Initiated by Fæ at 15:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Sexology arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology#Discretionary_sanctions

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• Fæ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology#Discretionary_sanctions

• Remove transgender issues, or separate transgender issues from paraphilia, as a discretionary sanction, should the evidence show that sanctions on trans articles are still required.

The case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology was over four years ago. The committee seems overdue to revisit these topics of discretionary sanctions as they lump various modern, appropriate, and non-controversial LGBT+ articles with topics of "abnormal sexual desires". The template that is being used on recent articles of wide interest like Danica Roem, offensively lumps articles about trans people and trans issues with hebephilia. As I would hope Arbcom is sensitive to the difference between gender and sex, Arbcom's own rulings must make that difference clear, in order to avoid unintended downstream outcomes, like the template text "The Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages related to transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia), including this article" which makes it seem that Arbcom and the Wikipedia community does not understand there is a difference between transgender and paraphilia topics in terms of controversy.

In the four years since the Sexology case, the Wikimedia project landscape and community understanding of LGBT+ topics has changed a lot. For example we now have a well established Wikimedia LGBT+ user group, who may be approached for suggestions if Arbcom would be helped by an independent user group view, Wikimedia has officially funded diversity events and LGBT+ editathons, Wikipedia policies have head-on tackled respectful treatment of trans related articles and biographies, and the quality and variety of LGBT+ related articles has significantly expanded to the public benefit.

I request that Arbcom formally recommend that the current implementation of the Sexology case (2013) is revised so that LGBT+ related articles are treated with respect and sensitivity, even if discretionary sanctions are in place and a template is needed. Further, and possibly within a longer timeframe, I request that Arbcom now review the evidence for Sexology case section 4.1 " Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g., hebephilia)" and if the evidence demonstrates that there is no reason to believe the topic of "transgender" is a battleground, to remove the topic of transgender, until a further case with recent evidence of this being a locus of persistent disruption is brought to the committee and a separate ruling may be made.

I confirm I have an interest in the Wikimedia LGBT+ user group as an active participant and at various times have represented LGBT+ interests at Wikimedia conferences, but this does not represent a conflict of interest and neither was I a party or participant in the case. --Fæ (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum WRT evidence - After writing this request, it was only after Newyorkbrad's comment that I realized that the Manning case was relevant. The statement in the Manning case added to the Sexology DS with "For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning." As a previous administrator I never enforced a DS, and so not thought to check the Arbcom enforcement log. The log shows that there have been three enforcements of the Sexology DS. All were related to the Chelsea Manning article discussions and the article move, and all are over four years ago. In Wikipedia terms, four years with no enforcement is a very long time, especially when the single locus of disruption requiring enforcement was one article, not transgender or paraphilia articles more generally. There is no evidence apart from opinion, that the Sexology DS have been effective or necessary on any articles apart from Chelsea Manning in the last four years, or that use of the {{controversial}} would not be as effective to minimize disruptive behaviour, as history appears to show for paraphilia articles. --Fæ (talk) 12:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing:, yes the template can be improved to be more respectful of LGBT+ articles as you suggest. It's a technical change that would not happen without Arbcom permission as it relies on an exact Arbcom statement.

However it remains sensible, and in my view necessary, for Arbcom to amend the original case wording as that wording reflects statements made during the case that incorrectly conflated sex and gender. Not only should the implementation of sanctions be respectful of LGBT+ people, but Arbcom members would probably agree, that they should be seen correctly to maintain the wording of old but active sanctions, to stay in line with current guidelines and best practice, such as MOS:GENDERID, MOS:GNL or Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Guidelines. Most editors contributing to LGBT+ topics, will understand that the current wording in the case is disrespectful for trans people. To avoid confusion, I use "trans" as a shorthand for transgender, non-binary and genderqueer. Hopefully as part of the evidence for this case, Arbcom will take note that the sanction as currently written does apply to all these interrelated queer gender topics but not heterosexuality or bisexuality.

A thoughtful review by Arbcom may take into account how strange it looks to the outside world like there is a fundamental presumption that, without needing any evidence basis or re-assessment, transsexuality and transgender articles must be handled as battlegrounds but not other sexuality or gender articles like lesbian, homosexuality or bisexuality, and oddly many paraphilia articles such as paedophilia, zoophilia or paraphilia have happily managed without this sanction being applied in the years after the original case, finding {{controversial}} sufficient.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: per suggestion, a minimal change to the template wording is at User:Fæ/sandboxG without implying any change to scope. Splitting the topic would make it easier to amend or withdraw the discretionary sanction on trans related articles, such as all related biographies, when the subject is no longer to be considered a battleground by default. --Fæ (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Umimmak: The list you gave is incomplete, probably due to the way the template is being used with varying syntax. [1] This regular expression search provides 26 matches, and even this search may not be every possibility. Double checking may be wise. Checking this list, there are no paraphilia articles using the template. All 26 matches are trans related subjects and of those 11 are biographies for transgender individuals, not all living. --Fæ (talk) 11:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: WRT separating the discretionary sanctions into areas. There are two areas. The two are as the wording at User:Fæ/sandboxG proposes, i.e. "transgender" and "paraphilia" articles. A comment by another editor suggested the topic of Sexology should be subject to discretionary sanctions, this was not included in the original authorized discretionary sanction, so Arbcom would have to make a ruling without examining any additional evidence to support the change. This would be a potential source of disruption as it would mean that any article including "science" about any type of sexuality would be subject to discretionary sanctions, for example Sex education, Women's history or Masculinity. I believe this would be a dangerous and unenforceable Arbcom ruling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fæ (talk • contribs) 14:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: Thanks for making the suggestion of superseding with the equivalent GamerGate DS. Yes, agree this would be a good way of rescinding the Sexology DS. Reviewing the GamerGate case, the DS are not just equivalent but the way that the "Sanctions available" section is written is more helpful in encouraging administrators to try other remedies in the dispute resolution toolkit before resorting to DS. This can be read as encouraging the use of other templates and improving existing guidelines such as TRANS? to help all users understand how and why trans and non-binary biographies have specific guidelines which reflect publishing best practice. This approach would encourage avoiding automatic application of DS unless there is first some evidence of disruption. As an example, I created A.W. Peet last week, and the non-binary template seems sufficient to inform contributors without appearing threatening; so far there is no disruption, and I'd rather we keep to a presumption that these biographies can be maintained with a light hand and good faith.

