation of the how things felt at the time has validity, even though it's not backed up with factual evidence, which would be virtually impossible to do.
              Remember, this is not a Wikipedia article, where everything needs to be supported by citations, this is a Wikipedia community discussion, and the subjective experiences of people who lived through the events in question are still valuable for consideration, and shouldn't be shut down simply because they aren't objective facts. Every community member can accept or reject them as they see fit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
              • You know what, we even have an article all about facts that are shared that are not actually factual. Sharing experience would be, "I think Δ has scared many people away from Wikipedia". That is not what was said. PGWG (talk) 12:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
                • No, but it's what I'm saying. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
                  • And that's fine, but that wasn't the original argument. Carrite left a clear insinuation that Δ has driven people off the project, as a statement of fact rather than opinion. Facts are demonstrable (Donald Trump's insistence otherweise notwithstanding), and those are separate from opinions. Presented as an opinion... it would not surprise me if the actions surrounding Δ drove somebody from the project. I have zero evidence to back that up, however, so I won't present it as though it is a truth. In my opinion, saying as fact that an editor (banned or otherwise) has driven people away from Wikipedia without any evidence tends to veer towards an unsubstantiated attack. PGWG (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Lift the ban with restrictions

(Please explain what restrictions you favor in your !vote. If lengthy, explain in discussion section)

• Support (second to 2a below) accepting the restrictions proposed by the user, i.e. restricted to a single account, and banned for six months from WP:NFC "enforcement", from using [semi-]automated tools to edit, and from creating bots. Frankly the issue is too old to bother looking into; five years banned with appeals stubbornly denied or ignored by Arbcom is time served, even respecting that the Committee is busy. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Withdrawn - with no support here I'm going to go ahead and strike this my wording of this otherwise blank proposal. See proposal 2a below. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• No. You are not allowed to withdraw a proposal that I wrote without asking me. Furthermore, your "with no support here" claim is misleading. Beetstra opposed this because he favors lifting the ban without restrictions. Beyond My Ken opposed because he favors keeping the ban in place. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Fine, do as you like. But I don't see how any of the (now 5) bolded "oppose" comments below can possibly be interpreted as support for this proposal. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

That's not the issue. The issue is that RfCs normally run for 30 days, and that you attempted to withdraw a proposal that I wrote less than a day into the RfC. This behavior is forbidden per WP:TPOC. Please make your point in your !votes and in the comment sections like everyone else. Nobody elected you to be The Sheriff Of The RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Guy, you didn't write this proposal. You wrote a template section for editors to fill in their own proposal, which I did based on Δ's own wording. Later, MPS1992 took what I wrote and reworded it into a proposal for indefinite restrictions with appeal conditions, which I preferred. At that time, and still the case, nobody had or has supported my wording, including myself, so I struck it. Since MPS1992 presented their proposal as "2a" below this one, I took it upon myself to strike the section as well thinking that there needn't be more comment on my 100% opposed proposal, per WP:SNOW. I can't think of any good reason why there needs to be additional "oppose" comments or any comments at all for that matter on a proposal which has been withdrawn by its proposer for being superseded by a preferable proposal, but since you insist on being the owner of this thing, here we are. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Really? I didn't write the words "Proposal 2: Lift the ban with restrictions (Please explain what restrictions you favor in your !vote. If lengthy, explain in discussion section)"?[5] How do you explain the edit history that says that I did? WP:SNOW does not allow you to withdraw a proposal -- written by someone else -- when it has been up less than 24 hours out of the usual 30 days that RfC proposals run, and with only six !votes cast. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose 5 years has been enough. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Oppose lifting the ban at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - because these restrictions should not lapse purely based on time. See my comments in (2a). -- Begoon 08:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - per BMK. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose bans with sunset clauses are rarely useful; if we DO lift a ban, it should be because of demonstrated evidence of a change of behavior, not because some clock passes a certain point. I'd be fine revisiting after a certain reasonable time, but just letting it go away with no one monitoring it is a bad idea. --Jayron32 14:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting the ban at all. If it is lifted, it needs to be under heavy and permanent restrictions—at the minimum, a total ban on bots, automation, and tagging. ‑ Iridescent 20:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting the ban until Arbcom's request is met: "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." If he has submitted a plan to them, it is clear they have not accepted it. Before I could support any new plan myself, it would need to include a total recusal from all aspects of non-free image maintenance and from all aspects of bot operation. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as an option that is pointless; no consensus could emerge from an option that doesn't specify anything, since everyone would propose something different.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  07:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 2a: Lift the ban with indefinite restrictions

User to be unbanned with the following limitations; restricted to a single account, and banned indefinitely (open to further review after one year) from WP:NFC "enforcement", from using [semi-]automated tools to edit, and from creating bots. The logic is that sanctions spanning numerous years are unjustifiable in the circumstances, but to see further disruption break out after only six months would be highly negative.

• Support as proposer. (first choice) MPS1992 (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - yeah, this is better, though I would prefer review after six months. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

