User talk:Δ: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:05, 8 September 2017

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)

CatCSD report

There is a flaw in betacommand-dev/reports/CATCSD.html: when it reports CSD candidates in draft space, it omits the colon after "Draft". If you are not the person who could fix it, please forward this message to the person who can. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RHaworth: looks like mediawiki had a slight change in its output format. Ive gone ahead and adjusted the report accordingly. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 12:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you've approached them twice already and both times they've fumbled the ball? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Last time things got away from me(I ran out of time to spend on this) and by the time I was able to circle back there where half a dozen proposals and no clear path). ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 20:48, 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]

Could try pinging all of ArbCom again. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:05, 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]

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). OhanaUnited^{Talk 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]

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#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#A related aside. Comments by others are welcome there. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 14:57, 6 August 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]

@@ Line 64: / Line 64: @@
 ::::{{ping|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. [[User talk:Δ|ΔT <sub><sup><span style="color:darkred;">The only constant</span></sup></sub>]] 18:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 :::::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. [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 06:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
+::::::{{ping|Opabinia regalis}} Sorry for the delay, post trip chaos and helping Headbomb have kept me busy. But I should be around now. [[User talk:Δ|ΔT <sub><sup><span style="color:darkred;">The only constant</span></sup></sub>]] 13:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 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]]? --[[User:Slakr|<span style="color:teal;font-weight:bold;">slakr</span>]]<small><sup>\&nbsp;[[User talk:Slakr|talk]]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 01:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 **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. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 19:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)