As a side note based on the nature of GamerGate, LGBT+ interested users asking for advice or support with off-wiki channels like those created and maintained by the WM-LGBT+ user group are not part of a non-neutral shared agenda. Anyone with doubts is welcome to comment on the goals of the user group, or join those channels and help with positive discussion for the benefit of our projects. --Fæ (talk) 10:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Like the proposer I am a member of Wiki LGBT+ and I heard about this issue through the discussion list there. I do not know the scope of this problem but I can confirm that in the case of Danica Roem, a biography of a person currently prominent in the news, there is no reason for their talk page to have a notice about sex crimes. Somehow the ArbCom sanctions are having the result that typical biographies are getting a notice of regulation for some link to crime, which was never the intent of the original sanctions. I agree with Fae that amending the sanctions to distinguish LGBT issues from sex related crimes would address the problem. Typical LGBT+ related topics should not be the subject of sanctions, and instead, only the fringe controversial issues addressed by the original sanctions might be. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other people are sounding out saying that transgender topics should be under sanctions. That is fine with me, so long there are multiple templates, and the transgender template is separate from language about sex crimes. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I got a comment in another channel that paraphilias are not sex crimes. This is accurate, but in this case, we are talking about paraphilias which either are sex crimes or otherwise activity with which no normal person wants to be labeled. Use distinct sanctions so that there is no appearance of associating a positive topic unnecessarily with a negative one. There is an old narrative that LGBT+ people are sexual predators against children and the bureaucratic process here has inadvertently made this association. No part of these discretionary sanctions make it necessary to indiscriminately post a notice linking LGBT+ topics and sex crimes on all sorts of LGBT+ themed articles. Just generally for ArbCom, if there is a sanction on a topic, do not add an addendum that sanctions apply "related to [whatever] and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia)", even if some sex thing has some connection to the topic under sanctions as is often the case. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative solution proposed: A different template. Either a) a general sexology DS template that doesn't get into specifics, or b) separate templates for paraphilias, for LGBTQI issues, and for sexology as a discipline, to forestall any further dispute and offense caused by them all being lumped together. They were correctly lumped in dealing with disruption about them, as having a similar base cause and nature, but they're not properly correlated in any other way.

Oppose the proposed original solution, because the TG-related articles are still subject to a lot of problematic editing, and the DS should remain. This requester's proposal would throw the dispute reduction baby out with the bad template wording bathwater.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  18:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to Umimmak: Agreed with your general thrust but want to address two things: "these are all the articles with this tag" – there should be many more of them, namely all the articles in the affected categories. That still doesn't amount to much work and isn't an argument against splitting the templates more topically and applying the correct ones. "[I]t's strange that this tag has not been used on hebephilia or paraphilia despite those being mentioned in the wording; rather it seems to have been used nearly entirely on articles related to trans individuals or trans topics" – Yes, but this should simply be corrected. What's probably happened is that a) someone who cares bothered to do it for some high-profile TG articles, then stopped, b) no one bothered with the rest of the affected articles (in any category) when the case was new, and c) the paraphilia stuff hasn't aroused much controversy lately (though may well do so again, especially since many people disagree that paraphilia is really "a thing"; the DSM definitely changes over time, and the concept "paraphilia" lumps together various unrelated things that have different bio-psychological and social roots), so no one's been inspired to tag those articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  18:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC); copyedited: 16:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Fæ's comment about this having only TG and paraphilia scopes, not sexology in general (in response to my suggestion of a three-way split), I have no objection. I took it at face value that sexology was included, given that it's in the case title.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  16:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 'Do we want to copyedit for clarity by adding "(but is not limited to)" after "includes,"' – I would advise it. One of the most frequent forms of WP:WIKILAWYER / WP:GAMING behavior I encounter is stubborn pretense that "includes" language, or any series of examples, is exhaustive rather than illustrative. Encounter this near-daily in policy interpretation discussions at RM, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  21:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Umimmak's further clarification suggestion. Shut off every gaming/lawyering loophole we can predict, or people will drive wedges into them. The entire reason we have cases like this is wedge-driving to begin with, so don't leave exploitable cracks. This is one of those WP:Writing policy is hard things.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  22:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SMcCandlish's suggestion to split out three DS templates. It seems to me that that would fix the very annoying issue at hand without requiring substantive changes to the original case. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that transgender issues should not be lumped in with paraphilia issues in a DS notice. However, I feel strongly that transgender-related articles should remain under discretionary sanctions. I witness disruption on these articles constantly. Therefore I would support a separate DS notice specific to trans issues. Funcrunch (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As Fae mentioned above, gender and sexual preference are independent. Wouldn't it make sense to separate transgender templates from lesbian/gay/bisexual templates? Would a sexuality template and a gender template fix these issues? --DHeyward (talk) 13:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was the editor who initially alerted WikiProject LGBT studies about this issue.