struck per subsequent developments Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Second choice - (first choice) - with 12 month review. Before any relaxation on automated editing, especially in the NFC area, and NFC 'enforcement' in general, there would need to be a clear discussion on what is, and is not permitted, so that previous issues do not recur. Beta could discuss most of this in detail in the time before the review, so that such a review would be informed, clear and comprehensive. -- Begoon 23:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC) (Changing !vote, after reconsideration -- Begoon 12:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Second Choice: If this is the one that gets consensus, I think six months is plenty long enough and that a year is excessive. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Neutral: See my !vote on proposal #1. I still think that a year is excessive. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support this is fine, but 6 months is a lot better. 5+ years time served is plenty. 2nd choice to just reinstating with no restrictions. Legacypac (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support with the 6 month proviso as indicated above.. Give a little rope to see what this editor will do with it. If they behave themselves for a 6 months, open to relaxing more restrictions. Obviously if the editor gets into a stickey situation, sanctions can be snapped back. Issue a trout at the Arbitration Committee for pocket-vetoing this without presenting the case to the community (and not even responding back to the user in a timely manner). Hasteur (talk) 03:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - 5 year has been enough. If problems surface again, thén impose a restriction at that point. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Oppose lifting the ban at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Hope so. Hopefully we can welcome Beta's interest in contributing to article content. Continued topic ban from the area of admin/quasi-admin/enforcement activities. Only one account. No automation, and the proviso that anything that appears to be automation will be deemed to be so. Personal note to User:Δ, I'm looking forward to seeing genuine contributing edits—here's an encouraging toast to hoping that you can find a long-term comfortable space in the world of slow-speed, relaxed, content heavy, and rewarding, manual edits. Good luck! —Sladen (talk) 10:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Having read Betacommand's first attempt at a draft proposal, I was planning to counterpropose essentially this exact thing. Betacommand's initial proposal to lift the ban was inadequate, because the problems that led to the ban lead me to believe the only way to keep him on a useful path is a total indefinite ban on NFC-related word and total indefinite ban on ANYTHING to do with bots. Anything else he cannot be trusted with. If, as he says, he merely wants to engage in gnome work and get familiarized with the evolving culture, fine. Let him clean up spelling errors and reference some articles. The NFC and bot stuff has been working fine without him for 5 years, and he's not needed there. --Jayron32 14:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support - first choice. Zero need for Δ (can we please stop referring to someone by a name they abandoned long ago?) to still be banned afer all this time. This is a website: He was extremely foolish with automation and all back in the day that but he didn't hurt anyone, as far as I'm aware. If Δ is a menace again, he can be blocked again; anyone who thinks he's a "timesink" isn't under any obligation to comment or participate in matters to do with him and if my memory serves me correctly, such people never helped clean any of his messes, anyway. Δ has demonstrated a commitment to Wikipedia since his banning by doing a lot of good background work; both that and the "time served" should be enough to give him another chance. Making him jump through hoops and then going back to ignoring him is unfair, especially when the community has let far worse users back in for less. This all being said, I think restrictions are a good idea as a way for Δ to generate newfound trust and goodwill and to prove any detractors wrong, hence why this is my first choice. Acalamari 14:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - second choice. Time has passed, and he's been very helpful to numerous community members despite the ban. I feel personally restrictions should be lifted, and betacommand should be given the opportunity to start over. In failing to pass my first choice, my second choice, would be to lift ban with all existing restrictions still in place and have Betacommand work them off over time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberpower678 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, for the same reasons as my oppose at proposal 1. Fram (talk) 15:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support, three years is a long time. However, given significant amounts of sockpuppetry and deception, I think a return to unconstrained editing privileges should only occur after gaining more community trust. —Kusma (t·c) 19:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Distant second choice behind the status quo. I see no reason to allow him back at all, nor do I understand why anyone who remembers his reign of error would consider supporting allowing him back in, but if there's actually a consensus to allow him to edit again I see no positives in ever allowing him to return to areas where we know he lacks the competence to edit without causing major disruption. I'd oppose the "open to further review after one year", given the number of second chances he's blown in the past; if he wants to edit Wikipedia he can do so without feeling the need either to enforce his own peculiar views of copyright, or to run his bots. ‑ Iridescent 20:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Second choice behind proposal 1. Support With respect to Iridescent, I don't think that he showed a lack of competence per se, rather it was a lack of will to work collegially and collaboratively with others. I don't think these restrictions are bad guidelines for him to follow (especially avoiding work in NFC), but I trust the judgement of BAG to avoid approving any bot that could prove controversial. PGWG (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC) making this my only supported proposal. PGWG (talk) 12:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, he had a legendary lack of social skills and unwillingness to follow consensus ([Betacommand] has the community effect of a porcupine in a nudist colony is probably the most accurate description of his general mode of interaction) but I was there; I assure you he was incompetent, to the point that before he was kicked out altogether his incompetence led to his being desysopped. Even in those areas where he claimed to be some kind of indispensable genius without whom Wikipedia would wither and die such as bot coding his work was riddled with errors, made worse by his refusal ever to admit that he could possibly make an error and his consequent refusal to fix anything; I take it you never had the pleasure of a "This is unsourced/malformatted"/"No it isn't"/"Well, my bot doesn't understand the source/formatting so that means it's unsourced/malformatted. Change it anyway" conversation? ‑ Iridescent 19:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I guess when I think of competence I'm generally thinking about technical/language skills, not social skills. I didn't have any personal run-ins with him, but from what I saw I don't recall his technical ability to edit ever falling close to WP:CIR territory - although some of his administrative actions would probably demonstrate a lack of competence in many judgement areas - but I don't expect most (non-admin) users to demonstrate competence in administrative areas like WP:UAA (to pick one area he had issues identified in during the first arbcom case), so his lack of competence there isn't evidence to me that he should remain blocked as an editor. That said, I would agree that competence certainly was not demonstrated from a social standpoint. I don't think that this warrants a life sentence, though - it won't take a whole lot of time to tell if he can work collegially or not, and if it's a not, I foresee that the community's patience will run out pretty much instantaneously. PGWG (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• @PGWG: The first rule of bots is similar to the Hippocratic Oath: First, do no harm. If your typo-fixing bot also introduces some sort of error at great speed in hundreds of articles, stop and fix it first, we can live with the typos. Betacommand was legendary for being in flat denial of any problem with his bots. That isn't just a social failing, it's a technical failing; if you are handed an easily confirmable bug report and deny there's a bug, there IS a WP:CIR problem on your side. As an example... (EDIT: Betacommand has stated on his talk page that my example was incorrect and his bot only had a few "oddball cases." And since BetcommandBot made about a zillion edits, good luck figuring this out in retrospect. In the interests of not making possibly incorrect accusations, I'll remove my example, but my recollection was that even if you agreed 100% with Betacommand's interpretation of the criteria, his bot had major bugs that would incorrectly tag valid images, which was infuriating for uploaders and article maintainers.) SnowFire (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Laziness was one of the pillars of his approach here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
• @SnowFire: I guess when I see that type of example, the first thing that comes to mind is WP:IDHT instead of WP:CIR. It wasn't a simple matter of not being able to code his bot to not tag the images, it was more that he fervently believed those images should be tagged, despite the community saying otherwise. Either way, I'm not wanting to defend his past behaviour - he richly earned his ban. However, I don't think that this should necessarily equate a permanent ban. People can change, and I think we should give them the opportunity to demonstrate that change - or demonstrate that nothing has changed, and be sent back to the sidelines. PGWG (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support - If BetaCommand is willing to follow these restrictions, then we should allow him back into the community so he can prove his intentions. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose UNLESS the user is forbidden from doing anything on the subject of images. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support BC will be very heavily monitored should he be unblocked, and I feel that he will be a net positive especially with all these restrictions- don't let us down. jcc (tea and biscuits) 12:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting the ban, even with restrictions, until Arbcom's request is met: "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." Before I could support any new plan, it would need to include a total recusal from all aspects of non-free image maintenance and from all aspects of bot operation. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support An unblock with a restriction on automated editing seems like the only feasible option here. Unless someone makes a much stronger case, I can't support allowing bot edits immediately, or a continued indef block. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - A "useful" sockpuppeteer is still a sockpuppeteer. Carrite (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The thin end of a wedge. Andrew D. (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per my statement in option 1. Given the severity of what he did, it's completely unthinkable that we could let him back in without at least the statement that the previous ArbCom result required of him. He severely damaged the wiki and, as far as I know, continues to express no remorse for this; on top of that, he has history of ignoring or working around restrictions like these whenever he feels it's for the "greater good" or the like. --Aquillion (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Wow, that's a lot of reading. I read most of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ/Werieth, though, and, from what I understand, the editor socked and used bots without permission, among several other things. However, the last known on-wiki activity (save on their talk page) from the user (and their socks) was from about three years ago.. A lot can happen in three years. What's more, the user recently got a barnstar from Headbomb for reviving one of Headbomb's bots, Bibcode Bot. He's also helped others keep their bots in working order, as well. Based on the length of time elapsed since the last incident (three years) and the fact that user has apparently been helpful to this project very recently, I say we give them a second chance, but we keep a close eye on them and put restrictions on them. Additionally, if they can work while keeping within their restrictions (which they've admittedly had trouble doing in the past), they'll be able to earn at least some trust back from the community. If not, it's simple enough for an admin to reblock them, given enough evidence. From what I can tell, they've also gone through the proper channels to request an unban, and that should also be respected as well. This shows signs of maturity. To be clear, I support the first two restrictions described above. I'll also support the third one as long as it doesn't include helping others to maintain their bots, as Δ already been doing during their ban. I also support the 6-12 month restriction period. That should be long enough to get a feel for whether or not they're going to disrupt Wikipedia again. — Gestrid (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Lifting everything except bots and copyright. Disclosure, I didn't exist on wiki when all of this was new, and have a deep supply of AGF to extend. I have read many of the parts relating to this, and am fine for BetaCommand to be back. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• It's generally not considered to be a good thing to !vote on something you have absolutely no knowledge about, but as long as you cite AGF, I guess it's all OK. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

? I have no personal interaction with the editor. I've read the recent discussions and the original reasons around his block.L3X1 (distænt write) 03:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• But you admit "I didn't exist on wiki when all of this was new", so you have no idea as to the extent of the disruption caused by Betacommand, which is extremely significant to a decision as to whether to let him edit again, since the danger is a repetition of that disruption. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• I am just stating my bias. I have some idea the extent of the disruption: Betacommand has been trying to get unblocked for a few years, Arbcom is involved, various and sundry legacy admins all have strong opinions on the matter, etc. I have read all the dangers (and "dangers") and support taking the risk of repeat headache. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Well, if we're lucky, you won't have to experience that "headache" (which was more like a low-level migraine that lasted years instead of hours; every time you thought it had run its course, it snuck back in when you weren't paying attention). Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support (as second choice, first choice being option 1). I would like to see a 6-month or a 12-month as opposed to indefinite restrictions. Side note, what happened to 2b as one editor was referring to it? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support in theory, modulo also supporting option 7 (present the "plan"). No one who was a productive editor but a pain when it came to automated editing should be banned forever, under terms that ArbCom no longer imposes. This is obviously a WP:ROPE thing. Δ would be watched like a hawk, so this seems a really low-risk approach to me. However if the plan Δ wants to present is cockamamie, then all bets are off.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  07:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support I never followed the Betacommand brouhaha, but from all my interactions with Betacommand/Δ over the years, it's been nothing but positive. To everyone opposing, I ask you think. Do you seriously think that, if Betacommand somehow misbehaves again, that it would somehow be missed. He'd have dozens of admins/editors stalking/hounding him, hoping he misbehaves again so they can block him again and feel vindicated and claim "I told you so". Blocks are cheap and easy. 5 years is enough, if Betacommand wants to return and edit productively, then let's give him the WP:ROPE. Personally, I'd be comfortable with the following restrictions
  • One main account [indef restriction]
  • One or more bot account [ALL subject to BRFAs]
  • Avoid anything to do with NFCC for 6/12 months

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of proposal #2a

• Can somebody do me the favor of compiling all still existing restrictions on this user?—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Arbcom superseded all prior community sanctions and replaced with a site ban, so technically that is the only current restriction. (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3#Remedies) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

...unless some of the members of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Betacommand acquired community sanctions of their own subsequent to arbitration? Those remedies would still apply to Δ. I don't have a list. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: Here are the restrictions placed before being superseded:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Betacommand must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time.
4. Betacommand 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. Blocks should be logged here.
5. 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.

— nihlus kryik  (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• On a purely procedural note, adding a section labeled proposal #2a was a bad idea. The original proposal 2 purposely did not define what the restrictions should be, with the hope that during the discussion a consensus would emerge on what they should be. Adding proposal #2a short-circuited that discussion and turned it into an up/down !vote on one specific set of restrictions that the editor who added proposal #2a thought were a good idea. I am not disagreeing with that set of restrictions, but I had hoped that the list would be arrived at by consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 3: Open up a full discussion

(Opening up a full discussion would start with an editor posting a request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. This should not be done until this RfC is closed.)

• Oppose Way too much drama only to rehash five-year-old edits that Betacommand freely admits were wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Agree with Ivanvector If, for any reason, Arbcom continues doing nothing after this RfC closes, I think it would be appropriate to open up a discussion about that behavior. A rehash discussion about five-year-old or even three-year-old transgressions? that would be a waste of time. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose pointless. Everything happened 5 years ago. Who could even have an informed discussion now? Legacypac (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose pointless, nothing to discuss. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support as second-to-last choice to doing nothing. If no consensus emerges from this discussion then a request to the Committee to clarify whether they ever intend to act on this at all is in order. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as pointless; any discussion will rapidly degenerate into the half-dozen or so members of his fan club trying to shout down everyone else, in exactly the same way as every other discussion of Betacommand has gone. ‑ Iridescent 20:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - if he has not been able to communicate successfully with Arbcom directly, which bends over backwards to give people chances, I see no reason to think it will go better in an open discussion. If/when Arbcom feels a need to open a discussion, I am sure they can handle it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Ban and leave banned. Carrite (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as too dead-horse. And this is a full discussion, more thorough than the average ArbCom appeal anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  07:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of proposal #3

• Comment if Arbs are normally expected to recuse in cases where they have past involvement with one of the parties, how do we bring a case when Arbcom itself is a party? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that it is in governing bodies rather normal to have such possibilities - but it may indeed be something that is missing in the Arbitration Policy. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • This proposal doesn't suggest "bringing a case", it suggests posting a request for clarification/amendment at WP:ARCA. Arbcom would not be a "party". -- Begoon 14:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Thinking out loud, I guess. You're right, this thread is out of scope. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
      • If you look down at the threaded discussion section, you'll see a post from Opabinia to the effect that she asked Beta to post his proposals on his talkpage for presentation to the community, but Guy offered to do this instead, so at least one arbitrator is fully aware of this. I don't think there'll be a problem with putting the results of this RfC as a whole to arbcom as the community's advice, although, as clearly stated above, it's non-binding advice. See, I can be off-topic for this section too... -- Begoon 14:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Well since you brought it up, yes, I think it's clear the Committee is aware of the request. The issue is they haven't responded. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Fair point. They can't respond to the 'advice' until we've decided what it is, of course. I think it's probably a little difficult for them, because, well, what would they do? Have a vote to issue a joint statement saying "we are aware that the community is formulating some advice on a case/appeal for us, and look forward to considering it when we receive it."? It's an unusual situation. -- Begoon 16:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

No, I mean they're aware of Δ's appeal and haven't responded. Although I assume they're aware of this RfC as well, and I don't expect they can really formulate a response to this while it's ongoing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah, ok, I misunderstood. I think that's all via email, though, to Δ, so what we know about it could possibly be a bit vague or incomplete, just because things like that often are, not for any other reason, but I don't disagree with what you say. -- Begoon 16:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

First, where did that "Arbs are normally expected to recuse" language come from? Are you applying WP:INVOLVED or is there some arbcom-specific rule on this? Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee code of conduct had such a rule but that proposal failed.

