Jump to content

User talk:Δ

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Δ (talk | contribs) at 13:43, 26 September 2017 (→‎RfC). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Nomination of Ashley Zais for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ashley Zais is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Zais (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs)

Question

For all of the talk page stalkers out there, when interacting with arbcom what is a reasonable period to wait for a response? ΔT The only constant 17:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • In my opinion, it is reasonable to expect a response within 24 hours; if only to say that your electronic correspondence had been received. An actual answer should clearly take a bit longer though I would think if more than 2 weeks were needed that an interim message should be properly due, to explain that more time is needed and why. I've a hunch, however, that my expectations are no more than a laughable aside to the procedures manifest in actual practice; do tell.--John Cline (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last time we visited (what I think is) this was August of last year. It was noted (at least by me) in that discussion that ArbCom fumbled the ball the first time. Though some members of ArbCom contributed to the discussion last year, ultimately they dropped it and nothing happened. I could be wrong; Δ may have received an email from ArbCom, but I'm not aware. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ASAP would be reasonable in your case, given that every time for the past two/three years you've asked to be unbanned and we've all discussed it, ArbCom has done nothing. It's been over five years - why is this ridiculous ban still in place after all this time? Acalamari 19:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think if ArbCom fumbles the ball again, I'm inclined to submit an RFAR with all of ArbCom as THE named party in the title of the case. :) Maybe, just maybe, that would get their attention :) --Hammersoft (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have now officially reached the two week point without a response. ΔT The only constant 20:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Yeah, this is really bizarre. Is there anyone on The Committee who could be putting the knockers on it? It seems, a la William Rees-Mogg, Who breaks a butterfly upon a wheel? — fortunavelut luna 21:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt that. "Do not ascribe to malice that which can be ascribed to incompetence", or in this case reluctance. I think for the ArbCom members currently serving, it's a complex, thorny issue that is five years old now. To try to untangle it and come up with a reasoned and reasonable way forward is no small task. Yet of course, this is precisely what we have elected them to do and what they have so graciously volunteered to do. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

5 years is far too long a banishment especially after the original said 1 year appeal. This user has not been given the chance to just return to editing without restrictions as would be the fair and proper thing to do after all these years. If he screws up again, deal with any issues. Legacypac (talk) 13:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Public Appeal

@Acalamari: @Anomie: @Beetstra: @BU Rob13: @Callanecc: @Casliber: @Ched: @Cyberpower678: @DeltaQuad: @DGG: @Doug Weller: @Drmies: @Euryalus: @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: @GorillaWarfare: @Guy Macon: @Hammersoft: @Headbomb: @John Cline: @Keilana: @Kelapstick: @Kirill Lokshin: @Ks0stm: @MBisanz: @Mkdw: @MusikAnimal: @Nagle: @Newyorkbrad: @Opabinia regalis: @Slakr: @SQL: @The Earwig: @Xaosflux:

This is not directed at anyone on ArbCom, but as an entity in itself. I have been interacting with ArbCom for a number of years now. In that time I have made several observations. They flat out have no standards in regards to communication. On average I am waiting at least 14 days before getting a response, and then only because I start making the rounds and prodding individual members. In the past ArbCom as applied a "Pocket Veto" to my appeal instead of reviewing the case. I have given ArbCom a 3-6 month outline of planned activities, and suggested restrictions for re-integration into the community. Given ArbCom's clear communication breakdown I am posting this to my talk page since that is the only remaining venue that I have available. I do make a request for those who will be involved in the discussion. If you have a request or proposed stipulation please make it specific and actionable. Overly vague and broad statements have caused issues because it is left up to personal interpretation on what is and isn't a violation.

A basic outline is:

1) "Topic Banned" from NFC enforcement, this does not prohibit discussion of said policy or reports based off of the policy, but does cover actions taken to enforce said policy.

2) One account restriction, with stipulations that a secondary bot account is permitted if BAG approved.

3) Large scale edits/running a bot has a 6 month ban. After which point bot activities revert to the Bot Approval Group.

4) My planned activities are fairly limited at this point to minor gnoming (fixing issues that I come across), refreshing myself with the culture and policy shifts since I was active. Documenting and addressing issues with the tools currently on the toolforge (aka WMF labs).