I'm not really convinced by the argument that it would be too much work by as claimed by Callanecc. From what I can tell, these are all the articles with this tag:

• Transphobia; Gender identity; List of transgender people; Cisgender; Transgender rights; Trans man; Genderqueer; Transfeminism; Caitlyn Jenner; Kellie Maloney; The Wachowskis; Questioning (sexuality and gender); Travesti; Transgender; Transsexual; Trans woman; Chelsea Manning; Andreja Pejić; Laverne Cox; Death of Leelah Alcorn; Andrea Jenkins; Danica Roem

• Bernard Kerik, which is tagged as |topic=pa for reasons unknown to me.

Note that none of these articles are about "paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia)"; aside from Kerik, all of these articles are about transgender individuals or topics.

None of the other "areas of conflict" are about such disjoint topics, so this one stands out. And even if you clarify that the topics are "clear it applies to both areas independently", there's no way to prevent it from affecting connotations and building on harmful stereotypes.

Umimmak (talk) 09:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re Callanecc's suggestion to just rewrite it to be entirely about trans topics, I would also hope the tag code would change from pa to something else if this is done to make it less opaque. (I remain neutral as to whether to remove or just rewrite.)

And thanks for catching my list was incomplete, Fæ; the search function still confuses me at times. The point still stands that, as you have pointed out, it's strange that this tag has not been used on hebephilia or paraphilia despite those being mentioned in the wording; rather it seems to have been used nearly entirely on articles related to trans individuals or trans topics.

Umimmak (talk) 12:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re SMcCandlish and Newyorkbrad's suggestions to explicitly clarify "included but not limited to", it might also be worth also explicitly mentioning non-binary or genderqueer individuals (as per how how Fæ grouped them together in their comment above)? Some people have a narrower definition of what it means to be trans and might object to DS being on those pages, but presumably the same sort of disruptive editing Funcrunch says is still very much present would arise on those pages as well? Though right now I see, that, the talk page for Asia Kate Dillon has the "(a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed" DS topic. And perhaps Template:MOS-NB is sufficient for such pages. I don't have a strong opinion but it might be worth discussing? Umimmak (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best way forwards here is a two-step process. Step one being to replace the current DS authorisation and associated templates with ones covering the three separate areas which collectively cover the same scope as at present. If any topics fall into multiple areas then they can simply be noted as being covered by all that apply and any sanctions necessary can be applied under whichever is more appropriate to the individual circumstances (there is precedent for this - a few years ago the Operation Flavius article was covered by both The Troubles and Gibraltar DS areas, I placed a sanction under the former as that was most relevant to the specific disruption). If there is any disagreement about which of the three topic areas a given page/category should be in then this should be taken to an appropriate noticeboard or wikiproject talk page, with placing it in multiple categories being an option.

Step two is an optional review of whether the DS topics are still required, and a request to the Committee if removal is desired. This should wait until after the migration is complete and any discussions about categorisation have concluded and should examine the topic areas individually as the answer is not necessarily going to be the same for all of them.

This should eliminate the problems initially noted while not throwing out any babies with bathwater. Thryduulf (talk) 14:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• @Fæ: If I've understood correctly, the problem is that the notices (TP notices, DS alerts etc) connect transgender and paraphilia in a way that makes it unclear which applies to the specific articles the notices are being used on. Is that right? If so, could we not solve this by just editing {{Ds/topics}} to split the current pa code into two distinct codes, one for transgender issues and one for paraphilia issues? I think this could be done as a clerk actions without a need to modify the underlying sanction. GoldenRing (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to hear from other editors, but unless there are convincing arguments against such a change, I believe we need to amend the earlier sanction as Fæ suggests. I still see vandalism on transgender issues so I'm not convinced that we should remove them entirely from sanctions. Doug Weller talk 16:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Also awaiting further input, including on (1) whether discretionary sanctions are still needed, and (2) if so, whether the scope should be narrowed and/or the wording modified. Note that historically, the application of discretionary sanctions to transgender issues was initially passed in the Sexology case but was also reaffirmed and clarified in the Manning naming dispute case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps an editor who supports keeping the current scope of sanctions, but splitting or revising the templates, could prepare a specific proposal (i.e. the specific proposed new templates or wording)? If you mock up the proposed templates, feel free to do it on a page in your userspace and post a link on this page. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm convinced by the argument that the current collection of topics shouldn't be handled together in a single notice, but I'm not sure about the best solution yet. I share the impression that there are still a lot of problem edits on trans topics and it may be safer to keep them under DS using a different template. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with OR - splitting the template seems the easiest solution. I've also said before I think we have too many topic areas under DS; but given ongoing vandalism these two areas aren't where I'd start to argue for a reduction. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• @Opabinia regalis and Euryalus: I'm confused as to the purpose of splitting this into two decisions? Practically, it could create extra work in the future if one or both of these issues becomes contentions again. For example, it means the retagged of articles and that editors will probably need to alerted again (or twice) in the future. In additon, admins already have discretion to issue sanctions in a smaller area than is authorised, and even if the two topic areas are split, admins can still issue sanctions across the two topics. Perhaps a better way forward is just to reword the entry at {{Ds/topics/table}} to make it clear it applies to both areas independently.

  I think people might be reading a bit too much into the two topics being conflated in this remedy. It's not the Committee (then, now or future) making any comment that the issues are equated with each other. Instead, it's the Committee (then) identifying, in the Sexology case, that these two topic areas were/are contentious and that both came up in the same case.