Although, as pointed out above, it does not apply in this case, the question "if Arbs are normally expected to recuse in cases where they have past involvement with one of the parties, how do we bring a case when Arbcom itself is a party?" deserves an answer. The answer is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Opening of proceedings.

If you try to open a new Arbcom case with Arbcom itself as a party, Arbcom will simply decline the case. If they were to attempt to accept such a case, all of the Arbs would have to recuse on the acceptance vote, thus making it impossible to meet either the four vote rule or the majority of non-recused arbs rule. One could post a non-binding advisory RfC but, as with this RfC, Arbcom would be free to ignore the result. (This is a Good Thing, BTW. Arbcom should treat the consensus of the community as one aspect to be considered, but they also have to consider legal aspects, what is best for the encyclopedia, etc.)

The first such non-binding advisory RfC regarding Arbcom behavior (as opposed to a non-binding advisory RfC regarding a specific arbcom decision, such as the one you are currently reading) appears to be the one posted by Jimbo himself back in 2008. It is interesting reading. You can find it at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Just responding to answer your first point: my "normally expected to recuse" came from my general impression that the proceedings of committees of this sort (not our Arbcom specifically) often carry such an expectation to declare conflicts of interest. On any similar committees I've served on, a member failing to declare a conflict would be grounds to invalidate a decision. But actually this language is in the arbitration policy, under the heading recusal of arbitrators. As for the rest of this, I agree my original comment was very off-topic. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 4: Deny the request and keep the ban in place

(Denying the request and keeping the ban in place would start with an arbitrator posting a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. )

(By its nature, If the Arbitration Committee does this anyone can request that the new Arbitration Committee undo it after the next election.)

• Support Second choice. MPS1992 (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Second First choice. because I oppose time based relaxation of the restrictions automatically without discussion - see my comments in (2a). -- Begoon 00:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC) (Changing !vote, after reconsideration -- Begoon 05:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC))

• Oppose Extending an unreviewed five year ban after the user was promised a one-year review is just wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Neutral: See my changed !vote on proposition #1. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose the community should have had a chance to review this long ago. Time for BataCommand to have a fresh start. Legacypac (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - my only choice, unless and until I see hard, undeniable evidence that Betacommand/Delta is, essentially, a different person than he was. Only that kind of sea change can bring about the required adjustments in his behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• I also support Proposal #7, which is my suggestion to get the necessary information from Betacommand directly, without the intermediation of an advocate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - long enough. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. One needs to have hope, and be comfortable to trust in the process. Beta is demonstrating their upholding of Wikipedia by staying in touch and politely waiting, waiting, waiting… Please, lets welcome Beta back into article editing/content creation where things should be safe, and only leave the indef restrictions on the hot topics which were the triggers (enforcement, bots, automation). —Sladen (talk) 10:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support until we see an actual discussion from Beta that they know what got them banned in the first place and undertake to not do it again. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per time served. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• weak oppose, second choice here, but would be fine seeing him come back with a total ban against his prior problem areas (bots and copyright). I'm okay with unblocking, and feel per WP:ROPE, if he wants to contribute in other ways, let's see. --Jayron32 14:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - he's served his time, respected the ban, and still found ways to be helpful to the community. The ban should be lifted.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Without relitigating the past, Betacommand was the kind of editor who was so toxic as to be a problem for editor retention. For such cases, "it's been a long time" is not sufficient; per others, there needs to be evidence that Betacommand has changed and understands how to deal with other editors. SnowFire (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support. What SnowFire said, word for word. Betacommand was probably in the top ten (and arguably the top one) of Wikipedia's all-time most disruptive editors, and I don't believe he even understands why he was so disruptive, let alone any kind of indication that he won't go back to his old habits at the first chance. ‑ Iridescent 20:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose To whatever extent he was unblockable in the past, I think that he would be no longer so if he returned. I have absolutely zero doubt that if he returned every single edit he made would be very highly scrutinized, and any disruption would result in a swift trip to AN/ANI in order to help him make use of the WP:ROPE he was handed. PGWG (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - See my comments elsewhere. Acalamari 23:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Wikipedia is doing just fine without Betacommand. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - he has not met the first step laid out by arbcom, "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." Before I could support any new plan - and I have not seen one linked above - it would need to include a total recusal from all aspects of non-free image maintenance and from all aspects of bot operation. He has also violated his site ban by continuing to post on his talk page about bot-related matters (not about appeals), e.g. [6], [7]. I don't view that lack of respect for the ban as a positive sign for editing without it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - There are other venues for Delta to work at other than En-WP. Go meddle at Commons or learn Bulgarian. Carrite (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support, no reason for a change, no indication that the two bans and subsequent indefblock of his sock have changed anything at all. Fram (talk) 07:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Strongest possible opposition - I feel sorry for each editor, in this section, who themselves have become so jaded that they can support a remedy this debased. With no more thought than a lemming might give you've synced in lock step to oppose a request you have not seen, and are not willing to assess; seeming fine reaching decisions by prejudice alone. It's better that you cease in these ways lest you become, in all essence, the talk that you walk.--John Cline (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, bans should never be "infinite", just "indefinite". But more detail in Beta's plan about future editing would be helpful. —Kusma (t·c) 16:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Why? There's absolutely no reason why bans shouldn't be infinite. Perhaps you're confused because the standard explanation of "indefinite" is that it doesn't necessarily mean "infinite" -- but it can mean infinite, and, in the worst cases, it should. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support It would be good to avoid raising false hopes. Andrew D. (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Only choice. It's easy to forget what chaos Betacommand wrought upon Wikipedia. The ban should never be lifted. Ever.--WaltCip (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support per my statements above. I wouldn't be completely averse to reconsidering it if he genuinely indicated he had changed (and ArbCom should definitely publish any statements from him to that effect, if they have them, since that seems to be part of the original ArbCom result), but so far we don't have anything like that. Worse, the general heft of many of the people who support letting him back in seems to be that he has nothing to apologize for, which makes me suspect that letting him back in would just be a prelude to problems like we had before as he eventually returns to making massive controversial automated changes while editors argue over them. --Aquillion (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support I was not a editor back then but looking up this user I have seen that he was one of the most chaotic user ever I don't think he should ever be unbanned Flow 234 (Nina) talk 15:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Can't support a "forever no matter what" approach, especially since the issues were limited to a specific subset of actvities and editor was otherwise productive. This has already been too long without any kind of second chance, though clearly just lifting the ban with no restrictions at all is off the table.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  07:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of proposal #4

• Comment Example Comment. (Sign with ~~~~)

Proposal 5: Move this RFC to a subpage so we don't have to watch people edit warring over it on our watchlists

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Support As proposer. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - and add extendedconfirmed protections to prevent new and SPA accounts from making uninformed decisions/attacks.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support--With EC/P.Winged Blades ^Godric 15:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support with no protection unless it becomes apparent that protection of the subpage is warranted, per the protection policy. Also I would have preferred if this proposal didn't contain a personal attack. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support Oh please. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support as the author of this RfC. I have no problem with moving it as long as a note with a link or some other sort of redirect is left in the current location. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support, it is traditional that discussion about betacommand ends up on a subpage. Also, AN really isn't the best place for this. —Kusma (t·c) 19:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of proposal #5

• Please. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• If this is done, please leave a note under the RfC's heading on this page linking to where the discussion is moved. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal 6: Endorsement