ΔT The only constant 19:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite sure why I'm being pinged. If you haven't gotten a reply, ARBCOM does needs to get their shit in gear, and if I were you, I'd ping every member of ARBCOM instead.
That being said, it's the summer. It's quite probable many, if not most of them are just busy with life/vacation. I know they're not being very speedy with the other ongoing cases. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given the case history I thought it was prudent to ping both ArbCom, and BAG. ΔT The only constant 19:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It’s been more than five years since the ban wasn’t imposed. I was still a clueless editor back then. I think it’s time to let him back. I’ve had nothing but productive interactions with this user on IRC.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 19:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given that users who hold advance permissions and failing to respond to their action/inaction becomes a recent theme (see recent ANI), I think ArbCom can no longer drag its heels or play "I can't hear you". Taking weeks or months to respond to emails is conduct unbecoming of ArbCom members (if such a thing exists). OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Δ, just for your information, this has been under discussion (looking back the last email about it was yesterday), apologies for not getting back to you sooner. Hopefully something will be up soon. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally Δ, I am in the process of personally getting my shit together, and organizing some of the outstanding items that we still require action on. Hopefully this will expedite your (and other) requests which appear to be stuck in queue. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Email received July 7. Responded to July 19 with questions and comments after being internally discussed. Formal appeal received July 20. There are 18 internal emails regarding the formal appeal with the latest received yesterday. There's probably about 20-30 appeals currently being discussed. The issue isn't about simply responding, it's also about establishing a consensus among the active ArbCom. We could certainly improve response time, but anything better than a few days, we'd be just enacting things without consensus or very poorly and likely to no one's satisfaction. Mkdw talk 22:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)of response[reply]
  • @Mkdw: I wouldn't necessarily expect a resolution rapidly. I would expect some kind of response, even if it was a "High volume of calls, please hold" message. A reasonable secondary would be a back and forth with me being able to address issues that you guys foresee. In a back and forth process to get a resolution that will work for all parties involved, especially given that there have been glaring issues with wording in previous decisions. A binary appeal, reject situation is not conducive to problem resolution. ΔT The only constant 23:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Yes, in regards to case updates we can do better. Mkdw talk 01:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Two weeks for a substantive response to an issue with a lot of history behind it is actually not that bad by our usual standards :) And considering that the substance of the response you were likely to get was going to be "write something up to post in public so people can weigh in on what if any restrictions they think are warranted", you just beat us to it. The plan was to post on AN to solicit feedback; is the above what you'd like to have posted there or do you want to expand/modify first? Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the response lag, I know it could probably use a review of wording perhaps @Guy Macon: could give it a once over but that is the gist of it. I have always been fairly straight forward with my statements. The only difficulty that I see having the discussion at ANI is my lack of ability to respond effectively. ΔT The only constant 19:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Opabinia regalis: Since Guy has declined the review, go ahead and post as is. However I will be going offline in about 48 hours for about a week (Planned Trip) so my internet access/ability to respond/monitor/provide feedback will be non-existent until I get back. ΔT The only constant 18:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right now things are slow because a lot of people are at Wikimania or otherwise on vacation. Since you're also going to be unavailable soon, why not just wait till you get back so you can follow the discussion? I doubt it would take more than a week in any case. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Opabinia regalis: Sorry for the delay, post trip chaos and helping Headbomb have kept me busy. But I should be around now. ΔT The only constant 13:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please re-post here exactly the text you want to use for the AN discussion? In a new section or in a collapse box or something is fine. Thanks! Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5 years is at least enough for re-evaluation. I don't know how old he is, but 5 years can frequently be a huge difference when it comes to teenagers and college kids, at the very least. Anyway, given the substance of prior concerns/cases is predominantly whether Betacommand is making unsanctioned automated edits and dealing with complaints, the simplest solution would just be to change the sanctions to allow any admin to AE-block him without warning "up to a year" / whatever the going rate is for ACDS whenever he starts making a string of edits that a reasonable person would construe as automated; appeals then go to AE if requested. Ditto goes with any civility concerns or whatever else was raised in the cases before. Not sure why Arbcom would be so inactive on this, though... it looks like Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand_3#Appeal_of_ban doesn't require them to come to any sort of real agreement internally, rather just to present the request to the community for discussion. Maybe that was for back when there was a WP:BASC? --slakr\ talk / 01:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • As was pointed out above, ArbCom is not so inactive on this, nor has Betacommand/Delta been so inactive--note that the last sock block wasn't five yours ago, but rather December 2013--an editor with whom I interacted some, actually, and whom I defended more than once. Just saying. Drmies (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to help, and I believe that my contributions would be useful, but I refuse to have anything to do with Arbcom. See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 35#I believe that I am owed an apology. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom discussion