  Having said that, I'm minded to remove these discretionary sanctions completely given that the last time discretionary sanctions have been used was three and a half years ago (and that was reinstating a TBAN which had expired). Before that, in 2013, they were only used in relation to the Manning dispute. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Noting Umimmak's comments that the practicality issue isn't as significant, I'd still be more willing to either remove the discretionary sanctions altogether or change their scope (rather than just split them). Given how they've been used in the past, I'd be looking at removing paraphilia from the remedy and having them apply only to transgender issues. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thik that's a reasonable approach. DGG ( talk ) 13:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remedy 4.1 ("Discretionary sanctions") of the Sexology case is amended to read:

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC) In favour of option 2 I proposed below. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller talk 06:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Thanks Callanecc. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NYB's copyedit is fine with me. As for the inclusion of nonbinary, genderqueer, etc., I had that thought when I read the motion, and then thought "No way anybody would be dumb enough to think those topics don't apply and actually pull off making that argument." OK, I'm probably wrong on the dumb part, but here's a diff to point to if anyone tries it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis: We could always do "transgender issues, broadly construed" to cover other areas. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That works. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Ditto Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2. Euryalus (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
3. With the understanding that we could always revive the broader scope of sanctions by motion if it proves necessary—which I hope it will not be. Do we want to copyedit for clarity by adding "(but is not limited to)" after "includes," or is that already obvious? Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   I guess it wouldn't hurt. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Comments from arbitrators

@Doug Weller, Opabinia regalis, Casliber, Euryalus, and Newyorkbrad: Just letting you all know that I've made the two changes I noted above. Also, while you're looking (plus Umimmak and Fæ), the discretionary sanctions in the GamerGate case include "any gender-related dispute or controversy" do you think that would adequately cover this area? In other words, should we just rescind the discretionary sanctions in the Sexology case as redundant to the GamerGate sanctions? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! What was I thinking? I always use GG sanctions for this sort of issue. So yes, rescind the sanctions. Doug Weller talk 12:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remedy 4.1 ("Discretionary sanctions") of the Sexology case is rescinded. Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed under this remedy to date shall remain in force unaffected.

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted - Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Moving to support this one. With the change in topic area in the first motion, it becomes redundant to "any gender-related dispute or controversy" in the GamerGate discretionary sanctions. Clerks: if and when you enact this, please include a note in the header of the collapse box of the discretionary sanctions in the GamerGate case (which may apply to the topic area). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2. Hadn't thought of this, but now that you point it out, this is a good solution. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
3. As my comments above. Doug Weller talk 07:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
4. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
5. Equal preference with motion 1. If we go this route, I recommend that we add a cross-reference to the related decision that remains in effect, so that someone doesn't misread this as meaning that there are no DS in effect at all. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
6. First choice. Agree with NYB re cross-referencing. -- Euryalus (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
7. I suspect we'll be dealing with this again, but OK for now. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Comments from arbitrators

Initiated by Opabinia regalis at 05:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Betacommand 3 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand_3#Appeal_of_ban

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• Opabinia regalis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Δ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [diff of notification Δ]

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand_3#Appeal_of_ban

• This request serves as the appeal referenced in the linked remedy.

Δ (formerly Betacommand) was banned in the Betacommand 3 case, which closed in February 2012. The decision contained a provision under which he would develop a plan for editing as part of his appeal, and the committee would offer this plan for community review. This ARCA should be considered the community review component of the remedy. The text of Δ's appeal is as follows:

Comments are invited from the community on whether this appeal should be granted and what, if any, restrictions or modifications to the proposed restrictions should be considered. Community members may wish to review the following recent discussions: the "Public Appeal" section on Δ's talk page and this advisory RfC. It is not necessary to repeat details of posts made to the RfC. (Note that Δ has been unblocked to participate in this ARCA only.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to keep my responses to the point since this section will probably get fairly large.

@Alanscottwalker: I have outlined ~6 month editing plan, I don't have my notes handy but I will dig out the details for you. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 22:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanscottwalker: 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). Examples of future edits: I will be fixing issues like [2] where google is listed as a publisher when in reality it is University of Manitoba Press, [3] cases where reflists have too few/many columns, and similar gnomish stuff. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 01:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: I purposely avoided the term simi-automatic because I don't want to get into what is and isn't a "pattern" of edits. I also wanted to have specific, definable rules. In the past claims about simi-auto/pattern edits have left me at a he said/she said argument because the only way to defend against those claims is to have a camera over my shoulder recording my screen as I make every edit. By limiting the wording to automated we set a clearly definable and clear line. If we wanted to specifically call out dis-allowing AWB, that wouldn't be an issue. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 22:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• For those who want a complete topic ban for both NFC and bot related areas, I see that as overly broad. The issues in the past have been with NFC enforcement edits, not the discussions. Similar point can be made in regards to bots, issues where with the mass editing not the discussions. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 22:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The proposal was not meant as an exhaustive list of past issues, but rather to acknowledge a few issues that several users brought up that I may not have fully acknowledged to their satisfaction. I left out the elephant in the room, assuming that I was addressing it mostly in the restrictions proposed. Where I was in life in 2011 vs where I am at now is drastically different. By avoiding NFC enforcement I will be eliminating most of the contentious areas, while it will allow me to respond and help users on discussion pages such as MCQ. By prohibiting automated edits I am limiting the bot issue that has been raised. I was assuming that AWB would also be prohibited without actually making that explicit in the proposal. I avoided going into the simi-auto category because it is a very grey area on what is and isnt simi-auto editing. (Depending on your scope of reference tools such as CharInsert or FormWizard, enabled by default, could be considered simi-auto). As I said above the issue also comes into play when proving/disproving accusations. Because of previous restrictions and the issues with those wordings there where debates on what is and isn't considered a pattern. Given a large enough sample size of edits a pattern can be extrapolated. People have asked for evidence that I have changed, without being able to contribute it is difficult to establish said evidence. I have been contributing to non-WMF projects and have been assisting enwiki users off-wiki when my help has been requested (Most recently fixing and getting bibcode bot back in operation) Due to privacy issues I am not going to point to those projects so that evidence is non-admissible. To put things bluntly and to try to keep things simple: I know I fucked up in the past, I have made some bad decisions and now I need to overcome those.