The community endorses this Δ 2017 Advisory RFC as put to the Administrators' Noticeboard by Guy Macon as a good-faith and reasonable effort to resolve exceptional circumstances not adequately covered by current Wikipedia policy, per WP:IAR. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as there is nothing good-faith about it, it was an intentional attempt to get an unban by presenting a very biased version of the actual situation. Fram (talk) 07:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• If multiple editors -- even ones who completely disagree with me -- say that this RfC was posted in good faith, and you and you alone think that it was in bad faith, you might want to consider the possibility that the problem is you. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Is it an intentional attempt to get an unban? Check. Was the information presented very biased? Check. That others see it differently is their right, but a person who has a minority opinion is not "a problem". I may be mistaken (wouldn't be the first time), or I may be more outspoken and quick to recognise problems with some editors and edits (wouldn't be the first time either). I can not, having seen the preparations for this RfC, the way it was formulated, and seeing what was included and what not or how you dealt with remarks about it (and your "I'm the only one allowed to change my RfC after voting has started" actions), claim that I see this RfC as a good faith attempt. I will not speculate on your motivations (whether it is truly a case of wanting Betacommand back, or more a case of wanting to spite ArbCom), but the way you presented the RfC and only some of the facts is not a good faith action. Fram (talk) 07:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Actual evidence of bad faith, please. No need to keep repeating the accusation. Everyone heard you the first three times. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• I don't believe you are stupid, which is the only other explanation I see for the way this RfC was presented. I can e.g. not see a ridiculous statement like "I am formally protesting Fram rewording this RfC after multiple votes had been cast and I ask all participants to ignore his attempt to disrupt this RfC." and believe in your good faith (considering that the one rewording the RfC was you). Fram (talk) 08:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• What part of "No need to keep repeating the accusation" are you having trouble understanding? You posted your comment in the middle of the header of this RfC instead of in the discussion section like a normal person. I protested your disruptive behavior, and now that is your "evidence" of Bad Faith? I am done responding to you, and I am going to do my best to skip over anything further you may have to say as soon as I notice your signature. I refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• You don't seem to understand the difference between an accusation and evidence, or the meaning of "e.g." or of "the middle". Perhaps I need to revise my previous reply in consideration of this and other elements and accept that the other explanation of why you posted this RfC in this form is perhaps also likely. Oh, and feel free to simply write "Fuck off", no need to prolong your agony with repeated lengthy attempts to sugarcoat this. Fram (talk) 09:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Hello Fram. May I ask why you have vacated the quite reasonable position you intimated to me in this discussion?--John Cline (talk) 03:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Looking at the discussions at his talk page, I see nothing that indicates that his editing and approach will fundamentally be different than before the blocks and bans. All issues are apparently caused by people checking his edits, not by his edits. And "forgetting" to mention Werieth when people were drafting or posting this RfC... So I see no reason to unban someone in these circumstances. Fram (talk) 11:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Adequate evidence of bad faith has not been provided. MPS1992 (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support in that I endorse it as a good faith and reasonable effort. I definitely do not take this endorsement any further in saying that if it does come up with a clear consensus one way or the other that should be taken as evidence of community consensus (in either direction), given the frantic efforts of supporters on both sides to stack the odds in their favor. ‑ Iridescent 18:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Sigh. You make a very good point. I wish I could say that you are wrong, but I can't. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support - The endeavor is one of good faith; its letter and spirit: the product of reason.--John Cline (talk) 20:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Neutral - I don't in any way doubt the good faith of Guy Macon in putting this RfC together, but I do think it was an error on his part to do so. The whole thing is much too legalistic and runs counter to the Wikipedia ethos.
  When we're considering an unblock or an unban, we don't want to here from the subject's representative, his advocate, in effect, his lawyer, we want to hear from the subject himself, because one of the ways we can judge whether the subject should be released from their sanction is by how they express, in their own words, their feelings about the sanction, about why it happened, about how they're going to avoid it happening again in the future. We've been denied all of that. We have no direct communication with the person who wants to be unbanned, and we've been given something akin to a menu from a Chinese restaurant and told by the advocate to fill in the blanks as to what we want to order. That's just not a very Wikipedian way to go about this.
  So, yes, kudos to Guy for taking some initiative, but I think it was a big mistake, and without having heard from Beta directly, I don't feel this RfC can be considered to be legitimate, I don't believe that it can possibly represent the consensus of the community, because it's fundamentally flawed. I think it would be better to scrap the whole thing, wait a month or so for feelings to die down, and start again with something as close to a regular request for unbanning as in possible in this case, which would be Betacommand himself making a request for the community to recommend unbanning to ArbCom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Could you please explain, in detail, how Betacommand is supposed to do that? He cannot post such a request anywhere except his talk page because he is banned everywhere else. He has has made multiple requests to be unbanned on his talk page and directly to Arbcom. If you don't like the way he asked you could, you know, actually go to his talk page and ask him to write something that is more to your liking. I personally don't think that anything that he could possible write would change your mind, but who knows? Maybe some actual one-one-one interaction might change your opinion. I would also like you to explain, in detail, how I could possibly post a request that you would not consider to be "fundamentally flawed". -Guy Macon (talk) 00:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Guy Macon, there are any number of ways. For one, he could e-mail you the kind of unban request specified in Proposal #7 below, and that could be posted here, as was done for Hidden Tempo (from his talk page) in his unblock request. Then responses by Beta to comments could also be posted here. That's the usual way it's done. The way you've done it -- without any participation by the editor in question -- is totally irregular and completely unusal, so you shouldn't really be shocked that people don't like it.
  As for going to his talk page, you keep assuming that I have some kind of obligation to facilitate Beta's unbanning, but I am not the one who wants him to be unbanned, he is the person who presumably wants it (not that you can tell from this RfC), and the onus is therefore completely on him to take steps to bring that about. I'm under absolutely no obligation to communicate with him, he is (or should be) obliged to talk to the community if he wants us to advise ArbCom to unban him.
  If Beta is not monitorng this RfC, then's he's being very foolish -- or, again, assuming that his unban is just a matter of coming up with the right magical combination of elements, when, in fact, it's far from settled that he should be unbanned at all. The idea that he can be unbanned, or have the community advise ArbCom to unban him, without every interacting with us is bizarre in the extreme. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose If Guy Macon doesn't like the way Arbcom is handling this, he should stand for Arbcom himself. Introducing wildcat motions like this seems disruptive and should not be encouraged. Andrew D. (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Andrew D., Just to be clear, are you saying that you disagree with my decision to post this RfC -- which is fine -- or are you accusing me of Bad Faith (As opposed to being, say, wrong, mistaken, or just plain stupid)? If the former, do you have any evidence to back up your accusation? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. I wouldn't go so far as to call it bad faith, but I don't feel this is a reasonable way to go about things. ArbCom already has places for comments; it feels like the only purpose of this is in the hope that some sort of massive groundswell of support for Betacommand will lead to him getting let back in. That's not how ArbCom works; the whole reason Betacommand ended up before it was because his actions and his response to objections to them were so controversial that the community couldn't handle them in any other way. --Aquillion (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose since "the community" isn't going to read this mess; only a handful of gluttons for punishment will.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  07:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of proposal #6

• Comment: the "exceptional circumstances" are as follows:
  1. Δ is banned from Wikipedia by the Arbitration Committee (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3#Betacommand banned);
  2. the Arbitration Committee stipulated Δ's conditions to appeal their ban (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3#Appeal of ban);
  3. as stated in §1.2 of the arbitration policy, the Arbitration Committee is responsible for "hear[ing] appeals from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users" (clarified and affirmed by motion in 2015 when BASC was disbanded);
  4. though Δ has submitted an appeal conforming to the requirements set by the Committee, the Committee has failed to either accept or reject the appeal within a reasonable time frame; and
  5. no alternative process presently exists for Δ to appeal their ban.

Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: it appears I am mistaken about point #4 above. Please see the comments below by Opabinia regalis. Courtesy pinging those who have already commented: @Guy Macon, Beetstra, Fram, MPS1992, Iridescent, John Cline, Beyond My Ken, and Andrew Davidson: Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• While I appreciate the sentiment, the fact remains that there exists no Wikipedia guideline or policy that forbids non-binding advisory RfCs in cases where WP:CONEXCEPT does not allow a binding RfC. Thus there is no need invoke exceptional circumstances to justify an imaginary violation of a policy that does not exist. I would also note that Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy is another non-binding advisory RfC that had extensive comments by multiple Administrators and WMF staffers, and nobody tried to invoke some imaginary rule forbidding non-binding advisory RfCs. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee is a much earlier RfC -- posted by Jimbo himself -- that asked for advice from the community regarding Arbcom with zero objections claiming that such RfCs are not allowed. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
• I posted this somewhere upthread, but this has predictably grown like a hydra and I'm not sure it was really noticed.Nevermind, it looks like I'm the unobservant one. Ivanvector, it is not the case that Δ has submitted an appeal, "conforming" or otherwise. He has stated an intention to do so, and asked about how to go about it. We were, admittedly, slow to respond to that inquiry. However, the most recent interaction between Δ and arbcom consisted of me asking him to please post the text of his appeal. Guy chose instead to suggest that he would draft an RfC.
  The "present a plan to the community" part of the ban remedy is unusual, and to my knowledge has not been used in other cases where editors were banned by arbcom (though someone with a longer memory may have an example on hand). There isn't really a good template to follow and I'm not surprised that Δ has asked several times for more specific guidance on what to propose. To be honest, though, given the complexity of the original RfC draft and the hydra of threads it has turned into, I'm not sure how much practical advice can be extracted from this "advisory" exercise. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC) Addendum: contrary to some of the speculation above, there is no "secret" plan that is for some reason not being posted publicly. I can't recall seeing any plan more specific than the "public appeal" text - which, to Δ's credit, is essentially what was emailed to us and didn't get a prompt response. As I said, I suspect the reason for the long back-and-forth is the lack of a clear idea on what this "plan" should consist of, as distinct from a normal ban appeal. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: thank you very much for clarifying that situation. It appears I've misinterpreted, and in doing so I've made some statements on this page which are unfair to the Committee, and I apologize though I remain critical of the Committee's responsiveness, generally. I do think this RfC is a worthwhile exercise regardless: without being specific, I think there are important issues outside the intended scope being raised which will probably come to community discussion in the near future. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Via Iridescent on my talk page: There's definitely a precedent for Arbcom mandating "rehabilitation plans". In that case it didn't work, as all the proposed mentors eventually came to the conclusion that the subject of the plan was nuts and/or incorrigible and refused to work with her any more, but the principle of the community and the subject of a ban coming up with a set of specific rules, and a set of neutral observers to monitor compliance and to take action if appropriate, with Arbcom mandating the whole thing into a ruling so that breaches can be addressed as enforcement actions rather than going through the bureaucracy each time, is sound. – iridescent 2 08:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC) So there are other examples, though that one's from 2009. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Just to state the obvious, the "mentoring" solution was attempted several times already [8]. Mentoring only works if the person being mentored has the deisre and ability to change their editing patterns. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, though the structure of the 2009 "mentorship" is unusual. And by that I mean there is nothing on this earth that would make me want to read "monthly mentorship reports", and I can't hold the ineffectiveness of that arrangement against any of the participants. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 7: Betacommand/Delta must present his explanation and proposal before any further steps are taken

• Nothing should be done to alter Betacommand/Delta's current status until the community has had a chance to hear directly from Beta:
  • His understanding of the reasons he was banned, and his explanation for the behavior that brought that about;
  • Why he believes that he should be unbanned, and why now is the correct time for that unbanning; and
  • What he proposes as a means for showing the community that it should give him yet another chance.