I have opened a discussion related to the above appeal at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 35#A related aside. Comments by others are welcome there. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion was archived without action. One comment in that discussion caught my eye:
"considering how a recent unbanning exploded in the lap of ArbCom, have you ever considered posting a non-binding Request for Comment post at WP:AN or WP:ANI for select unban requests"
I saw no objections from any arbcom member, so let's do it. I suggest WP:AN. We will have to deal with random editors who have a made-up rule in their head saying that if a forum is not allowed to make a binding decision that this somehow magically creates a rule saying that we cannot post non-binding RfCs on the topic, but no such rule exists. See my Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy for a good example about how to word a non-binding RfC.
Who wants to write up the RfC? I can do it, but there are other editors here who are more familiar with the history involved. Δ, do you want to post a version of what you would like to see in an RfC here so we can use that as a starting point? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find some of his tool useful even today. Is the suggestion that after 5 years all blocks and restrictions be lifted so he has a clean start? I'd favor that. 5 years is a very long punishment indeed. Legacypac (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently waiting to see what Opabinia regalis recommends as the next step. Its only been a few hours since my post so I am going to give it some more time. ΔT The only constant 19:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the time he has been blocked, kids who did not exist then are in Kindergarten. Rather than having him appeal, what about a group of interested editors together go to ANi and start a proposal to "reinstate beta with no restrictions on a clean statt basis" or some other better wording. If four or five editors cosign the proposal it will fly. Legacypac (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, I know exactly what the response will be: "ANI does not have the authority to overturn arbcom." Thus my far better suggestion above (Post a a non-binding Request for Comment post at AN. See my Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy for a good example about how to word a non-binding RfC.) --Guy Macon (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that these are Betacommand's known accounts (legitimate, not sockpuppets):
If I missed any, please let me know. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Δ, regarding Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Checking some sockpuppet cats, would you like me to challenge any of them, or are they valid? (Note that we are mostly talking about accounts blocked in 2008 and 2009). --Guy Macon (talk) 06:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: None of the suspected are valid, however given the time lapse not sure its worth challenging. Any suggestions on how I should phrase the AN RfC? ΔT The only constant 13:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am getting pretty good at writing RfCs that pass. Sometime soon (this week, I hope) I will write up a draft, ask everyone here to comment/correct, then will post it. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy Macon: Any progress report? Id rather not drag this out too long. If needed I can try to come up with something, not sure how well it will go over. ΔT The only constant 15:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I got distracted by other things. I will post an RfC later today. My apologies. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, why wouldn't you start off from the text provided by Betacommand at #Public Appeal, above? It sounds like he would accept an unban even with restrictions. Asking Arbcom to lift all restrictions is a bigger request. EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft RFC

User:Δ wishes to return as a productive member of the Wikipedia community. Whereas he was blocked in ___ 2012 by ArbComm action (link), the community believes that 5 years and __ months is long enough of a banishment and requests ArbComm lift all editing restrictions and waive any other requirements for return imposed on User:Δ forthwith. This RfC jointly proposed by editors A, B, C etc

There is my first draft. Comments and changes welcome. Legacypac (talk) 00:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Technical Barnstar
For reviving User:Bibcode Bot! Thank you so much! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DRAFT RfC: Advisory RfC concerning Betacommand

The RfC has been posted. Please comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC: Advisory RfC concerning Betacommand.

Discussion about the draft RfC

THIS IS A DRAFT! PLEASE COMMENT SO WE CAN IMPROVE IT! --Guy Macon (talk) 07:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: looks like a good start, lets see if there is any more feedback. ΔT The only constant 12:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First thing is make the links point to their intended targets. Right now they're pointing to generic pages that give no insight on anything. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to point to. For example, Proposal #1 is a proposal that at some time in the future a motion lifting the ban be posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. There won't be anything to point to until the Arbitration Committee decides to do that. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
that confused me too. We need to simplify this amd remove all the arbcomm speak. Make it easy for the casual editor to understand. Say why Delta is a valued contributor and say he served his time. Legacypac (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am all for simplification, but perhaps not a good person to do the simplifying. Please feel free to edit the draft RfC as as you see fit.
I am hesitant to "Say why Delta is a valued contributor and say he served his time" in the proposals, which should be as neutral as possible. I expect one of the first support !votes to make those points, and I suspect that others will strongly agree. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just made a few changes. Better? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am about to give you the exact words from Arbcom, but before your read them, please read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3/Evidence for the other side of the story. A significant percentage of the community thought that it was Arbcom who was in the wrong. (You see a lot less of this since Arbcom statrted sanctioning users for presenting evidence that they don't want to hear. [1])