• There have been several request for me to list my socks, looking at what notes I have the two accounts that I have used to edit enwiki since Betacommand 3 are Smokestack Basilisk (talk · contribs) and Werieth (talk · contribs). I do currently have an account that I use for read only access to enwiki, so that I can use the watchlist feature, do some exports and occasionally view the source of a page to copy or for technical reasons. I use that account to avoid triggering the autoblock feature which just causes issues. That account has zero edits to enwiki.

  02:30, 20 November 2017‎ User:Δ (omitted signature added by Anthony Appleyard (talk) at 08:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

The above Appeal speaks of a previously outlined "limited editing plan", would the committee or clerk please explicitly append that to the above Appeal, for clarity sake? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: the banning policy requires Arbitration bans to be appealed to the committee. That is the standard procedure, it does NOT have arbitration bans appealed to the community. The only wrinkle here is that the adopted appeal remedy has an extra step of presenting the appeal for community comment (I gather because there was much controversy). Under current policy, the arbitration committee cannot convert an Arbitration ban into a community ban, as you argue. The committee can lift the Arbitration ban or limit the Arbitration Ban. The community will have to enact its own ban, if it wants a community ban and a community appeal, as you request. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: No. By Community policy, it is explicitly not "up to the community," (at least not that part of the Community that is not the Committee). By Community Consensus as addressed in policy, an Arbitration Ban is committed to the the Committee to decide, to impose and to lift (not the general community) -- it fell to the Committee precisely because the rest of Community could not/did not/would not settle the matter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: Well, no, I read it fundamentally differently, as I said above -- all that provision is, is that the committee will take public comment on the appeal/modification, when it is made - that is the reading that accords with policy -- they will then make their decision but if the public comment offers nothing useful or partially useful (or just muddled statements), they can like any committee ignore it -- the only difference here is, unlike other times, where the committee does not take public comment prior to making their decision. I think there are pros and cons to taking public comment in this manner at all, but as a committee they are certainly free to do so, and it is exactly like comments from Users at any other arbitration page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement

For what it's worth, I am uninvolved, but this whole thing (not at all from 2011) is - trying not to over-state - wiki-horrifying. The lack of conscience displayed there by "Werieth (talk · contribs)" is not just a wholly nasty/underhanded attack on a single User (Dingley), but everyone who had the misfortune to fall into that conversation became compromised -- more importantly, the very basis for every other good-faith user working together (all of us) is shredded there, and there is only one User to blame, Werieth. Good luck to the committee . . . grouping for words that convey any conclusion, all I came up with was, nonplussed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this unbanning. Although seemingly not mentioned here, Werieth (talk · contribs) was another highly active sock in 2013–2014. I encountered them then, and found them so problematic just of themself that it went to ANI. It soon became obvious that they were also a Betacommand sock. A variety of ANI ructions ensued, [4], User_talk:Andy_Dingley/Archive_5#FYI, User talk:Arnhem 96, User_talk:Andy_Dingley/Archive_5#Can_we_get_a_few_things_straight.3F et al. This ended with me blocked for refusing to accept Werieth as a gf editor (I thought they warranted indef blocking for their own attitude, let alone the obvious socking), and a group of admins who clearly supported Betacommand so much that they were happy to proceed on this basis. My blocking admin sought an indef block of me and described me later as 'I consider you to be de facto banned'. When Werieth was finally blocked as a sock it still took appreciable time before I was most begrudgingly unblocked as the issue was now 'moot' (i.e. they'd still been right to block me), rather than any sort of apology for actually having been right all along.

There is no discussion in this unban request of Betacommand's support amongst this handful of admins. If they were blocking other editors to support him when he was blocked, what are they going to get up to if he's restored?

I also question the GF of an unban request that can't even acknowledge their past socks.

Betacommand is too toxic an editor to be let back. There is no evidence that they have changed their behaviour. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb raises ROPE in the comment below. But who will Betacommand's supporting admins want to hang with it? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The plan is sound, curtails the past problematic behaviour, and my interactions with Betacommand/Δ in the past years have all been very positive and productive. Give him the WP:ROPE, he'll be under plenty of scrutiny from the community. It's a rather easy thing to re-block if he misbehaves again. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum, I'd like to add I'm entirely fine with and supportive of the 'MASEM restrictions' below, so to speak. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unban, for all reasons outlined at the advisory RfC recently, and for this unsatisfactory unban plan. "I have made mistakes in the past (CIVIL, socking)" And, umm, the actual reasons you were banned in the first place? The problems didn't arise out of the socking or out of incivility, it was the actual editing that was too often the problem. Plus what Andy Dingley said; an unban plan should at least list the socks, not just some vague "I have socked" statement. Fram (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Where I was in life in 2011 vs where I am at now is drastically different." The problems (we know off) ended in 2014, not 2011. Fram (talk) 09:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley's statement summed this up very succinctly for me:

Betacommand is too toxic an editor to be let back. There is no evidence that they have changed their behaviour.