This is nothing more than we ask from any editor when asking to be unbanned, and Betacommand/Delta should not be handled any differently. In fact, considering the extent of the disruption he cause over a long period of time, it's even more important that he provide the community with that information.

• Support - as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
• Neutral - (out of scope of this RfC - this RfC is to have the community ask the Arbitration Committee to hear Delta in the first place). That is the task of the Arbitration Committee at first, they promised to hear from Delta after one year, and it is clear that they seem to blatantly ignore things for years after. That being said, I have nothing against User:Δ posting a statement along these lines, and even think that it may be helpful. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for two reasons. [1] Betacommand already presented this to Arbcom, and Arbcom was supposed to present it to us. [2] This really looks like an attempt by Beyond My Ken to relitigate proposition 4, which is currently heading for no consensus (8 support, 9 oppose). --Guy Macon (talk) 06:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support if the deal is we're trying to get ArbCom to present this plan to the community - why worry if it's Beta that presents it directly? To be quite honest, trying to avoid showing this plan just makes me concerned that there is some reason for hiding it ... you're better off being completely open and showing everything rather than sticking to the letter of something that isn't helping matters. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support. This is just common sense, and any suggestion that would skip this step strikes me as absurd (or as trying to re-litigate the ArbCom cases that got him restricted and then banned.) If (as he and his supporters say) ArbCom does already have statements by him, they can present those instead, but either way those need to be seen and considered before anything else can seriously be done. (Regarding the conflict between this and proposition #4, which I also supported: My reading is that many "support" !votes, including mine, are based on the current situation, where we don't have any statements from Betacommand - without that, his ban remains in place. Obviously a really persuasive statement could sway some of those people, if we're taking this RFC seriously. So I see no contradiction between supporting both #4 and #7, especially due to concerns that a failure of #4 could be taken by some as an argument that he should be let back in immediately with no need for a statement. Any outcome for #4 has to be taken in light of the view that consensus can change, which #7 proposes a mechanism to accomplish.) --Aquillion (talk) 15:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support, after some thought. The more I read into the history of this thing, the more I see that Δ has not ever actually come up with a plan themselves, unless there is a mystery plan somewhere that was emailed and lost in the Arbcom shuffle, which the Arbs commenting here repeatedly deny. The most recent discussion and at least the ones from Aug 2016 and Oct 2015 started not with Δ presenting a proposal, but with Δ inquiring as to what such a proposal should look like, and the subsequent discussion faltered due to lack of participation. The problem with this approach (besides requiring Arbcom's attention when they're too busy) is that Δ isn't taking ownership of the process: they don't understand what they need to do differently to stay out of the same trouble, they're expecting everyone else to tell them. So, yeah, Δ should submit a plan first, then there will be something to discuss. As for what such a proposal should look like, Δ has received plenty of feedback over the years to be able to come up with something. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support. This is all basically a bunch of noise and speculation without that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  07:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of proposal #7

• It is not my intention to "relitigate proposition #4" at all, as claimed above. My intention is entirely straightforward. As this is described as an "advisory" RfC to present to ArbCom the community's thoughts on Beta's unbanning, I think this is a reasonable attitude toward that: the community will not make a decision on what it feels about Beta's unbanning until it sees Beta's proposal. You keep placing the onus on ArbCom for us not seeing it, but I presume you worked up this RfC with Beta's participation, and that proposal could easily have been included, without ArbCom being the conduit to the community; it was, after all, Beta's proposal. According to Opabinia regalis's comment below in Threaded discussion, ArbCom - albeit not in a timely manner - wanted to publish it to the community, but you wanted to do this RfC instead. I think that was a mistake, and the community needs to see the proposal before it passes any advice to ArbCom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• BTW, how can this be a "relitigation" of Proposal #4, since Proposal #4 flat out calls for no change in the status quo (i.e., keeping Beta banned), while this calls for Beta to take some specific steps, and then for the community to evaluate the information he provides in order to decide whether it should advise ArbCom that Beta be banned or unbanned. That's very clearly not the same as "keep the status quo". Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Question: does the discussion at User talk:Δ#Public Appeal not satisfy this purpose? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Maybe I'm missing something - in which case, I'd appreciate being pointed to it - but that appears to be a discussion about the proposal/ArbCom/unbanning, and not an actual presentation of the proposal itself. Did I miss it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Well to be fair I don't know what has been submitted to Arbcom, but I interpreted Δ's first comment as being a copy of their proposal, or a summary of it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer - the comment was so short that I glossed over it. Yes, I suppose that could be taken as the proposal (or a summary of the proposal) that Beta intended for ArbCom to consider. If so, it doesn't really fulfill the requirements of this proposal (#7), which is looking not only for the logistics of a potential unban, but some indication from Beta of why he deserves to be unbanned, why (in his opinion) he was banned in the first place, what has changed, and so on. The kind of basic stuff we ask of someone who's just been blocked and wants to be unblocked. Beta's proposal -- if that's what it is -- seems to take it for granted that he deserves an unblock, and it's just a matter of finding the right combination of sanctions and restrictions and the lock will open. I don't buy that, not at all. I'm not looking for an apology (although it wouldn't hurt), but I am looking for some sense that Beta realizes that he fucked up big time, and why he believes he's capable of editing again without screwing up big time once more. There's nothing of that in that comment, just nuts-and-bolts, which are the least of the problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that Opabinia regalis has inadvertently answered my question in a comment to proposal #6 above. The summary is that Δ has not submitted an appeal but has only inquired about how to do so. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Question (again): @Opabinia regalis: see my note above under this proposal. If you don't mind giving your opinion since you seem to be the only arb commenting here, would the Committee be open to modifying remedy 3 of the case so that Δ can submit their plan directly to the community, rather than having to wait for Arbcom to rubber-stamp it? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I think, as this page shows, it would be a poor idea to send this directly to the community. Arbcom has a better mechanism for deliberation and a better sense of the case history. I don't think they are likely to "rubber stamp" any plan. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• But that's the entirety of what remedy 3 requires, that Δ submit a plan to Arbcom who will then present it to the community for review before doing anything about it. If we remove the "submit to Arbcom" part then we have transparency as to whether Δ has submitted a workable plan, or not, or simply inquired about doing so. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• No, that's not what remedy 3 says: "The Committee shall present this plan to the community for review and comment prior to any modification of Betacommand's ban." means that they won't change the ban based on a plan by Betacommand without consulting the community on it: it doesn't mean that they can't first discuss and reject the plan without consulting us. Step 1 = Betacommand sends a plan to ArbCom. Step 2 = Arbcom discussed the plan privately, and if they believe the ban should be modified based on the plan (or presumably if they don't agree and want to pass the baton elsewhere) then and only then does stap 3 = consult the community, happen. Fram (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I don't disagree with that reading. But I don't see any reason why that first step needs to be done behind the veil of Arbcom, hence my question above. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Technically, modifying the remedy would mean passing a motion with a majority, which I doubt would actually be any faster :) For my part, I'd go ahead with community review of any reasonable plan - "I should be unblocked so I can share the good news about Time Cube" is a no, but anything reasonable is fine. (I have opinions on what it should address, and I might give advice first if it seemed useful, but then again, my taste in appeals may not be that widely shared.) I do think it is important that Δ propose something himself, and that others who have an interest in the case limit themselves to commenting (concisely!) on the appeal. Poor communication played a major role in how Δ got to this point and it's important that he be able to demonstrate communications skills. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Strongly agree with CBM. It's almost as if some editors have it stuck in their heads that Arbcom is somehow bound by this non-binding, advisory RfC. I personally am counting on the fact that Arbcom has a lot of experience dealing with disruptive users, and I am confident that they will make the right decision, considering our recommendations as just one factor that goes into the decision. I see one very bright spot in all of this; looking at the disruption, name-calling and gaming of the RfC system that has occurred should motivate Arbcom to carefully devise a solution that will allow Betacommand's enemies from constantly going back to Arbcom and asking them to punish him for minor technical infractions that in no way hurt the Encyclopedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• It's nice to see that you still believe that there will come any recommendations from this flawed RfC where opinions are quite firmly divided and any shifting positions one sees are towards the more restrictive as longer as the RfC progresses. There is one person here who has tried to game the RfC system, and it's you. In your position, I would hope that ArbCom doesn't look at all of this too closely and just dismisses it as the unusable mess it is. Fram (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 8: Removal of untrue and deceptive information from the "Background" section of this RfC

WP:RfC says about setting up a Request for Comments:

Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue ... Keep the RfC statement short and simple.

When Guy Macon set up this non-binding advisory RfC, he included the following paragraph in a "Background" section at the top of the RfC, as part of its statement:

It appears from reading Betacommand's talk page (keeping in mind that we are only seeing one side of the story) that Betacommand has been trying to submit such a plan for over four years, but the Arbitration Committee has not presented the plan to the community for review and comment.