Here are the exact words from the Arbcom case:

"a substantial portion of his editing has consisted of repetitive minor edits, some or all of which have been performed via the use of automated or semi-automated editing tools."
"Numerous concerns have been raised in regards to Betacommand's editing, including both concerns with the substantive content of the edits as well as concerns with Betacommand's ability and willingness to communicate the purpose and nature of the edits to other users. In light of these concerns, the community has determined that some of Betacommand's editing is detrimental to the encyclopedia, and has imposed a series of sanctions on Betacommand's editing."

Here is a list of the restrictions, again quoting Arbcom:

"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.
"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."
"Betacommand must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time."
"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."
"(Modified by motion) Pursuant to the provisions of Remedy 5.1, and mindful of the recent and current disputes surrounding this user in many fora, the committee by motion indefinitely topic-bans Δ (formerly known as Betacommand) from making any edit enforcing the non-free content criteria, broadly construed. User:Δ is also formally reminded of the civility restriction and other terms to which they are still subject as a condition of the provisional suspension of their community ban."

Then, in the 2012 decision, Arbcom said

"In 2011, Betacommand has violated all of the community imposed sanctions. During the year Betacommand has:
  • often performed tasks without approval from the community *
  • often saved edits without reviewing them for problems *
  • often performed tasks at edit-rates exceeding four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time *
  • been blocked for incivility once (another block for incivility was overruled)"

...leading to the block and the promise (not kept, as far as I can tell) to "present this plan to the community for review and comment prior to any modification of Betacommand's ban" after a year. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A personal message to Δ

Δ, At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ/2017 Advisory RFC I have advocated a complete lifting of all restrictions on you. The consensus seems to be going towards lifting the ban but leaving some restrictions in place for another six months.

My question is a simple one, and I apologize for having to ask it, but are you going to hang me up to dry? Looking at the reactions of a minority of those who have commented on the RfC, I can confidently predict that your every edit will be scrutinized and that there will be complaints even if you do everything right (and many more complaints if you don't). It will be a huge temptation to respond in ways that will be used against you. You will be reported for minor infractions that would be ignored if I did them. And if you respond with even a hint of incivility or stray too close to whatever limits they impose your enemies will turn on me and say "See? You vouched for him, and look what happened!". Please, tell me that you understand and will not make me regret any of this.

Yes, I know that it is unfair holding you to a stricter standard than anyone else, but you need to be squeaky clean for at least six months. You need to use the preview button every time and carefully look for errors. You need to write neutral edit summaries, and you need to do that on every edit. And in many cases you need to ignore accusations and let someone else deal with them if they are false accusations. Please tell me that I am not going to look like a fool.

Again, I apologize for the tone of this post, but I had to ask. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: I am not going to hang you out to dry, I fully expected that there would be restrictions in place. 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. However CIVIL will not be an issue, unless its taken to an unreasonable degree (IE calling out obvious vandalism is a personal attack on the editor who made the edit) The critical factors here will be clearly defining those restrictions and providing specific, actionable points. The current wording on 2A with regards to simi-automatic editing is too poorly worded to be followable. At what point to you consider something simi-auto? Is Twinkle forbidden? (its often used for basic page tagging, XfDs and so on) Is CharInsert forbidden (I use that as an example of a gadget that is both available in the Preferences, and something enabled by default for user)? How do I prove that I wasn't using something semi-automatically? (Its not actually possible to do so, since I am still pressing the save button myself) Those will be cases where as soon as someone makes that claim I am out of luck because unless I have a camera over my shoulder 24/7 recording myself editing I will be unable to prove my side of the issue. (See the Proving Non-Existence argument fallacy). I would also push for the ability of review in 6 months instead of a year. I know I am forgetting something, however I have a splitting headache, and real life issues that are requiring priority at the moment, if something else crosses my mind as the discussion unfolds I'll post here. ΔT The only constant 23:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am satisfied with your good faith. Thanks! And again sorry that I had to ask.
As can be seen from the comments section of 2A, I didn't write it. I am going to make a point to make sure that before this is over that any restrictions will be precisely defined. I will be putting more thought into this later, after the current RfC is closed. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