Those of us who lived through the years of ongoing drama caused by Beta won't soon forget the turmoil they caused. No person is completely irredeemable, but the worse the editor was, the more they flipped off the community, the higher the bar is for their return, and I cannot think of many banned editors for whom the bar is higher than it is for Beta. I think we would require much more in the way of assurances and protective restrictions then are provided for here to allow Beta to even dip his toe into editing again. Further, the idea that an unblock plan which includes Beta's being allowed to use bots (even delayed for 6 months) is one that will pass community muster is totally unrealistic, considering it was bot editing that was at the root of Beta's problems. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support the unblock request, though I would also suggest the plan include the use of semi-automated tools (AWB, etc.) among the six-month ban on bot use. Beta's identified the two big areas that caused the problems in the past - NFC enforcement, and bot tools. Nearly all the problems related to behavior was related how editors confronted Beta about these actions and Beta's inappropriate responses. Keep Beta out of NFC and automated editing and that takes away 90% of the problem. The rest has to deal about editors with grudges against Beta (which can be seen above already), and we should expect that Beta should be civil in face of hostility (though taking cues from how the current sanctions regarding interactions for TheRamblingMan should be taken, so that editors are not purposely taunting Beta into mis-action). --MASEM (t) 20:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I support the unblock request and I would support Masem's restrictions as well. I am sure that if you unblock, there will be editors with sharp eyes ready to pounce if there is a CIVIL or NPA or BOT violation. As such, I think the risk to the encyclopedia is manageable versus the potential. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know Arbcom say they don't want material from the RFC being repeated here, but I'm going to regardless: 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. Why are we even entertaining an unblock request when he's lying in the unblock request about why he was blocked? The absolute minimum I'd be willing to accept to even consider shifting my position from "keep banned forever" is a total and permanent (no "after six months" or anything else of the sort) ban on automation, anything to do with copyright and anything to do with deletion, and even then I'd be reluctant. Wikipedia's willingness to give second chances is laudable; when it comes to a sixteenth chance (or whatever we're up to now) for someone who every single time they're given another "final chance" immediately goes back to what they were doing before, less so.

I'd like to refer to a longer comment I wrote to Arbcom in 2011 about codependency, which is still completely relevant. The cause of the editing restrictions, arbitration case, and ban was not violations of CIVIL nor the use of sockpuppets (although those are also issues). The cause was the inappropriate use of automated edits over a period of years, often related to NFC, and a refusal to change or stop those edits in light of repeated feedback.

Nothing in the wording of the appeal suggests that a different pattern would emerge if Δ were allowed to return to editing. Indeed, I don't see any strong reason why he should be allowed to return.

However, if there is a desire for yet another chance, it should involve a complete recusal from all aspects of NFC on wiki (no discussing NFC in any on-wiki forum, including his talk page, no assisting with others who do NFC maintenance - a complete recusal). And there should be a complete recusal from all bot-related activity for the indefinite future, with no schedule for ever becoming a bot operator. The appeal as written is an appeal to continue the cycle of codependency which was only finally broken by a complete ban from the wiki. Nevertheless, if the ban is lifted, I fear that we will again see Δ either ignore or game his restrictions, rather than to take them to heart and avoid any possible appearance of breaking them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above two comments. To be more explicit about Andy Dingley's comment above, Betacommand has been overtly and covertly protected/supported by members of the admin corps. Even if he did return, at some point he will cause problems, and then editors like Dingley will end up paying the price again. I cant see a future where his coming back ends well for anyone. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I was on or atleast around when all of this occurred or ended however looking through the various cases I have to agree with Andy "Betacommand is too toxic an editor to be let back. There is no evidence that they have changed their behaviour.", I'm all for second chances and they may well be a reformed character however judging by the amount of crap they caused I honestly don't see any net positive in unbanning them, However as I said I wasn't all that around so I don't know as much as those above but from my reading of it all I don't see any positives in unbanning them, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was an enormously problematic editor. The way to minimize problems is to minimize enormously problematic editors. There are plenty of other Wiki projects for them to volunteer at, they don't need to be here. Carrite (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per Iridescent and Andy Dingley, the whole circumstance is such I can't support. I can understand why some might feel Beta is getting special handling here, and it does look that way to me. No unblock statement should be accepted that doesn't first acknowledge the original and ongoing reasons it has been kept in place. This just has the odor of backroom discussions to me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing here where Δ is actually addressing the issues which they were banned for in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3. Specifically - they willfully violated the terms of their community imposed sanctions. They "often performed tasks without approval from the community", "often saved edits without reviewing them for problems", and "often performed tasks at edit-rates exceeding four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time". To be fair, this appeal does mention the incivility problems, but it doesn't really address how Δ plans to improve that issue. The other three problems are not addressed at all. I'm not seeing any explicit recognition that they tried to deceive the community with the Werieth account. And allowing them to participate in NFCC discussions is just plain insane. As for the possibility of running a bot account - no. Just no. It would take years to get the community trust back enough to allow them automated editing. And I'm not seeing how this appeal is actually any improvement on gaining the trust back, given the problems that are swept under the rug that I've listed above.

And these are just the problems with this appeal from the third and final ArbCom case, it doesn't even begin to delve into the problems ignored from the community ban discussions (for both Δ and Werieth) as well as the two earlier ArbCom cases. (And as a freaking aside - why in HADES do we allow user accounts with symbols? It's a royal pain in the ass to have to either type the unicode, type the wild keyboard equivalent, or copy-paste some character just to be polite and address the user by their current account "name". I wonder if Δ's use of the symbol is not some unconscious "finger in the eye" to the community as well...)

And Δ's own statements above do not help the matter. "For those who want a complete topic ban for both NFC and bot related areas, I see that as overly broad. The issues in the past have been with NFC enforcement edits, not the discussions. Similar point can be made in regards to bots, issues where with the mass editing not the discussions." Uh, no. There WERE problems with the discussion style - see the findings of fact 2.2 from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3. Yes, I do think a "broad" topic ban as a good idea. Yes, I think it should be permanent. Δ - you still do not see how out of touch your ideas of your own editing is with community norms. Until you can learn to listen to what the community is telling you, you will keep having issues. Learn to edit without bots or automation. Learn to accept the fact that your own self-evaluation is not how the community sees your editing and that you need to change how you behave. All I see from this set of suggestions is that you want to return to editing the way you were before you were banned. That isnt' going to fly with the community and you need to internalize and accept that before you have a hope of re-earning the community's trust.