At the time, it appears that Guy Macon was unaware of whether the underlying facts presented in this statement – i.e. "that Betacommand has been trying to submit such a plan for over four years, but the Arbitration Committee has not presented the plan to the community for review and comment." – were true or not. However, in the time since he initiated the RfC, there are been multiple statements from Opabinia regalis, a member of ArbCom, indicating that those "facts" were not actually true:

I posted this somewhere upthread, but this has predictably grown like a hydra and I'm not sure it was really noticed. Ivanvector, it is not the case that Δ has submitted an appeal, "conforming" or otherwise. He has stated an intention to do so, and asked about how to go about it. We were, admittedly, slow to respond to that inquiry. However, the most recent interaction between Δ and arbcom consisted of me asking him to please post the text of his appeal. Guy chose instead to suggest that he would draft an RfC. [9]

[C]ontrary to some of the speculation above, there is no "secret" plan that is for some reason not being posted publicly. I can't recall seeing any plan more specific than the "public appeal" text - which, to Δ's credit, is essentially what was emailed to us and didn't get a prompt response. As I said, I suspect the reason for the long back-and-forth is the lack of a clear idea on what this "plan" should consist of, as distinct from a normal ban appeal. [10]

I know this isn't a new post, but every time I look at this page I see another place that various claims about secret arbcom emails have been repeated, and those who are new to this issue shouldn't have to look through the whole page to find correct information. Δ did send an email a couple of months ago that did not get a prompt response. (There was one email, from me.) He then posted his "public appeal" thread on his talk page. There were no "emailed negotiations", and nothing meeting that description has taken place since I've been on the committee. There certainly have not been any threats about confidentiality. That doesn't even make any sense - while arbitrators treat emails to the mailing list as confidential, the authors of those emails are perfectly free to republish them elsewhere. Since Δ has not made these claims in public to my knowledge, and hasn't made them by email to arbcom, I'm unclear on where you're getting your information from. [11]

So, in point of fact, it is not the case that Betacommand "has been trying to submit such a plan for over four years", nor is it true that the "Arbitration Committee has not presented the plan to the community for review and comment" because ArbCom has never received such a plan from Betacommand.

Given this, to continue to have the paragraph in question in the "Background" section is deceptive, in that it implies that the underlying facts are true, whereas that is not the case. As part of the statement of the RfC, the paragraph is not "neutral" as required by WP:RfC.

For this reason, this proposal calls for the removal striking of that paragraph from the "Background" section, because the RfC initiator has refused to do so himself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support - As proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Strike but don't remove; if it's removed, later discussions will be confusing and maybe impossible to follow in parts.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  07:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, a much better idea, and I've altered the proposal to say that, since it's only the two of us that have !voted so far. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose :*Please look at the hell Fram put me through the last time I tried to correct an error by making a change to the header. Do you seriously expect me to go through that again? You are tag-teaming me: you blast me if I don't make a change, Fram blasts me if I do. Also you are assuming that arbcom are idiots and that for some unknown reason they have gone blind won't see and evaluate your objections if you simply post them in the comments section like a normal person instead of making constant changes to this RfC after many editors have already !voted. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. RfC needs to be withdrawn, no altered again after all this time (it should have been withdrawn after the first fundamental alteration after the voting had started, but apparently there is only one person allowed to change the header and post additional comments there). Fram (talk) 10:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of proposal #8

• This proposal is in the spirit of Proposal #5, which had to do with alterations to the RfC itself -- in that case, its placement on the noticeboards -- and did not have anything to do with Betacommand being unbanned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Just an observation: each time you repost this set of quotes, I get pinged, and there's really nothing for me to respond to. Would you mind swapping my name out with a {{noping}} if you need to post it again? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry about that, I'll take care of it. Hopefully I won't be posting it again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, I do not know for certain that ArbCom has never received such a plan from Betacommand. I know we have not received one since I joined the committee in 2016, and were in the process of discussing the subject when this RfC started. I don't think there has been one previously, but I didn't search the archives in depth, and it does happen on rare occasions that an email goes missing. At least one interaction with Δ, in mid-2015, does seem to have been accidentally dropped, unless someone forgot to cc the arbcom list in responding to him. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Objection to this RfC

"RfCs are a way to attract more attention to a discussion about making changes to pages or procedures, including articles, essays, guidelines, policies, and many other kinds of pages."

RfC is not a system of petition - in particular, calling the above process a CONSENSUS will be a a gross misuse and a misrepresentation, and will be used solely to abuse the ARBCOM process, and its personnel. This is almost a User RfC, which were banned by the community years ago. Nothing about this RfC is valid. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I would be most interested in seeing a link to the Wikipedia policy or guideline where you believe that advisory RfCs are not allowed. And the statement "it is the consensus of the Wikipedia community that (Arbcom, the WMF, or any other body not bound by such consensus) should do X" is a perfectly valid expression of consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I already did quote the RfC policy, this is not a valid RfC. No. the process here is without consensus, so cannot result in a consensus. Petitions by their nature are individuals speaking as individuals, seeking to get a duly constituted authority to do something - they are not the consensus of others. There is already a consensus against User conduct RfC's. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

That's quite a stretch from the wording you quoted. Would you consider Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy to be invalid as well? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

It is explicitly with-out WP:CONSENSUS. (just a note, to anyone -- above in my OP, when I put CONSENSUS and ARBCOM in all caps I am referring to our policy WP:CONSENSUS and WP:ARBCOM policy, it's why they are in all caps, and for a link to our policy consensus against user conduct RfC's: Wikipedia:Requests for comment#About the conduct of another user) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:CONEXCEPT doesn't say what you think it says. "outside the purview of editor consensus" and "not subject to the consensus of the community" does not say or even imply that editor consensus and/or community consensus can not exist or that they cannot be determined by RfC. CONEXCEPT just says that arbcom and the WMF are not bound by any such consensus, which is something that I made abundantly clear at the top of this advisory RfC. If you want to change the rules so that advisory RfCs are no longer allowed, post an RfC asking for that change. But please don't claim that the current rules forbid advisory RfCs. They don't. Wikilawyering is fun, but when you make up new rules that have never existed before and hang them on an overly-narrow interpretation of an existing rule, you are going too far. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

No. They are already with out (outside) CONSENSUS by policy. Alanscottwalker (talk)

Simple solution: you say that policy says non-binding advisory RfCs are not allowed. I say that you are wrong. Post a request at AN to have them apply your imaginary policy and shut down this RfC as being forbidden. See how far you get. To be consistent, you should also ask them to vacate Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy as well. Both of those RfCs cover topics that WP:CONEXCEPT say are not subject to binding RfCs. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

No. I have already stated the objections based on several policies, that is all I need to do. This purported RfC will just not have a qualified WP:CONSENSUS, pursuant to the current WP:RfC procedure, that can be used to displace ARBCOM policy and procedure and abuse Arbcom personnel with, that's all. Nothing will change that under the current policies. The closer should address, made objections (no reason to take it elsewhere), these are not the only objections, either, there is mention above about lack of neutrality - and as my objections are to all parts of the purported RfC, it is a registered oppose to all. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

You can keep claiming that your imaginary rule forbidding non-binding advisory RfCs exists, but that doesn't make it true. It exist only in your imagination. Your other objections will no doubt be evaluated when Arbcom makes a decision on this.

You are correct in that this RfC cannot be used to displace ARBCOM policy and procedure, but you are simply restating what is at the very top of this RfC:

What this RfC is not

• This RfC is not binding on anyone. It is purely advisory.

• The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee is not bound by Wikipedia RfCs and AN cannot override any Arbcom decision.

• We are, however, free to advise the Arbitration Committee, which is what this RfC is designed to do.

...so I fail to see what your point is. Arbcom makes the decision. This RfC is non-binding and advisory. I cannot find a single comment that assumes otherwise. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• If you want to make a decision; then make a decision. If you want the community to make a decision; then let the community make a decision. I fundamentally don't see the point in spilling 40 or 50 man-hours on an advisory non-binding RfC with five different options and 15 different sub-threads. GMG^talk 21:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• I've signed the discussion right up at the top, because a) it keeps the transclusion shorter, and b) Guy Macon didn't sign it originally. Primefac (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• I'm going to make a vaguely principled and completely undefended argument here that the community does have the authority to overrule Arbcom, because Arbcom derives its authority from the community. But, yeah, we'll see how that goes over in practice. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• This section is a real nightmare. Could it be closed, and re-proposed as a single proposed course of action and a section for discussion instead? I know that it's one of those famous enwiki traditions to have a massive series of discussions like this, but they are rarely useful, especially when they are self-described as being non-binding and advisory in nature. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree, this rigid multiple-proposal-and-separate-discussion format is ripe to become a bloated mess, especially on this page. Would anyone object if we condensed this into one proposal (I'm going to boldly suggest what is currently proposal 2a, I partially proposed it myself based on what the user had suggested on their talk page) and editors can support or oppose that, or support with conditions, the same way we normally do unblock requests? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Not to be obtuse, but I would personally prefer to be obtuse and oppose anything other than a summary close. You already have a situation where you're using the time of 13 of our most experienced editors to decide on the fate of one single editor, who in the best case scenario is going to have to become one of our most productive and uncontroversial contributors for several weeks in order to make up the difference to the project. The only thing accomplished by moving to a less visible space is wasting comparatively less time. If ArbCom wan't to be a bureaucracy then let them be a bureaucracy on their own without involving the rest of us in it at all, because our involvement doesn't matter to begin with. There's no reason to waste the additional time in layers of pseudo-bureaucracy. GMG^talk 00:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Arbcom had five years to solve this on their own. I am not going to kick it back to them and let them do nothing for another five years, And yes, we can do something other than advise. We can watch to see how they react to whatever the consensus is and vote accordingly at the next election. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, and certainly not a republic. If ArbCom can't handle it, then give it over to the community. If they can, then get on with it, and don't waste our time on passing purely parliamentary acts of purely ceremonial approval so that we may well advise the king and the king's counsel in the case they agree, or record our objections for posterity as matter of record in the case they don't. GMG^talk 01:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you're overlooking this, from the Arbcom decision: "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." Now, granted, this isn't Arbcom putting it to the community, rather the community becoming frustrated with waiting for that to happen and doing it themselves, but it does rather go against the notion that doing this at all is completely unnecessary or inappropriate. -- Begoon 01:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

A self-imposed obligation to submit for useless review and comment does not make that self-imposed submission somehow less useless. GMG^talk 01:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. The arbitrators passing that decision didn't seem to feel it was useless. The fact that they have never followed through could, I suppose, imply that some subsequent committees were less convinced of its utility - I don't know, because I can't read their minds, and I don't know exactly when, or what Beta submitted, other than what he says he did. I understand your opinion, but personally, I'm fine with this - it's what was promised, although very late, and nobody is compelled to participate. -- Begoon 01:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

If I were drafting a case, I wouldn't write a remedy that way, for exactly the reason you suggest - it's impractical and logistically convoluted. But I think it's only fair to try to uphold our end of whatever bargains past committees have made.