@SnowFire: if you are going to make personal attacks directed at myself, please at least get your facts correct. In regards to this edit: 1) the bot tagged images as not having a valid non-free use rationale, it did not remove them. (It used the standard {{Di-no fair use rationale}} to tag them as F6) Second you stated that the bot was case sensitive, it wasn't it ignored case for the most part (there where a few oddball cases with Unicode characters such as ΜTorrent where it got confused, but those issues where addressed) You stated that it ignored redirects, which is also false, it looked for the title, and anything that redirected to it. Most of the "bugs" that you are claiming with that statement are actually human error. If a page is moved and a redirect is left behind, users often re-use the redirect for other uses (different article, or disambiguation page) and then fail to update the non-free media rationales associated with the page. The end result is that the rationale that was on the file is for a different page than where the file was actually being used. A example of this is that Candela is created the logo for the town is added, and then is moved to Candela, Apulia because the file description page references Candela and not Candela, Apulia it would be tagged. That is correct per policy, if you look at NFCC#10c it requires the either the exact name of the article or a redirect to it. It also tagged the talk page of the uploader and the article talk page where the file was being used that an issue needed fixed. Before anything got deleted it required an administrator (at least one human) to review the case and address those easily fixable cases that you are calling bugs. I'm not going to be getting back into that field because its too contentious of an area. But still if you are going to cast aspirations at me please use accurate statements. ΔT The only constant 23:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the redirect problem was eventually fixed. I'm glad you did. But I do recall it being a problem at first, which it never ever should have been.
Also, I'd really rather that if you came back, you stayed out of any field involving bots. I seem to recall you demonstrating bad judgment in more than just copyright enforcement with your bot actions. See this for an example. SnowFire (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@SnowFire: the bot did leave notes on the talk pages of articles [2], and it did not leave nastygrams. It left the standard {{di-no fair use rationale-notice}} I also had asked multiple times for improvements to the wording of both messages for those who thought it could be improved, very little was ever changed. As for future work, the only thing that might be on the horizon are reports similar to WP:DBR which would be within a limited userspace. However that's just an idea with no actual plans for implementation. Beyond that my future plans, as I have stated are to document the tools that I have on the Toolforge, address any outstanding issues with those, and do basic gnomish cleanup/maintenance tasks. Nothing major. I don't recall the details of that incident (its been over 10 years) but back in those days I was just starting, bot polices and practices where a lot different. As the community evolved BAG and BRFA came into existence. Things where later codified and clarified, I was also just starting to get involved with bots on wiki so there where some growing pains too. However because of the age recalling specifics is difficult. ΔT The only constant 00:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This conversation is ludicrous, because it is clear we are talking about separate things.
  • If your bot never tagged images that included a link to a redirect to the article they were used in, not even at first, say that and say that my recollection is faulty.
  • If your bot DID used to tag images improperly, then the wording on the talk page notice is irrelevant, because it is imposing on others some form of free labor to go fix your bot's mistakes. The uploader shouldn't have had to do anything in such a situation. (If this is some reference to "nastygram", you are taking me too literally. This means "any sort of notification that something bad is about to happen.") SnowFire (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm trying to be too diplomatic/nice with my wording. I think your memory is faulty. I know I added the talk page notices after the fact, but I am fairly sure that it always followed redirects. ΔT The only constant 00:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that rehashing what did or did not happen years ago is helpful, and the consensus of the RfC is moving towards unblock but no bots for six months. The important thing is that Δ makes a commitment that once he is allowed to run bots he will do test runs, test carefully for the bots adding unintended errors while fixing other errors, and being responsive to criticism of the bot actions, undoing them himself if needed. Realistically, there will be dozens of people watching, and no second chances if Δ screws up. He would be stupid to be anything other than careful going forward, and I do not think he is stupid. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: Opabinia regalis's comment is only partially accurate. About a year ago I filed an appeal where the result was effectively a pocket veto. I was having to track down ArbCom members on IRC every 2-3 weeks and request a response. After a period I raised the issue on my talk page, and arbcom again failed to participate. (I think a couple members made passing comments, but there was never a final decision by the committee) Life got hectic and I dropped the issue, until this most recent appeal. I wanted to be able to document the appeal in case it happened again, and to do it in an open forum where others could comment/discuss the issues if they so choose to do so. In regard to the current appeal Opabinia's comments are accurate, I have not gone to ArbCom yet, since I posted here and it was suggested that an RfC might be the best route, I am letting things play out. If anyone has direct questions my talk page is open. I have tried to not sick my nose in it too much, rather letting the discussion work itself out. ΔT The only constant 13:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Δ&oldid=802489279"