No comment on the unblock request.

I request that the Committee rescind remedy 3 of the Betacommand case, and permit Δ to submit future unblock requests per the usual community processes as generally defined in the banning policy. The remedy as stated shrouds the process behind the veil of Arbcom, which can make it seem to the community that the Committee is failing to respond to unblock requests when in fact none was submitted, and which led very recently to an embarrassing circus of an RfC featuring a number of long-tenured and well-respected members of the community behaving like petulant children. That should not be allowed to happen again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanscottwalker: I realize that. Still, Arbcom should not be creating situations like this where ban appeals from some users have to be submitted in some prescribed format which differs from policy and varies from case to case: it creates unnecessary confusion and leads to the sort of conflict we saw a month or so ago. There is precedent for Arbcom doing whatever it feels appropriate in any situation, which has left a long history of various users being banned with a whole spectrum of different and sometimes unusual conditions; I made a list in the RfC to illustrate that problem. In this case in particular, the condition that Arbcom has to green-light an appeal before it goes to the community anyway just seems like unnecessary red tape: it's ultimately up to the community anyway. Arbcom should either lift the ban or not, or else step away and leave this for the community to deal with, and I don't see any reason in this case why the community is incapable of doing so. Arbitrators are supposed to be, well, arbitrators, not prison wardens. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanscottwalker: you're right about all that, except for the "not up to the community" part. Remedy 3 states, in part: The Committee shall present this plan to the community for review and comment prior to any modification of Betacommand's ban. I read this as indication that the Committee intends not to act without the community's endorsement, thus this is an arbitration ban in name only, and functionally a community ban. If it's not up to the community, then what is this ARCA? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Euryalus and Opabinia regalis: I appreciate you taking the time to comment. I do think it would be a good idea for the Committee to establish something like a "standard provision" for arbitration bans, which simply refers to the appeal process in the banning policy (including revising that policy, if necessary). Ideally this would also allow for revisions to those processes to apply retroactively (say if we brought back BASC, or something) so that we don't have "old" cases like this one hanging on to an outdated process. Adding extra language about community input (or about whatever) breeds the sort of confusion evident here: did Δ submit an appeal? did it meet the prescribed format? what is the prescribed format? et cetera. I don't really see any reason why all arbitration bans and appeals can't be handled through a common process, I suppose excepting cases involving private info, but even in those cases the Committee has always been pretty good with transparency within appropriate limits. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I edit-conflicted with Ivanvector, who said it better than I did and with whom I concur completely (other than I lean toward favoring some kind of loosening of the restrictions, per WP:ROPE – perhaps a provisions unban with a prohibition against automated and perhaps semi-automated edits), so I won't re-state essentially the same stuff in other wording.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  22:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that unblocking with restrictions would be appropriate. If I remember rightly (and based on what others have said), most of Betacommand's blocks have arisen from restrictions that were imposed on him. Whether he's persistently violated those restrictions, or whether his opponents have persistently gotten rid of him through specious complaints, I can't say (I've not looked into it at all), but permitting Betacommand to edit with restrictions virtually guarantees that we're going to have yet more disputes over his editing restrictions. If he can be trusted to edit properly, drop the restrictions; if he can't be trusted to edit properly, leave him banned. Nyttend backup (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has been blocked for many years - a punishment that exceeds the crime. He means well, has continued to he helpful, and I've got enough AGF to believe people can grow in maturity and wisdom in 5 years. Legacypac (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I read a lot of material going back years which refreshed my memory and I strongly oppose allowing this person to return to editing. I have many reasons but one sticks in my mind. This person blatantly and flagrantly lied to the community about their Werieth socking. Had they told the truth when asked, Andy Dingley would not have been blocked. I see not a shred of contrition and I can never trust a person who lies like that without a detailed acknowledgement of past misconduct and a sincere pledge to avoid all past problem areas. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editor (A) demonstrably cannot be trusted, and (B) is highly toxic and disruptive. Under no circumstances should ArbCom unban the editor. If the editor still insists on somehow appealing the ban, if push comes to shove it should only be put to the community at large. But ideally the request should just be shut down. No matter how much good an editor may have done at their best, if the mountain of evidence proves they are by far a net negative and cannot be trusted, the answer has got to be no, for the sake of the encyclopedia and for the sake of the community and its individual editors. Softlavender (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe in the possibility of people changing as much as anyone; i also, however, find it hard to believe that, in the absence of evidence, this editor has changed. Legacypac has it wrong: This block is not a punishment, but a way of preventing further turmoil and damage; there is no reason to believe that that turmoil will not continue if Betacommand is unblocked. Andy Dingley says it succinctly and best: A toxic editor should not be allowed here ~ at least until he shows some signs of understanding and accepting the behaviour that led him here; the misleading, at best, request is not such a sign. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 10:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The unblock request shows no recognition of, contrition for, nor promise to avoid repeating some of the most problematic behaviors that ended with this block, including both abuse of automation and deception leading to the unfair block and almost-ban of another productive editor. Unless these issues are addressed I think an unblock is premature. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be here only what I can term as a conspiracy theory. The notion that there is some cabal of admins have misused their position of trust to protect this user. This should be ignored in regards to whether to unban him or not. If this is true then a separate case at the appropriate location should be opened to review the facts pertaining to these admins actions and where applicable remove them from this position of trust.

I don't find it unreasonable to ask Δ to further address their actions beyond a generic comment such as I have made mistakes in the past (CIVIL, socking). In addition some of the addendum's suggested such as as the prohibition of using certain specialized semi-automated tools like AWB that provided any bot like behavior that would allow him to do any disruptive action is a similar nature o their prior bot related disruption. I have to say no at this time without the above.