The above isn't quite right on the timing - as I recall, Δ emailed the committee some time ago and did not get a prompt reply, which is our fault for being slow. He then posted on his talk page instead. My last question there was to ask for a copy of an appeal/proposed restrictions to post on AN. Instead, Guy suggested he would draft an RfC. So this hasn't come about in this form because the current arbcom was persistently unresponsive or chose not to follow up. ‎Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about anyone else, but I would have preferred to see what Betacommand was proposing rather than this rather absurd non-binding "advisory" RfC, so that the community could judge directly, without intermediation, what his actual take was on his banning, why he thinks he should be unbanned, and how he proposed to show the community that it should give him another chance. This RfC has done none of that, simply offering possible results in the form of proposals, with no justification given for them aside from "time served". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• I strongly oppose Ivanvector refactoring the RfC I posted. I would welcome suggestions on improvements, and if his version is better I will be glad to change my RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

  Any refactoring becomes a bit of an issue after people have responded, unless they are all asked to reassess their input in light of the changes. I don't see any harm in leaving it as it is. If it's going to become a long discussion with many tangents then it will inevitably become that however it is formatted. At least this format tries to focus on outcomes. I think the only thing I might have done differently is not having all the separate, per-proposal 'discussion' sections, because those discussions are bound to overlap a bit, but the format, in general, seems ok, and encourages focus on specific outcomes. -- Begoon 00:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

  That's fine, consider my proposal to refactor withdrawn. At the time I proposed it there were only two comments in the entire thing, now it's already the mess I predicted and refactoring would be an absolute nightmare. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Guy Macon: You may wish to add User talk:Werieth/201407 to the above list (especially note GZWDer's comment). I will say at this time that I closed the aforementioned SPI solely due to a lack of evidence that was presented then. I am going through my notes to see if there is anything else I have to add (and also if I can comment on it, as I was a steward during 2014 when the Werieth account was blocked.) --Rschen7754 04:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Most of the compelling evidence was presented later, here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ/Werieth. Perhaps Beta doesn't deny Werieth any more - I don't think I've seen him recently comment either way. Still, even that is over 3 years ago now. -- Begoon 04:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Good catch, both of you. I have added the Δ/Werieth page to the previous discussions. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the ones pushing for Betacommand's "parole" have either forgotten or weren't here at all during his reign of terror. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I think there are also a number of bot operators in that camp, which is understandable given Betacommand's proficiency in writing bots. As BU Rob 13 has said, Beta has apparently been helpful to bot operators even while banned, and that may be a factor in some of them wanting him to return to editing. Unfortunately, while Beta was, by all accounts, a skilled bot-writer, his social skills were undeniably deficient, which caused problems when he dug in his heels and didn't conform to community requirements. As you pointed out elsewhere in this RfC, his work with bots in the image field was particularly problematic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Plus, Bugs, the preferred terminology is now "reign of error" - see Iridescent's post above... -- Begoon 00:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I was here, and I remember the problems very well. I am pretty sure that I compiled evidence in that case. I have given this issue a lot of thought, and I think that after five years we can afford to apply the principles found in WP:ROPE. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

What is the compelling reason to bring that character back? How has Wikipedia suffered from his absence? And if he's forbidden to do anything with images, what else would he do? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

"Three" years at most, not five years, as you should be well aware by now. Anyway, when I see the awareness of what Betacommands problems were and what caused his ban in his very recent comments like "I expect a degree of stalking and harassment as a matter of course, said actions will be denied of course, and even the blatant personal attacks that will be directed at me will for the most part be ignored when I try to raise the issue." And Guy Macon, where you do see " the consensus of the RfC is moving towards unblock but no bots for six months. " That isn't even one of the options, never mind it getting any kind of consensus. You are not helping anyone (least of all Betacommand) by presenting such incorrect statements. Then again, this is the problem that has plagued this RfC from the very start, isn't it? Fram (talk) 07:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I was fairly certain it wasn't five. But either way, he can wait another three-to-five. And under no circumstances should he ever be allowed to do anything on the topic of images. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Because the unban process imposed by the former Committee seems unusually complex and seems to have led directly to this situation (where nobody seems really sure how Δ's unban request should proceed) it occurred to me to review more recent Committee site-ban remedies and the unban conditions attached. This list is in reverse chronological order, and not complete:

Past Arbcom remedies

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Final decision: "She may request reconsideration of the ban no earlier than one year after it is enacted." Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13#Motion: "Technical 13 may appeal this ban at any time to the Arbitration Committee if he wishes to return to editing." Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity_and_Sexuality#Final_decision: Esoglou "is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter." Padresfan94 "is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter." Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione#Final decision: "They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter." Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate: Ryulong "is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter." Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control: North8000 "is indefinitely site-banned from the English Language Wikipedia; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed." Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds: Kiefer.Wolfowitz "is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter." Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ#Final decision: Fæ "is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter." Michaeldsuarez "is banned indefinitely from the English language Wikipedia. They may appeal this ban one year after its enactment." Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Review#Final decision: Ferahgo the Assassin and Captain Occam "are site-banned from Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year. After one year has elapsed, a request may be made for the ban to be lifted. Any such request must address all the circumstances which lead to this ban being imposed and demonstrate an understanding of and intention to refrain from similar actions in the future." Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal#Final decision: Will Beback "is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. After six months, he may appeal his ban to the Arbitration Committee." Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3#Final decision: Betacommand "is banned from Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year. [break] 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." Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee: MickMacNee "is banned from Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year. After this minimum time has elapsed, MickMacNee will remain banned indefinitely, until such time as he demonstrates to the Committee that he is no longer a threat to the collaborative nature of the project." Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2: Stevertigo "is banned from Wikipedia for one year. If Stevertigo wishes to return to editing Wikipedia, he must first work with the Arbitration Committee to an establish a set of probation criteria. He may do this no earlier than six months after the closure of the case, and no more than every six months thereafter." Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence: Mikemikev "who was indefinitely blocked as a result of an ANI discussion during the case proceedings, is site-banned for 12 months. Until his ArbCom ban expires, he may only appeal his block to the Arbitration Committee, via the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. After 12 months, he may choose to appeal the ban to either the Arbitration Committee or to the community." Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2: -Alastair Haines "is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year, and thereafter pending further direction of the Arbitration Committee under remedy 2. [break] Should Alastair Haines wish to return to editing Wikipedia after one year, he shall first communicate with the Arbitration Committee and provide a satisfactory assurance that he will refrain from making any further legal threats against other editors or against the Wikimedia Foundation. Should Alastair Haines, after being permitted to return, again make a legal threat or a statement that may reasonably be construed as a legal threat, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator."

That's as far back as I'm going to go. My point in doing this is to demonstrate that, in the vast majority of cases, Arbcom attaches no special conditions that a banned editor must meet before their appeal will be considered. Most of these are simply "they may appeal" or "request reconsideration" after some time period, and there is language at the banning policy which spells out general conditions. There's a few, usually older cases, which insert their own language similar to the policy, but could be seen as confusing or conflicting, and the Betacommand case seems to be a good example of this going very badly. I think it would be worthwhile for the Committee to establish standard language for Arbcom sitebans, as well as a statement committing itself to post good-faith ban appeals to ARCA (or wherever) in very short order unless it has reason to reject the appeal outright (such as clearly inappropriate appeals). But I'm not going to make any more explicit proposals in this RfC, I've done that enough. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Best post this page has seen in years.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  07:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Protest against disruption of this RfC

THE FOLLOWING SECTION CONTAINS COMMENTS DISRUPTIVELY INSERTED INTO THE HEAD OF THIS RFC INSTEAD OF IN THE COMMENTS SECTION WHERE EVERYONE ELSE MADE THEIR COMMENT.

In the section below this one, User:Fram inserted a lengthy comment into the head of this RfC rather than in the threaded discussion section where everyone else has made their comments.[12] He did this with the express motivive that he thinks his comment "should be considered before someone starts on the proposals",[13] thus giving his opinion more visibility than the other opinions in the threaded discussion section. When I attempted to move the comment[14], Fram reverted.[15] Comments belong in the comments section, where everyone's opininion is given equal weight.

I am formally protesting Fram rewording this RfC after multiple votes had been cast and I ask all participants to ignore his attempt to disrupt this RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Nice bolding! So, you are protesting that someone puts information near the top of the RfC has opened, by... putting your whining above it? Hypocritical much? And false as well, I have not "reworded this RfC", the only one to reword this RfC after votes had been cast is you. Despicable behaviour. Fram (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

...And now we have another editor who has decided that his opinions should have a place of prominence over all of the comments of the editors who followed the rules and posted their comment in the comment section where they belong. Again I protest this ongoing disruption of this RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

And I protest your refusal to remove information from the "Background" section above which you now know to be untrue and deceptive, whether it appears on Betacommand's talk page or not. No matter how hard you try, Guy Macon, you are not going to be able to portray yourself as the injured party here, not as long as you keep endorsing untrue information by not removing it when you had the chance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Please close this RfC as biased and tainted from the start

This is what was posted here. It included background like "Betacommand has been trying to submit such a plan for over four years, but the Arbitration Committee has not presented the plan to the community for review and comment." and "I am including this because some people refer to it but fail to note that the conclusion was "There simply hasn't been enough evidence presented here", as if Betacommand had not done anything wrong since the ban and for four years he has been stalled by ArbCom.

This is a false presentation of the facts, and an RfC which starts with such a presentation is not valid. Many Supports were already being cast left and right before this was finally added, without changing the previous descriptions though (e.g. that during those 4 years, Betacommand was actively socking, and that the "not enough evidence" sockpuppet inverstigation turned out to be correct after all).

This late change has tainted the RfC completely, and the fact that neither Betacommand nor his supporters apparently either knew about his rather important case or felt the need to mention it here is amazing. This RfC needs to be shut down and (if wanted) restarted with an unbiased and complete background section. Fram (talk) 08:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Fram--The section has been transposed to it's chronological destination. Despite the merits of one's arguments, one cannot break the order of threads.Regards:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winged Blades of Godric (talk • contribs) 10:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: Fram reverted the above-referenced attempt to place his comments where they belong. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a reply to the RfC statements, not to the proposals. The proposals below are a waste of time when one starts with an invalid RfC (an RfC should be neutral, and the RfC should not be significantly changed after voting has started: both are violated here). You have now changed the RfC, removing one of the statements I refered to, which is also not allowed on talk pages (as it renders my post harder to parse and to match with the actual text above it). Please leave this well alone. Fram (talk) 10:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Fram:--Approaches differ.I find being bold and addressing the problems of neutrality et al to be a much better solution than to .......And in any case you ping the users who voted or took part in the disc. before the Werieth issue was added by Guy.Anyway, cheers:)Winged Blades ^Godric 10:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The reason for the "fundamental change" Fram is complaining about is clearly documented at the bottom of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Threaded discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

In the above, I have been misquoted, putting words in my mouth. I did NOT write "Betacommand has been trying to submit such a plan for over four years, but the Arbitration Committee has not presented the plan to the community for review and comment.". That is a deliberate misquote. What I actually wrote was "It appears from reading Betacommand's talk page (keeping in mind that we are only seeing one side of the story) that Betacommand has been trying to submit such a plan for over four years, but the Arbitration Committee has not presented the plan to the community for review and comment." I have no knowledge of what was done or not done via email. I simply documented a claim made on a talk page, being careful to make it clear that I have no way of knowing whether the claim is true. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

So, you're still hiding behind that fig leaf: "Oh, I didn't say it, I'm just presenting what's on the talk page." Well, that's just baloney. You decided how to characterize what's on the talk page, you decided what on the talk page to present as part of the "Background" section (which is supposed to be neutral information, per WP:RfC), you decided to keep presenting it even after you found it that the claim wasn't true, so you are responsible for creating the impression that the underlying information presented is factually accurate, and you continue to do so, despite that fact that you know that it's not.

If I go around town saying to everyone I meet, "Ida says that April is a bitch," I can try to hide behind "Oh, I didn't say it, Ida did, don't blame me, blame her", but April would have every reason to be pissed at me for spreading that canard. In the same way, you are responsible for the fact that you chose that "fact" to present as part of the RfC, and you continue to present it even though you now know that the underlying information is untrue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Introduction to RfC contains inaccurate information

The RfC introduction above has a paragraph that reads:

It appears from reading Betacommand's talk page (keeping in mind that we are only seeing one side of the story) that Betacommand has been trying to submit such a plan for over four years, but the Arbitration Committee has not presented the plan to the community for review and comment.

This, of course, is untrue, and has been revealed to be untrue numerous times during the course of this discussion. I don't believe that Guy Macon knew this at the time he set up the RfC, but he must know it now, so I struck it out. Guy Macon undid my strike-through, returning the untrue information to the RfC introduction. He then templated my talk page with a warning template which begins

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ/2017 Advisory RFC, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. ...

I was annoyed at being templated like a newbie after 12 years and 200,000 edits, so I posted a comment on User talk:Guy Macon. I could have simply reminded Guy Macon that it was a good idea to WP:DTTR, but I was more annoyed than that, not only because of the template, but because of Guy Macon's imperious ownership of this RfC, and his returning inaccurate and erroneous information to the introduction. So I posted this to Guy Macon's talk page:

Please ... Don't fucking template me again, asshole. If you have something to say to me, leave a comment, not a template.

I stand by those sentiments. If it means that I'm going to be blocked for pointing out when someone is behaving like an asshole, so be it: sometimes you just have to state the truth, no matter what the consequences. In any case...

Anyone approaching this RfC for the first time should note that the paragraph cited above is patently untrue and should be ignored.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Wow. What a shock. Another disruptive editor who feels that his comments are so very, very important that they simply must be inserted into the lead instead of in the discussion section where everyone else has made their comments. WP:TPOC is crystal clear about when you are allowed to edit something that another editor wrote, and "I think you are wrong" is not listed among the exceptions on that page.

Also the arguments at WP:TTR are much stronger and more compelling than the arguments at WP:DTTR. I have never seen anyone who compared the two essays come to the opposite conclusion -- other than disruptive editors who don't like getting user warnings when they misbehave. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Guy Macon, everything you say is right, Guy Macon, everyone else is wrong, Guy Macon. You are wise, Guy Macon, and we are but humble drudges rolling in the mud and yearning for you to show us the way, Guy Macon.

And your RfC is the best thing to happen to Wikipedia since ... ever. Since ever, Guy Macon. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

We have an article on what you just did: Appeal to ridicule. Also see [16], [17], and [18]. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Appeal to ridicule: Guy Macon: "Wow. What a shock. Another disruptive editor who feels that his comments are so very, very important..." Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Here are the posts by Opabinia regalis, a member of ArbCom, which show that the paragraph cited above is inaccurate and should be struck-through or deleted:

I posted this somewhere upthread, but this has predictably grown like a hydra and I'm not sure it was really noticed. Ivanvector, it is not the case that Δ has submitted an appeal, "conforming" or otherwise. He has stated an intention to do so, and asked about how to go about it. We were, admittedly, slow to respond to that inquiry. However, the most recent interaction between Δ and arbcom consisted of me asking him to please post the text of his appeal. Guy chose instead to suggest that he would draft an RfC. [19]

[C]ontrary to some of the speculation above, there is no "secret" plan that is for some reason not being posted publicly. I can't recall seeing any plan more specific than the "public appeal" text - which, to Δ's credit, is essentially what was emailed to us and didn't get a prompt response. As I said, I suspect the reason for the long back-and-forth is the lack of a clear idea on what this "plan" should consist of, as distinct from a normal ban appeal. [20]

I know this isn't a new post, but every time I look at this page I see another place that various claims about secret arbcom emails have been repeated, and those who are new to this issue shouldn't have to look through the whole page to find correct information. Δ did send an email a couple of months ago that did not get a prompt response. (There was one email, from me.) He then posted his "public appeal" thread on his talk page. There were no "emailed negotiations", and nothing meeting that description has taken place since I've been on the committee. There certainly have not been any threats about confidentiality. That doesn't even make any sense - while arbitrators treat emails to the mailing list as confidential, the authors of those emails are perfectly free to republish them elsewhere. Since Δ has not made these claims in public to my knowledge, and hasn't made them by email to arbcom, I'm unclear on where you're getting your information from. [21]

So, in short, it is not true that "Betacommand has been trying to submit such a plan [to ArbCom] for over four years", nor is it the case that ArbCom has received a plan from Betacommand and "has not presented the plan to the community for review and comment", since ArbCom has received no such plan, and, in fact, was in the process of attempting to get such a plan from Betacommand when Guy Macon inserted himself into the process to post this RfC. Guy Macon knows this to be the case from the comments quoted above, but refuses to strike or delete the non-factual claim made in the introduction, thus deliberately providing inaccurate information to anyone who began participating in this RfC since the time Opabinia regalis posted her first comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Please stop saying things that are not true. First, "Guy Macon knows this to be the case from the comments quoted above, but refuses to strike or delete the non-factual claim" is demonstrably untrue. You never asked me, and thus I had no opportunity to refuse any such request. If you had acted like a normal person and asked me, we could have discussed it and I may very well have been convinced by your argument. Instead you edited my words in direct violation of WP:TPOC. Second, you misquoted me above, putting words in my mouth. I did NOT write "Betacommand has been trying to submit such a plan [to ArbCom] for over four years". That is a deliberate misquote. What I actually wrote was "It appears from reading Betacommand's talk page (keeping in mind that we are only seeing one side of the story) that Betacommand has been trying to submit such a plan for over four years, but the Arbitration Committee has not presented the plan to the community for review and comment." I have no knowledge of what was done or not done via email. I simply documented a claim made on a talk page, being careful to make it clear that I have no way of knowing whether the claim is true. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Request denied. [22]

(1) The underlying facts of some information you put into the introduction for the consideration of RfC participants is untrue. (2) Therefore, I struck it through. (3) You restored it. So, regardless of the niceties of whether I had my pinkie finger out or asked "Pretty please, may I?" when I struck-through the untrue information, you restored inaccurate and deceptive information to the introduction of this RfC. Since there is no way you could have "overlooked" the posts from Opabinia regalis, you took this action knowing full well that the underlying facts of the information are untrue. Even now, you'd rather engage in disputation than remove the false information.

Shame, Guy Macon, shame. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Do it again and you will be blocked without warning from editing Wikipedia for altering the words of another editor. I am done talking with you. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

By not using the words "you may be" you have managed to convert a warning (albeit an unnecessary one), into a threat. You, of course, not being an admin, cannot block me, so your threat is hollow. Further, I have already shown that I have no intention of striking-through or deleting the untrue information you are allowing to let stand in the "Background" section by posting these comments showing that the information is untrue. That untrue information is that "Betacommand has been trying to submit such a plan for over four years, but the Arbitration Committee has not presented the plan to the community for review and comment." Opabine regalis, a member of Arbcom, has repeatedly refuted that ArbCom has ever received such a plan from Betacommand, so of course it has nothing to show the community. Your allowing that deceptive information to remain at the top of the RfC pollutes the entire request. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

See #Proposal 8: Removal of untrue and deceptive information from the "Background" section of this RfC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)