In principle I can support unbanning this user. In the end they can always be banned again. This is from 2012. I question what it would take from those who have said no to unban his user?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having refreshed my memory about why Δ was banned, I firmly oppose unblocking based on the current plan. As others have also noted, there is no acknowledgement of the relatively recent socking, no list of socks, no acknowledgement of the disruption caused, no acknowledgement about the fundamental reasons for that behaviour, no demonstration of how they have changed and how they will avoid causing further disruption, and no reason why he should be trusted this time after betraying that trust so many times previously. Thryduulf (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The remedy in Betacommand 3 requires Betacommand not only submit a "plan outlining his intended editing activity", but that he should also "demonstrat[e] his understanding of and intention to refrain from the actions which resulted in his ban". It appears that Betacommand is supposed to demonstrate this in the context of presenting the plan to the community.

Like the others, I'm not wowed by Betacommand's compliance with this latter portion, though I somewhat understand why it is so brief. I believe the intent of this ARCA is to submit the plan outlining intended editing activity so it can be fairly evaluated separately from concerns as to how repentant Betacommand is. Dealing with it all at once would likely result in almost no focus on the intended editing activity. As this discussion has progressed, it's clear that had Betacommand focused more on the conduct that resulted in his ban, we would not be talking at all about the plan.

From my perspective, I think this is a decent enough plan, though I would agree with others who say semi-automated editing as with AWB should be off the table along with fully automated editing. And of course, Betacommand should comply with the portion of the Betacommand 3 remedy requiring him to "demonstrat[e] his understanding of and intention to refrain from the actions which resulted in his ban". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally against usernames which can't be typed on a standard English-language keyboard on English Wikipedia. In the case of a user who has caused a significant amount of trouble in the past (in fact, this user has his own section of WP:AN as a centralized location for discussions about him), I believe that changing his username should be an absolute requirement. If the user is willing to do this, I would support allowing the user to re-enter the Wikipedia community gradually - and the proposed restrictions (including specific semi-automated tools, such as AWB) look like a good start.

Simply put no.

I urge anyone who is inclined to give Betacommand another (4th, 5th?) chance please read:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3

As the arb who wrote the first of these decisions, and who has been an interested observer of the subsequent two, based on my intimate knowledge of Betacopmmand’s past actions, I can say with confidence that granting this request would be an extremely bad idea.

I see no evidence (certainly not in this request) that Betacommand understands what the problems are, nor do I believe, that Betacommand has the ability to understand them. Betacommand’s one-size-fits-all approach, and predilection for bot-aided-mass-edits is inherently problematic. Betacommand’s inability to communicate, would only compound the inevitable problems such edits entail.

Paul August ☎ 16:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No.

This is clearly just another attempt by Beta to return to abusive bot usage.

And on another note, someone needs to force rename his account to something that isn't completely impossible to type on mobile. Jtrainor (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, I think the pitchforks and torches above are actually the best reason to unblock - simply put, Beta would be watched like a hawk by dozens of editors keen to see him banned again. I see that as a no-lose situation, frankly. Black Kite (talk) 14:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this unblock request - it's been 3+ years since the last socking, significantly longer since the original block, and we all change. If this is just a ploy or attempt to game the system, that'll be quickly identified and I see no shortage of people willing, if not eager, to pull the trigger. PGWG (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add more bot drama to the encyclopedia. Most editors simply do not care about bots or bot policy. If I am aware of a bot issue it is a sign that something has gone very badly wrong because I think along with Wikidata, it is the most boring area on Wikipedia and do my absolute best to stay away from it. We have the editor who is known for running the most controversial bot in Wikipedia's history. Do we really think that they are not going to try to get involved with bot policy and do we really think that their involvement there will be a net-positive to the encyclopedia, even if they don't run a bot themselves? Please save us the drama of more automation conflict. I strongly oppose this unban. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We absolutely should unban Δ. It was a net loss to the community to ban him from the get go, and he's been blocked for far more than a sufficient time (per Legacypac). FACE WITH TEARS OF JOY ^[u+1F602] 17:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• @Alanscottwalker and Ivanvector: - I think we see it the same way as Alanscottwalker. The terms of the Arbcom decision require community input before any action to modify the ban. The ultimate decision on any modification remains up to the Committee. That said, I can't imagine we would simply ignore an obvious community consensus - and if we did, there'd need to be some solid public explanation. Unrelated point - I do kind of agree with Ivanvector's point about avoiding different regimes for different bans, which is something to avoid in future case outcomes. However in this instance we've been reasonably transparent - as I noted at the RfC, we received a perfunctory appeal in 2015, which didn't contain an editing plan. We didn't receive any appeal in 2016, and here we are in public with the 2017 one. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Euryalus about the structure of the remedy, and with Ivanvector that it hasn't really proved itself very practical. But there isn't really a "shroud of arbcom" here, nor do I think there's been bad faith among people who believed we were stalling or said as much on-wiki; just a case of miscommunication and the telephone game. Now that we're here, I would like to encourage comments to focus on things Δ is actually personally responsible for, not on bad decisions made by others in the course of interacting with him. Also, for the record, we've looked and found no current socking. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The answer seems very clear to me. Mkdw ^talk 04:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I am reviewing the noticeboard thread and statements above. If there is anything else to be said, commenters should focus on whether or not Δ is likely to contribute productively if unbanned and what restrictions, if any, would maximize the odds. There has been a bit too much focus on procedure leading up to this request—the requirement that Δ submit a plan in connection with any appeal was really just a fleshing out of what the committee and the community would expect from any banned or indefblocked user seeking to return: an explanation of how or she would edit, and what he or should would do differently so as to avoid the problems of the past. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]